Texas court radically changing homeschool law? UPDATED

[Violet Crown]

A district court in El Paso appears (i.e. IANAL and would appreciate the opinions of those who are lawyers here) to have interpreted Leeper, the Texas Supreme Court decision that controls homeschooling in Texas, in a surprising way.

 

http://www.kfoxtv.com/images/lawsuit%20PDF.pdf

 

"The [Leeper] court concluded that a home school can be a private school within the meaning of the statutory exemption found in Section 25.086(a)(1).

Leeper does not hold, or even imply, that every alleged “home school†automatically fits within the exemption. Rather, the case simply allows certain home schools meeting specific requirements to qualify as “private or parochial schools†for purposes of exemption. In fact, the plaintiffs did not argue that every home school falls within the exemption, but only, “homes in which children are taught in a bona fide manner from a curriculum designed to meet basic education goals.†"

 

The district court seems to be saying that, contrary to the general understanding that Texas homeschoolers are unaccredited private schools under Leeper, we're only private schools if the local ISD decides we're "bona fide" enough to be; and the ISD may investigate our curriculum and decide that. The court even brings up standardized testing as not the sole means, but apparently an allowable means, of deciding if we're bona fide.

 

Is this as disastrous as it looks? I'm not prone to alarmism, but this seems pretty bad.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Violet Crown

[Violet Crown]

From the news coverage:

 

"[EPISD attendance officer] Mendoza told KFOX14 that parents are usually very cooperative with district administration when using a bona fide home-schooling program, but they can be hard to deal with when they have something to hide."

 

So it looks like the ISD has been taking it upon themselves for a while now to determine if El Paso homeschoolers are really homeschooling; and the court has agreed that they get to do that. Interesting inference that noncooperation with the ISD = "something to hide."

[Violet Crown]

... and from what coverage I can find, it's looking like the HSLDA deliberately took on this case as a test case, and may as a result have narrowed Texans' rights to homeschool without interference from the ISD.

[Violet Crown]

It wouldn't be the first time HSLDA has narrowed homeschool rights.

 

They were responsible for helping to craft the regulations in NY and PA.

From a quick read of the opinion, it seems that the family refused to let the ISD look over their curriculum to see if they were "bona fide" homeschooling, which refusal I would have said last week was perfectly within the parents' rights; but then they further refused the JP court's request to see their curriculum, which was idiotic. If "Leeper says you don't have to cooperate with the court" was the advice of the HSLDA attorney, it seems to have gone over badly with the state court.

[Ellie]

... and from what coverage I can find, it's looking like the HSLDA deliberately took on this case as a test case, and may as a result have narrowed Texans' rights to homeschool without interference from the ISD.

 

Poppycock.

 

I'm guessing that anti-HSLDA people are saying that hsers rights will be narrowed. Goodness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Farrar]

Why is that poppycock? If they took the case and homeschool freedoms are curtailed as a result of the case, then HSLDA helped cause that. Whether it was inadvertent or not would probably depend on one's view of HSLDA. They may have taken it as a test case believing they could win.

 

I know nothing about this case though... Texas has always been a no regulation state - is this really going to change that?

[Violet Crown]

Poppycock.

 

I'm guessing that anti-HSLDA people are saying that hsers rights will be narrowed. Goodness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Poppycock that HSLDA took this forward as a test case, or that our right to ignore the ISD isn't there anymore?

 

If the former, it certainly looks like a test case. Again, just from reading the opinion, it looks like the McIntyres were pressing a theory - which I haven't heard before - that NO state actor has the right to inquire about curriculum. That has a test-case savor to me.

 

If the latter, I welcome other interpretations of what the district court just said. Really. I want to hear that I'm completely misunderstanding it. But from here it looks like the court has ruled that the ISD gets to determine if you're a bona fide homeschooler before you get to fall under the Leeper ruling. Which is not what the general understanding was among Texas homeschoolers - and school districts - last week.

