For Ohio Homeschoolers...Action, Please





                   Opinion Issued by Department of Education Undermines Homeschooling Freedom

                                                                                          March, 2000






Summary: Recently, the Ohio Department of Education issued an opinion regarding the regulations which govern homeschooling in Ohio. If this opinion stands, parents who wish to begin homeschooling their children after the school year has begun might have to wait up to 14 days to withdraw their child from school. Children who were never enrolled might appear to be subject to the opinion as well, since the opinion discusses both a specific case as well as general homeschooling requirements. The opinion implies that there is a process of "approval" rather than "notification." Ohio regulations have been used by homeschoolers since 1989 with no rights for the state to "approve" of homeschooling. It is important that we take action now to preserve homeschooling freedoms in Ohio.

Background: Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3321.04 states in part that: "Every parent of any child of compulsory school age...must send such child to a school or a special education program that conforms to the minimum standards prescribed by the state board of education..." The law goes on to describe situations wherein an excuse from compulsory attendance may be granted, including for the purposes of homeschooling. This statute, along with ORC 3321.01, which states that "A child between six and eighteen years of age is 'of compulsory school age'...", together make up the compulsory school attendance laws.

In July, 1989, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-34, Rules for Excuses From Compulsory Attendance for Home Education. These are the regulations with which homeschoolers and school superintendents must comply.

The state board of education approved these regulations which must be followed by school superintendents. In fact, in the Department of Education document entitled Questions and Answers Regarding Home Education, which was sent to all superintendents in June, 1993, the Department stated:

Question 13. Are the requirements in Rule 3301-34-03 just minimum standards that local districts can make more restrictive?

Answer: No. these are rules of the State Board that carry the same effect as law, and school districts may not add to these requirements.

The superintendent issues an excuse based on the information supplied by the parent in a filing entitled Notification (see 3301-34-03.) It is important to remember that the parent is filing a notification of their intent to comply with the compulsory attendance law.

The Statement of Purpose (see 3301-34-02) clearly states that the regulations are in place to govern the "issuance of excuses from school attendance" and that the regulations "safeguard the primary right of parents to provide the education for their child(ren)." (emphasis added)

Therefore, the parent is not seeking approval from the superintendent or the school when completing notification, but merely filing a notification of the intent to homeschool.

The notification includes ten points which must be addressed. Items (1) through (4) and item (10) include pertinent factual data such as name of parent, name of child, address and signature. They are merely standard identifying data necessary to issue an excuse from compulsory attendance on a certain child. These items are not subject to any "approval" opportunity on the part of the superintendent.

Notification items (5) and (8) include the requirement for the parent to assure the superintendent that home education will include a general list of certain subjects and that home education will be provided for a minimum of 900 hours. Again, once the parent agrees to these requirements, they are mere vital data and there is no opportunity for the superintendent to "approve".

Item (9) requires assurance that the home teacher has qualifications. For example, one option includes at least a high school diploma. In fact, even if the home teacher does not currently possess a high school diploma, other methods for qualification can satisfy the regulations. In the aforementioned Questions and Answers Regarding Home Education, it states:

Question 9. May superintendents request copies of high school diplomas, college diplomas, transcripts, etc. of home education parents, or home teachers to "affirm" that proper credentials are in place?

Answer: No. The standards do not require that the specific copy of a high school diploma or college diploma, etc. be sent with the notification for home education.

So, here is another item where no "approval" limitation is allowed for the superintendent.

The remaining items of the ten points are Items (6) and (7). Item (6) requires a "brief outline of the intended curriculum." Item (7) requires a "list of textbooks, correspondence course, commercial curricula, or other basic teaching materials that the parent intends to use for home education." Both items 6 and 7 explicitly state that these items are for informational purposes only. Therefore, these items, too, are exempted from the burden of approval on the part of the superintendent.

Clearly, the superintendent's role is one of responder to an informational filing and whose only responsibility is to issue a similar "filing" known as an excuse from compulsory attendance.

There is no evident reason why, with proper completion of these pertinent filing data, that a superintendent could not issue an excuse from compulsory attendance. There is no reason to assume that a currently enrolled child must remain in school until a superintendent has the administrative personnel necessary to process the excuse from compulsory attendance. The 14 day-period designated in paragraph (C) of the regulations is clearly a time allotment for the processing of the paperwork in the form of the excuse.

These regulations have been utilized by the homeschooling community and superintendents for almost eleven years. The vast majority of homeschoolers have begun homeschooling the day that notification was submitted with little if any problems. Eleven years of precedent support a parent's right to begin home education on the day in which the notification was filed.

A filing action doesn't require additional thought or discretion, comparable to filing a property deed. If a portion of the vital data were missing, it could easily be provided to the superintendent for completion of the notification. This would still not be contingent on a process of approval but on due diligence in completion of a filing.

Granting a time period which would give the superintendent additional power to "approve" a homeschooler is not part of the regulation and may be seen as a violation of due process for the homeschooler. In fact, the paperwork processing theoretically should not require more than a day. If paperwork processing takes up to 14 days, that processing should not cause the child to remain in a public school.


