Polly Pious has long had issues with the Nutmeg Public Schools. Starting when her son, Peter, was in middle school, Polly claimed that parts of the curriculum conflicted with her religious beliefs, and she asked that her son be excused from various classes and activities. However, it was soon apparent that accommodation was impractical, because Peter was constantly disrupting class by raising his hand to ask whether the topic at hand was one from which he should be excused. When the principal complained to Polly, she asked Mrs. Superintendent that she be permitted to provide Peter home instruction in the three most troublesome subjects (Social Studies, Biology, and Health). However, Mrs. Superintendent told Polly that she had to make a choice – either put up with the public school curriculum or send Peter to private school. Polly did neither. She informed Mrs. Superintendent that she would be home-schooling Peter, and she gladly filled out the form that Mrs. Superintendent gave her for that purpose.
That was five years ago, and Polly has home-schooled Peter since that time. Now, Polly has decided that Peter will have an easier time getting into college with a high school diploma, and this fall she has enrolled him in Nutmeg Memorial High School in what she thought was his senior year. She was quite surprised, therefore, when Mr. Principal told her that Peter would be considered a freshman. He explained that high school graduation requires that a student earn a certain number of credits in specified areas, and that he could not simply make up credits to confer on Peter. Polly told Mr. Principal that she would not accept his decision.
True to her word, Polly came to the last meeting of the Nutmeg Board of Education, and she addressed the Board during Public Comment. Polly demanded that the district give credit for the home schooling she had provided her son. She appealed to the sympathy of the Board members, but she also worked a little threat into her presentation. She explained that she had no choice but to withdraw Peter from the middle school because the administration had violated her constitutional rights when it refused to excuse Peter from topics in the curriculum that she found objectionable. She also explained that, while she, as a high school graduate herself, was more than qualified to provide instruction in the various required areas, she had enrolled Peter in an accredited home instruction program. Much of his work was graded online by the vendors of the program, and she offered to show the Board Peter’s excellent grades.
Veteran Board member Bob Bombast promptly took Polly’s side and asked Mrs. Superintendent what in tarnation was going on. Mrs. Superintendent told Bob that she was not at liberty to talk about Peter’s situation in a public Board meeting. However, Bob did not let up, and he said that, based on what he had heard, the Board owed Polly an apology and around eighteen credits. His colleague, Red Cent, did not want another lawsuit, and he quickly responded by saying, “So moved.” The Board then quickly passed the motion, and Polly left with good news for her son.
How should the Nutmeg Public Schools have handled this whole matter?
* * *
The Board clearly overstepped its bounds here, because it had no information before it to establish that Peter should receive credit for his home studies. More generally, the Board and the Administration should work together to decide whether and how the Administration will grant credit for home schooling.
Parents in Connecticut have the right to educate their children at home. However, there is a disconnect in Connecticut between the statutory responsibilities of parents and the expectations of the State Department of Education. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-184 requires that parents send their children to school unless they can “show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools.” However, the Guidelines of the State Department of Education on home-schooling simply suggest that parents provide written notification to the superintendent that they accept responsibility for educating their child at home, and that the superintendent simply respond with an acknowledgment that specifically disavows any responsibility for overseeing the program. Moreover, the foregoing procedure is simply a guideline, and there is no statute or regulation specifically requiring that parents even fill out a form, let alone provide evidence of education being provided.
Parents who provide home-schooling to their children sometimes request that their child be permitted to attend school for some purposes, such as a special class or activity. School districts may, but are not required to, permit such “dual enrollment,” because once a parent takes responsibility for home-schooling a child, the school district has no further obligation to permit that child to participate in the activities of the public schools. Moreover, “dual enrollment” can be a concern because it may set a precedent for future requests. As a constitutional matter, school districts must provide “equal protection” by treating similarly-situated persons in the same manner. Granting one “dual enrollment” request subjects the school district to the possibility that it must grant similar requests or face an equal protection challenge.
In evaluating Polly’s request, two factors are especially important. First, there is no merit to her claim that her rights were violated when her excusal requests were not granted. Excusal is required upon parent request for HIV instruction, family life education instruction, and (inexplicably) firearm safety instruction. Otherwise, school officials may, but need not, accommodate parent concerns over curricular matters.
Second, the fact that Peter was in an accredited program may be significant. The statutes leave to school officials the choice whether to grant credit for home-schooling, and some school boards have decided not to grant credit for such programs under any circumstances. However, some home-schooling programs are accredited, and some districts have decided that, if the program is accredited and the student has successfully met its requirements, they will grant credit for such programs. Of course, given the “equal protection” concerns, school officials must be consistent in such matters. However, the accreditation of such programs may provide enough structure and rigor to justify such decisions.
Finally, Bob should not have put Mrs. Superintendent on the spot. School officials must not to disclose personally-identifiable confidential student information without written parent consent, even if the parent is all over the newspapers complaining about how unfair school officials are. In an appropriate case, school officials can ask for such consent so that they can respond in a public dispute. Without such consent, however, school officials may not respond with specifics.
Thomas B. Mooney is a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment Law Practice and heads the firm's School Law Practice.