 

Ellie, I'm not anti-HSLDA. They seem to have done good work, and bad work, for homeschoolers in this country. And I regret having brought that aspect up, because I'm not interested in a HSLDA-bashing thread. I'm interested in hearing, from those who are better-qualified than I, that this case hasn't done what it looks like it's done.

 

I'm glad to hear you think (if I understand you correctly) that our rights haven't been damaged here. How are you understanding the ruling?

[Alte Veste Academy]

From a quick read of the opinion, it seems that the family refused to let the ISD look over their curriculum to see if they were "bona fide" homeschooling, which refusal I would have said last week was perfectly within the parents' rights; but then they further refused the JP court's request to see their curriculum, which was idiotic. If "Leeper says you don't have to cooperate with the court" was the advice of the HSLDA attorney, it seems to have gone over badly with the state court.

If I read it right, they didn't even send a letter saying they were homeschooling within the law. It appears that they didn't cooperate at all, and then had HSLDA send a letter that said they were in compliance. I agree that Mendoza's original curriculum questions and statement on the truancy complaint that their homeschool had not been proved bona fide were not OK (as far as the usual interpretation of Leeper goes), but not responding to the truancy officer at all and then letting someone else speak for them...well, I don't think it looked good. They wouldn't even have had to disclose the actual curricula used. They could have simply stated that they were following the state law. They would have been left alone, or at least would have had a leg to stand on in court.

 

It looks to me like this family had many opportunities to put out the fire and HSLDA just helped them add kindling. The family suing the district and not letting it go after the district let it go was practically begging for reconsideration of the (very permissive!) law. They should have left well enough alone. 

 

As a former Teen Court Coordinator in a DFW suburb and later as a Social Worker in TX schools, I saw bad stuff, man. Seriously. Non-schoolers. As much as I do not want my rights as a Texan curtailed, I have always worried about the non-schooled children in Texas. It is a real problem, and it is bound to come to a head at some point. This may be it. Being asked to confirm to a truancy officer that you are homeschooling according to the law is not tantamount to harassment. And if you don't answer and they keep asking, that is not harassment either. It is the truancy officer doing his job. I met too many kids who would have greatly benefitted from the truancy officer getting more involved than law would allow.  :(

[jaderbee]

A district court in El Paso appears (i.e. IANAL and would appreciate the opinions of those who are lawyers here) to have interpreted Leeper, the Texas Supreme Court decision that controls homeschooling in Texas, in a surprising way.

 

http://www.kfoxtv.com/images/lawsuit%20PDF.pdf

 

"The [Leeper] court concluded that a home school can be a private school within the meaning of the statutory exemption found in Section 25.086(a)(1).

Leeper does not hold, or even imply, that every alleged “home school†automatically fits within the exemption. Rather, the case simply allows certain home schools meeting specific requirements to qualify as “private or parochial schools†for purposes of exemption. In fact, the plaintiffs did not argue that every home school falls within the exemption, but only, “homes in which children are taught in a bona fide manner from a curriculum designed to meet basic education goals.†"

 

The district court seems to be saying that, contrary to the general understanding that Texas homeschoolers are unaccredited private schools under Leeper, we're only private schools if the local ISD decides we're "bona fide" enough to be; and the ISD may investigate our curriculum and decide that. The court even brings up standardized testing as not the sole means, but apparently an allowable means, of deciding if we're bona fide.

 

Is this as disastrous as it looks? I'm not prone to alarmism, but this seems pretty bad.

In TX homeschoolers are unaccredited private schools? Is it described somewhere as a private school? I thought in TX there were no regulations on homeschooling. Are there no regulations on private schools too? I'm sure someone can point out the errors in my thinking, so I'm letting you know this is written pre-coffee.

[Violet Crown]

If that's not part of the current regulation, I agree they were within their rights.

 

I just don't know what looking at the curriculum would do. Anyone can buy a curriculum and claim to use it. I'm not saying they are doing that. It's just not proof of anything to me. And frankly nobody's damn business. We have to list what we use, but they can't really disapprove of it. So if I say I'm teaching reading by looking at the back of cereal boxes, there isn't anything in the regs that says I can't do that.