Current situation: On January 4 of this year, the parents of a child in a suburban Cincinnati school district submitted notification to their school superintendent and began homeschooling. On January 7, the parents received their postal return receipt indicating that the superintendent had received the notification. On January 14, the superintendent issued the excuse from compulsory attendance.

The superintendent in question has publicly demonstrated a bias against homeschooling. For reasons known only to him, even as he issued the excuse from compulsory attendance, he decided to pursue a juvenile court truancy hearing in the matter of this family. On January 19, a juvenile court judge dismissed the case. **

The question of timing in issuing an excuse from compulsory attendance prior to the commencement of home education was then put before the Department of Education. It appeared that the superintendent was accumulating the time between when the parent notified and when the excuse was issue as an "unexcused absence." On March 2, the Ohio Department of Education issued an opinion on notification timing. That opinion was revised on March 10 to read as follows:

Pursuant to the Ohio Administrative Code 3301-34-03 (A), a parent who elects to provide home education shall supply information to the superintendent. In turn, the superintendent shall review the information submitted within fourteen-days of receipt and determine if it is in compliance with with information set forth in OAC 3301-34-03(A). (See, OAC 3301-34-03(C)). If additional information is required, the superintendent "shall state in writing the specific respects in which the information is incomplete. The superintendent shall provide the parent an option within 14 calendar days to supply the information or arrange a conference at which the information can be supplied." (See, OAC 3301-34-03 (C)(2)(a)(b)).

Based on a review of the Ohio Revised Code, Ohio Administrative Code and case law, an "excuse" does not occur until the superintendent issues a determination as to whether the parent is in compliance with all the home-schooling requirements set forth in OAC3301-34-03 (A). If the parent is in compliance with the home-schooling requirements, only then does the superintendent notify the parent in writing that the child is excused from school attendance for the remainder of the current school year. (See, OAC 3301-34-03(C)(1)). The code does not state that upon providing notificaton (sic) to the superintendent, the parent can "immediately" withdraw the child and begin home-schooling.

From the facts of this case, it appears that the parent provided the home-schooling notification information to the superintendent and immediately began home-schooling her child. Purusant (sic) to the code, the superintendent has fourteen-days to make a home- schooling excuse determination (this is contingent on whether the parent is in compliance with the home-schooling requirements). A parent must wait on this determination before withdrawing his/her child for the purpose of home-schooling to assure compliance.

Although an assistant state superintendent has since stated that this opinion was written to speak to just one case, obviously, the first two paragraphs of the opinion were written in general language, applicable to all homeschoolers. Although this opinion does not specifically use the word "approval", nonetheless, the word "determination" in the last two sentences leaves little doubt that more than a filing of vital data is being required of the parent by this opinion. This does not safeguard the primary right of parents to provide the education for their child(ren). Additionally, it violates the spirit of the regulations and common practice for Ohio homeschoolers, as established over the last eleven years.

Many potential problems of opinion: In addition to violating parent's primary rights, the long-held practice and the spirit of the regulations, this opinion presents several potential circumstances which will make it impossible to protect the freedom for each family to homeschool according to their own principles and beliefs, including:

* Children are not usually removed from school for the purposes of homeschooling during the school year unless there are circumstances that become at least unpleasant, at worst intolerable. What potential exists for an extremely hostile environment in which a child must continue to attend school until up to 14 days have elapsed?

* In school district after school district, for many, many years, there have been reports of homeschoolers not receiving their excuse from compulsory attendance within the 14-day period. In fact, some homeschoolers never receive the excuse at all even though the superintendent has a regulatory burden to do so. These cases are not due to any fault of the parents, but due to the lack of compliance on the part of the school district superintendent. How long would the child need to remain in school past the 14-day requirement in cases such as these?

* When a parent notifies the superintendent regarding a child who begins any official school year as a homeschooler, the Department of Education has long stated that that child's notification was due to the superintendent by the first day of school in the child's public school district. Now it may be assumed by some superintendents that any non-enrolled homeschooler must enroll for the first 14 days if notification is not received at least two weeks before that first day of school. What is to prevent a superintendent from taking this action? With each erosion to the regulations, more and more freedom will be lost.

* New homeschoolers may want to "obey the law" not knowing specifically the mere requirement of filing a notification as opposed to seeking permission or approval. They may not be given the correct information regarding the intent of the regulations. Their fundamental right to homeschool will be undermined and they will not even be aware of it happening.

* Many school districts are facing financial hardship and there is an ongoing challenge in allocating diminishing resources to their best and highest use. Should superintendents pursue parents who are exercising their legal educational alternatives in compliance with homeschooling regulations by diverting limited district resources from legitimate district issues?

What we can do:

* We can remember that this is merely an opinion and not a fact adopted by the State Board of Education.