We don't have a regulation; just case law. And I gather part of the family's argument - which I agree with - was what you just said; that showing the ISD a curriculum is meaningless unless the school district also has the right to decide if that curriculum is good enough; which gives them an effective power of authorizing, or not, homeschooling.

[jaderbee]

Ok. I still haven't had coffee yet but I do understand where the whole questioning of their homeschool came from. I don't understand how Mendoza filled out the truancy form. What gives her the right? Did you see in the footnotes that an affidavit was filed stating they used Abeka was filed 2 years later?

 

 

ETA: is the suit filing for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages the McIntyres suing the district??

[Violet Crown]

Yeah here there is nothing that states they have to approve of what you choose. You have to show you are covering the required subjects (somehow), but nothing states you even have to use a book at all.

The recent understanding of Leeper was that you didn't even have to show that you were covering the required subjects, but just affirm that you were. That's the stated understanding of the ISDs in my area.

[Violet Crown]

I know nothing about this case though... Texas has always been a no regulation state - is this really going to change that?

It's been a no-regulation state because we have no statutes about homeschooling; we have a state supreme court decision - Leeper - saying homeschools are unaccredited private schools. And private schools are unregulated here. So all you had to tell the ISD, if you were removing your child, was that you were enrolling them in a private school according to Texas law. The ISD had no more right to demand to see your homeschool curriculum than they had the right, if you were enrolling your child in St. Hypercatholica's parish school, to demand that St. H. show the ISD what curriculum they would be using.

 

This ruling appears to have changed that, by saying the ISD can be a sort of gatekeeper before you qualify to be a private school under Leeper.

[Tidbits of Learning]

Ok, I didn't read through all of it...but I got enough that these kids were not being schooled.  That is clear.  The oldest child ran away to go to school and was 17 and had to be placed in 9th grade b/c she had no clue what she had been taught and could not tell the school what she had been taught.  17 years old!  She would have known if schooling was taking place.  The family was concerned and they are who notified the state.

The lawyer from HSLDA should have told them to sign 1 simple letter stating they were schooling within the laws.  That was all it would have taken.

I do personally see it as having gone south and fast for homeschoolers in TX.  It is a case were the children's welfare was being questioned by relatives, an actual child of this family ran away seeking an education, and they for the most part told the state to stick it.  I could see where it could have farther reaching implications.  It may not.  

We live in a low regulation state and HSLDA used to have an example of how they helped someone in our state, but they really didn't.  They just had them use the lower option to file than the option where you did have to declare a grade level.  

In this case, the state just wanted a written document signed by the parents saying they were complying with the law.  That is a no-brainer.  The homeschool family should have complied.  It would have been simple.  

Reading through it all, I would be worried about these kids and the educational neglect that is evidenced.  

[jaderbee]

Ok, I didn't read through all of it...but I got enough that these kids were not being schooled. That is clear. The oldest child ran away to go to school and was 17 and had to be placed in 9th grade b/c she had no clue what she had been taught and could not tell the school what she had been taught. 17 years old! She would have known if schooling was taking place. The family was concerned and they are who notified the state.

The lawyer from HSLDA should have told them to sign 1 simple letter stating they were schooling within the laws. That was all it would have taken.

I do personally see it as having gone south and fast for homeschoolers in TX. It is a case were the children's welfare was being questioned by relatives, an actual child of this family ran away seeking an education, and they for the most part told the state to stick it. I could see where it could have farther reaching implications. It may not.

We live in a low regulation state and HSLDA used to have an example of how they helped someone in our state, but they really didn't. They just had them use the lower option to file than the option where you did have to declare a grade level.

In this case, the state just wanted a written document signed by the parents saying they were complying with the law. That is a no-brainer. The homeschool family should have complied. It would have been simple.

Reading through it all, I would be worried about these kids and the educational neglect that is evidenced.

I agree with you and thought it was a shame that no one was willing to testify as such (unless a change had been made and they were using Abeka now). Did you get to the part where the truancy charges were dropped and the family continued with their law suit? I don't understand the motivation behind that. Why if everything was dropped would you continue to subject yourself, your family to the will of the court?

[RootAnn]

Ditto'ing Liz on how this lawsuit seems to be from the family toward the ISD/Mendoza. The truancy charges were dropped. They didn't have to go through this. (HSLDA sent two letters stating the family was following the law, but court seems to say that HSLDA didn't have any first-hand knowledge of the family's homeschooling, so they don't count. Added quote.)

 

 

Following her visit, Sanders faxed the home school verification form to a Home School Legal Defense Association (HLSDA) attorney in Washington. Sanders also reported to the campus principal that the Mclntyres were uncooperative and had refused to sign the form. Sanders later received a letter from the HSLDA attorney. The letter claimed that the McIntyres were “in full compliance†but that they declined to “submit any additional information.†The letter did not reflect that the attorney was licensed in Texas, or had any personal knowledge of the educational studies occurring in the McIntyre home. 

[...]

Relying on information provided by the children’s grandparents, his confirmation of information regarding Tori’s inability to describe her home school education, and the refusal of the McIntyres to provide the District with any written assurance regarding the curriculum they were using “from somebody who had firsthand knowledge of the homeschooling education that was happening in the home,†Mendoza filed truancy complaints. In the blanks that would normally have listed the dates of absence on the truancy complaint, Mendoza wrote, “Has not met home school verification requirements.†According to Mendoza, he did not believe that the McIntyres had provided sufficient evidence of a bona fide home school.

 

After the complaints were filed, HSLDA sent a second letter to Sanders, with copies to other District personnel. The letter was essentially identical to the first letter, but it also included a threat to file suit.

 

<vent> I really dislike "homeschoolers" who don't follow the minimum laws in some of our low-reg states (like Texas) and issues with them make the paperwork/regs harder to follow for those of us who do meet the letter of the law. In this case, I dislike that they filed suit back at the ISD/Mendoza for picking on them when they could have just gone back under the radar.

 

In Nebraska, there was a family who didn't bother to file their paperwork with the state a couple years ago. When the local truancy guy shows up, they claim they "just" sent it in. When the state lets the truancy guy know they haven't received it, the family says they sent it to the wrong address. (!!??!) They "re"send it. The truancy charges go forward, the local court says they are guilty but there are no consequences since they are "now" homeschooling just fine. HSLDA got involved and tried to get the truancy charges to be reversed because they felt it was a bad precedent to let stand. As a result of all the hoopla, the state tried to change the paperwork & regs to "eliminate loopholes." The homeschoolers in Nebraska had to rise up & fight it - since the state included a bunch of other things in their revisions. (It still isn't resolved BTW. HSLDA & the Christian homeschool group in the state are "working with" the Board of Education on the wording.) In this case, it seems like the family was actually schooling the kids, but they just didn't bother filling out the mandatory paperwork. </vent>

Edited August 15, 2014 by RootAnn

[Violet Crown]

Ok..so there is more to it.

There's certainly more to the facts - these seem to have been spectacularly unsympathetic plaintiffs - but now we're stuck with a state court opinion interpreting Leeper in a way that will apply to homeschoolers who don't have all this messy stuff going on.

[Tidbits of Learning]

My question is who is representing them in the suit against the state/isd/Mendoza?  Is it HSLDA?  If so, then yes, I do believe they are creating a bigger problem.  

 

[Alte Veste Academy]

There's certainly more to the facts - these seem to have been spectacularly unsympathetic plaintiffs - but now we're stuck with a state court opinion interpreting Leeper in a way that will apply to homeschoolers who don't have all this messy stuff going on.

 

Yeah, but then I think to myself...does Texas (or any state for that matter, but especially Texas due to sheer size, population, and previous state of entirely hands-off easy-peasyness) have so much extra money and staff laying around that it will really make a great deal of work for itself by attempting to verify bona fide status for every homeschooler? I mean, my word.