* We can refuse to comply with this new opinion and send in the notification on the same day we begin homeschooling. This includes those who do not enroll for a given school year. We can send our notification, as many have done for the past eleven years, on or near the first day of school in our district. It would be difficult for any district to challenge with any truancy threat so many homeschoolers complying with the regulations in this manner. This would send a strong message to the Department of Education that we do not believe that the regulations require any "approval" process for our right to homeschool. That right is fundamental to us as parents.

* We can write to Robert L. Moore, Assistant Superintendent, Ohio Department of Education, Ohio Departments Building, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, OH 43215-4183. It would help to make your letters polite but firm, citing why you believe that the recently-written opinion undermines your fundamental right to homeschool according to your primary right as a parent to provide an education for your children. We could strongly suggest that the opinion be withdrawn and that all superintendents be specifically informed that the regulations are not a process of approval, but a filing or a notification followed by a filing of an excuse from compulsory attendance.

* We can hold informational meetings about home education regulations and their history in Ohio in order to increase understanding of parental rights and responsibilities and lessen the intimidation factor many parents feel in dealing with institutional authority. We could work to share information with any one who asks about the precedents concerning filing notification which have been set for many years. This would be especially important with any new homeschooler.

* We could discuss this opinion and our concerns at our local support group meetings. Since many people will be filing in the same school district within our support groups, we can bolster each other in exercising our fundamental right to file a notification and begin homeschooling the same day. We can insist that the superintendent respect our belief that we are not seeking approval but notifying of our intent to homeschool by correctly filing a procedural form. We can make it known that we will support others' rights to do likewise.

* We can ask our local libraries to place a copy of this fact sheet in their reference information for homeschoolers.

If your support group has a newsletter: The authors give permission for this fact sheet to be duplicated in its entirety and distributed to your support group members. Please notify the authors of these uses of the fact sheet at the address listed below.

Also, the authors give permission to individually make photocopies of this fact sheet, duplicated in its entirety, to be shared with other individual homeschoolers. In addition, the fact sheet may be found at the following websites: Please direct interested on-line parties to check these websites for the fact sheet.

A word about grassroots vs. "experts": Homeschoolers have a long, distinguished record of being able to work together at a grassroots level to protect homeschooling freedoms. This is true here in Ohio, in other individual states, and when a national issue has arisen. When a fundamental freedom is being abridged, homeschoolers have found solidarity in preserving that freedom, despite a diversity in philosophy or beliefs. This was demonstrated right here in Ohio in 1995 when a bill was introduced in the Ohio legislature to force school access for sports. The vast majority of homeschoolers saw the dangers inherent to forcing such access, as strings would be attached, most especially in terms of accountability to a system that doesn't understand or accept homeschooling. We turned out together to oppose this legislative initiative.

As homeschoolers, we took the decisions into our own hands regarding the education of our children. We are most familiar with our families, our lifestyles, our beliefs and our needs. Similarly, decisions regarding protecting Ohio's homeschooling freedoms belong in our hands, where knowledge, understanding and long-term self- interests exist.

Some homeschoolers believe that outside organizations and "experts" can somehow protect homeschoolers here in Ohio. Not only would this take control for determining the outcome of the current notification problem out of our hands, but would allow someone not familiar with Ohio's homeschooling history and needs to make decision which we should be empowering ourselves to make.

For example, one such organization, the Home School Legal Defense Association, recently published information in their publication, Court Report (Jan./Feb. 2000) which specifically misquoted the regulations for Ohio as:

New home school families should send a letter to the local school, (emphasis added) officially withdrawing their child and indicating their intent to home school. This formal withdrawal ensures that the child will not be marked absent and should be done in addition to submitting the notification to the school superintendent. (emphasis added). Also, both written notifications should be submitted simultaneously with or before withdrawing the child.

When a concerned HSLDA member contacted their headquarters in Virginia, she was told that the HSLDA stood by their interpretations of the Ohio regulations.

Why would a homeschooler want to effectively increase the requirements specified in the regulations? It is a shame that many homeschoolers were given and will follow this recommendation for a lessening of their homeschooling freedoms.

Ohio homeschoolers know best what the requirements are in Ohio. It may stand to reason for many of us that we know best how to resolve any challenges that may come our way as well. Since the regulations and their interpretation will directly affect us on a day-to-day basis, we should be the ones responsible for maintaining our own rights. This can be accomplished if we agree and remember to work to preserve every family's right to homeschool in accordance with their own beliefs and principles.

This information was prepared by the Northwest Ohio Homeschooling Legislative Awareness Committee, an open and inclusive committee of interested homeschoolers who come together to raise awareness of issues facing homeschoolers in Ohio. For more information on this fact sheet, contact Laura Rodriguez at (419) 891-1538 or Delores Carter at (419) 578-4044.

We have incurred costs in preparing this information. Any donations to help defray the costs of gathering, compiling, and disseminating the information in this special fact sheet would be gratefully accepted. Make a check payable to the Northwest Ohio Legislative Awareness Committee and send it to 4627 Haddington, Toledo, OH 43623.