 

I wonder if the enormous implications and the disastrous mess the case had the potential to set in motion were why the school district backed off. That the DA didn't pursue charges made me chuckle, because that DA probably had the sense to recognize a can of worms inside a hornet's nest. LOL The school district folks were probably stupefied at being dragged into court (after dropping charges!) by noncooperative people who couldn't even be bothered to write a letter stating compliance! I find myself stupefied by it, frankly. (Well, you didn't want this to be an HSLDA bashing thread, so we'll just pretend I'm stupefied... :lol: )

 

I do wonder if this case or another that is created by it will end up back in the TX Supreme Court.

[Violet Crown]

My question is who is representing them in the suit against the state/isd/Mendoza? Is it HSLDA? If so, then yes, I do believe they are creating a bigger problem.

 

This article seems to indicate HSLDA was/is representing them. http://danielsilliman.blogspot.com/2014/08/homeschooling-not-absolute-right.html

 

Yeah, but then I think to myself...does Texas (or any state for that matter, but especially Texas due to sheer size, population, and previous state of entirely hands-off easy-peasyness) have so much extra money and staff laying around that it will really make a great deal of work for itself by attempting to verify bona fide status for every homeschooler? I mean, my word.

 

I wonder if the enormous implications and the disastrous mess the case had the potential to set in motion were why the school district backed off. That the DA didn't pursue charges made me chuckle, because that DA probably had the sense to recognize a can of worms inside a hornet's nest. LOL The school district folks were probably stupefied at being dragged into court (after dropping charges!) by noncooperative people who couldn't even be bothered to write a letter stating compliance! I find myself stupefied by it, frankly. (Well, you didn't want this to be an HSLDA bashing thread, so we'll just pretend I'm stupefied... :lol: )

 

I do wonder if this case or another that is created by it will end up back in the TX Supreme Court.

It wouldn't take much money for an ISD to just add to their withdrawal form that homeschooling families must describe their curriculum. And if the school has a beef with that family, it could certainly make their life harder.

 

Also, the ISD to our north has more time and money than the urban one I live in. A couple years ago, they sent someone around door to door to personally ask every family with school-aged children where the children were enrolled, and if they were homeschooling. This seemed to be more about marketing than about harassing homeschoolers, and they quit right away when homeschoolers freaked out, but clearly some ISDs have the leisure to do this.

[texasmama]

As a former Teen Court Coordinator in a DFW suburb and later as a Social Worker in TX schools, I saw bad stuff, man. Seriously.

How the heck have I gone this long without knowing this information???  Seriously, we could have been hanging out having coffee all these years.  ;)  (Unless you find me wanting and don't care to have coffee...slinking away)

 

DFW resident here.  Social Worker, too.  We're practically twins.  :D

 

Re: the topic at hand, as Atticus Finch would say, "It's not time to worry yet."  It would take a lot to remove the freedoms for homeschoolers in Texas.  (Not that it couldn't happen - I know, I know.  No complacency here.  I just don't think it's time to worry yet.)

[texasmama]

<vent> I really dislike "homeschoolers" who don't follow the minimum laws in some of our low-reg states (like Texas) and issues with them make the paperwork/regs harder to follow for those of us who do meet the letter of the law. In this case, I dislike that they filed suit back at the ISD/Mendoza for picking on them when they could have just gone back under the radar.

Not arguing with your point, but to split hairs, Texas is a NO regulation state.  Yes, there are laws governing homeschooling, but nothing is required of us in Texas, not even an LOI.

[Farrar]

Yeah, but then I think to myself...does Texas (or any state for that matter, but especially Texas due to sheer size, population, and previous state of entirely hands-off easy-peasyness) have so much extra money and staff laying around that it will really make a great deal of work for itself by attempting to verify bona fide status for every homeschooler? I mean, my word.

 

Yeah, I agree with Violet that it wouldn't take that much work to add a notification law.  Or even one like Virginia's where you have to say what subjects you plan to teach (you literally just list "language arts, math, history, science, and pe" or whatever).  Things like these are not very good guarantees that a family is "really" homeschooling.  On the other hand, whenever I hear about families like this or the example from Root Ann above about the Nebraska family, where they can't even be bothered to file a single piece of paper, it makes me feel like maybe having a low bar is better than nothing.  Maybe it does serve as a gatekeeping method against the really neglectful families - or a few of them anyway.

 

Our law here - which is only a few years old, and which I have very mixed feelings about - is essentially notification only.  But part of the law is that the not-a-state can choose to review your homeschool up to three times a year, in which you have to meet them at a place of mutual agreement and show a "portfolio of materials."  No one really knows what the heck this all means because no one in almost six years of this law has yet been reviewed.  I assume that if I was ever reported to CPS for something else, it would raise a flag and I'd get a homeschool review.  But anyway, my point is, they stuck this in and it essentially costs them nothing.  Yet from their perspective, it ensures that interest in public education that they have.

[Alte Veste Academy]

It wouldn't take much money for an ISD to just add to their withdrawal form that homeschooling families must describe their curriculum. And if the school has a beef with that family, it could certainly make their life harder.

 

Also, the ISD to our north has more time and money than the urban one I live in (which gets along with homeschoolers pretty well). A couple years ago, they sent someone around door to door to personally ask every family with school-aged children where the children were enrolled, and if they were homeschooling. This seemed to be more about marketing than about harassing homeschoolers, and they quit right away when homeschoolers freaked out, but clearly some ISDs have the leisure to do this.

But this would also change the law and requirements entirely. My kids were never enrolled so never withdrawn. The schools don't know they exist. So would I have to register them? What about when I move? Reregister? Resubmit papers? Would districts have universal standards for what constitutes bona fide status? Who determines that? No like standards exist for private schools so far as I know. If we can keep our status as private schools if the public schools verify our curriculum as bona fide, then...wait. What? That doesn't even make any sense. The public schools should have nothing to do with it, so then who evaluates? The TEA? Would the law then have to change to say we are not ever considered private schools in order to enable oversight by public schools? This would change everything.

 

A big, messy kettle of fish.

[Susan in TX]

Now I'm worried. I was told by the registrar of the high school my older kids attend that if one withdraws to homeschool that you have to prove to the school that you have enrolled in an approved homeschool program. When I enrolled my incoming 9th grader they wanted to know what homeschooling program we were using. When I said we weren't using any particular program and that I had done the same with my 4 other children who have since graduated from their school, a call was made to the head counselor and they were told to enroll my daughter in regular freshman classes and we had no further problem...but I am seeing a precedent here that I don't like. I just sent a certified letter to withdraw my son. Hopefully they won't demand that I show them our curriculum.

 

Susan in TX

[Alte Veste Academy]

How the heck have I gone this long without knowing this information??? Seriously, we could have been hanging out having coffee all these years. ;) (Unless you find me wanting and don't care to have coffee...slinking away)

 

DFW resident here. Social Worker, too. We're practically twins. :D

 

Re: the topic at hand, as Atticus Finch would say, "It's not time to worry yet." It would take a lot to remove the freedoms for homeschoolers in Texas. (Not that it couldn't happen - I know, I know. No complacency here. I just don't think it's time to worry yet.)

I can't tell you how often I thought this! We are from Fort Worth, but are currently living out of state. Boooooo! I miss Texas! Otherwise, I would be at coffee with bells on. LOL

 

Not arguing with your point, but to split hairs, Texas is a NO regulation state. Yes, there are laws governing homeschooling, but nothing is required of us in Texas, not even an LOI.

Yes. And I love this...for me. I get queasy when I think of all the poor kids I saw who were not getting an education (and I do NOT mean unschooled children).

 

Yeah, I agree with Violet that it wouldn't take that much work to add a notification law. Or even one like Virginia's where you have to say what subjects you plan to teach (you literally just list "language arts, math, history, science, and pe" or whatever). Things like these are not very good guarantees that a family is "really" homeschooling. On the other hand, whenever I hear about families like this or the example from Root Ann above about the Nebraska family, where they can't even be bothered to file a single piece of paper, it makes me feel like maybe having a low bar is better than nothing. Maybe it does serve as a gatekeeping method against the really neglectful families - or a few of them anyway.

 

Our law here - which is only a few years old, and which I have very mixed feelings about - is essentially notification only. But part of the law is that the not-a-state can choose to review your homeschool up to three times a year, in which you have to meet them at a place of mutual agreement and show a "portfolio of materials." No one really knows what the heck this all means because no one in almost six years of this law has yet been reviewed. I assume that if I was ever reported to CPS for something else, it would raise a flag and I'd get a homeschool review. But anyway, my point is, they stuck this in and it essentially costs them nothing. Yet from their perspective, it ensures that interest in public education that they have.

I think the option to review is protective for children whose families are abusing the right to homeschool. Kind of brilliant really, but I could see how it would feel kind of creepy to have that potential hanging over me as a non-abuser of the system who wants people outta my business. LOL

 

Yes, notification would be easy and cheap (even while being an affront to my dignity as a Texas homeschooler, LOL). The thing that I am thinking would be $$$$ is an actual human reviewing each homeschool's curriculum to ascertain whether that homeschool is "bona fide." At this level of scrutiny, I basically respond, as a Texan, get off my lawn! ;) A devils advocate might say that that wouldn't be done, wouldn't be necessary, that change needn't go that far, that notification it is just a gate keeping method, but then what is the point? Notification was not the problem here. It was not why that 17 year old girl didn't know what curriculum had been used, you know?

[Alte Veste Academy]

Oh, and just to be clear, I am not worried so much as I find rabbit thought trails interesting. :)

[JennyD]

If the latter, I welcome other interpretations of what the district court just said. Really. I want to hear that I'm completely misunderstanding it. But from here it looks like the court has ruled that the ISD gets to determine if you're a bona fide homeschooler before you get to fall under the Leeper ruling. Which is not what the general understanding was among Texas homeschoolers - and school districts - last week.

 

 

 

 

I am a lawyer but I am not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and this is emphatically not legal advice. Furthermore, I haven't read Leeper in full, or at least I don't remember it, and I am not familiar with the dominant understanding of Leeper.  

 

WIth all of those caveats,  I have just read through this opinion and for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of what it says.  The court interprets Leeper as establishing that a home school can qualify as a private/parochial school for purposes of exemption from the compulsory attendance laws only if it is a bona fide homeschool in which children are being taught from a curriculum designed to meet basic education goals.   And it seems pretty clear that the entity charged with determining whether a homeschool qualifies as bona fide is the local school district.  The court here appears to be very emphatic that this sort of determination is an administrative, not a judicial matter, and that homeschoolers cannot simply refuse to deal with the school district and go straight to court.  Presumably if the school district ultimately decides that your homeschool is not bona fide then you can challenge that in court, but you must work through the whole administrative process before the TX courts are going to be willing to hear your case.  

 

So if the previous understanding of Leeper was that "homeschools are private schools and if the school district questions what you're doing then you have the right to tell them to go pound sand,"  then yeah, I'd say that this is a pretty significant narrowing of that decision.

 

A couple of other thoughts:

 

(1)  If this was indeed a test case, then, wow, Worst.Plaintiffs.Ever.

 

(2) Who on earth was the trial court judge? Is that opinion published, I wonder?  (I haven't yet looked).  Because refusing to grant summary judgment on the claims against the district attendance officer was, frankly, nuts.  It's so far out of line with contemporary qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court judge had to know that s/he would be smacked down on appeal. 

 

[Alte Veste Academy]

WIth all of those caveats, I have just read through this opinion and for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of what it says. The court interprets Leeper as establishing that a home school can qualify as a private/parochial school for purposes of exemption from the compulsory attendance laws only if it is a bona fide homeschool in which children are being taught from a curriculum designed to meet basic education goals. And it seems pretty clear that the entity charged with determining whether a homeschool qualifies as bona fide is the local school district.

Thanks for posting your thoughts! You confirmed what I thought it said too.

 

The bolded is going to pose a legal problem, no? Because public schools do not certify (non-homeschool) private school curricula as bona fide. (Does anyone know if the TEA had oversight of private schools in TX? Or are they totally free, answering only to paying parents?) So, ultimately, if the public schools are given the power to evaluate our curriculum, home schools will no longer be considered private schools.

[Violet Crown]

I am a lawyer but I am not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and this is emphatically not legal advice. Furthermore, I haven't read Leeper in full, or at least I don't remember it, and I am not familiar with the dominant understanding of Leeper.

 

WIth all of those caveats, I have just read through this opinion and for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of what it says. The court interprets Leeper as establishing that a home school can qualify as a private/parochial school for purposes of exemption from the compulsory attendance laws only if it is a bona fide homeschool in which children are being taught from a curriculum designed to meet basic education goals. And it seems pretty clear that the entity charged with determining whether a homeschool qualifies as bona fide is the local school district. The court here appears to be very emphatic that this sort of determination is an administrative, not a judicial matter, and that homeschoolers cannot simply refuse to deal with the school district and go straight to court. Presumably if the school district ultimately decides that your homeschool is not bona fide then you can challenge that in court, but you must work through the whole administrative process before the TX courts are going to be willing to hear your case.

 

So if the previous understanding of Leeper was that "homeschools are private schools and if the school district questions what you're doing then you have the right to tell them to go pound sand," then yeah, I'd say that this is a pretty significant narrowing of that decision.

 

A couple of other thoughts:

 

(1) If this was indeed a test case, then, wow, Worst.Plaintiffs.Ever.

 

(2) Who on earth was the trial court judge? Is that opinion published, I wonder? (I haven't yet looked). Because refusing to grant summary judgment on the claims against the district attendance officer was, frankly, nuts. It's so far out of line with contemporary qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court judge had to know that s/he would be smacked down on appeal.

Thanks very much. Yeah, the Pound Sand interpretation of Leeper (may I use that?) has been the understanding on all sides. Here's the Texas Education Agency's longstanding policy:

 

The decision rendered in Leeper et al. vs. Arlington ISD et al. clearly establishes that students who are home schooled are exempt from the compulsory attendance requirement to the same extent as students enrolled in private schools. Students should be disenrolled by school officials when they receive written notice either by signing withdrawal forms or a letter of withdrawal. It is not necessary for the parents to make a personal appearance with school officials or present curriculum for review. School districts which become aware of a student who is potentially being home schooled may request in writing a letter of assurance from the parents of the student regarding their intention to home-school the student. This letter may require assurances that the home-school curriculum is designed to meet basic education goals including reading, spelling, grammar, mathematics, and a study of good citizenship. Please note that a letter of this type is not required each year.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769804368

 

Okay, so here's another legal question; how much does, or might, this affect us in other areas of Texas? As far as I know, this is the first time a Texas state court has offered an interpretation of Leeper (everybody previously agreed on the interpretation). Is it just El Paso that's out of luck, or will lower courts in other areas take their cue from this decision?

[Violet Crown]

Thanks for posting your thoughts! You confirmed what I thought it said too.

 

The bolded is going to pose a legal problem, no? Because public schools do not certify (non-homeschool) private school curricula as bona fide. (Does anyone know if the TEA had oversight of private schools in TX? Or are they totally free, answering only to paying parents?) So, ultimately, if the public schools are given the power to evaluate our curriculum, home schools will no longer be considered private schools.

I gather the court is saying that, as you say, the local ISD doesn't certify private school curricula; but home schools aren't necessarily private schools, and it's the ISD that gets to make that determination - and they can do that by examining, if they want, our curriculum. So among other kinds of damage, this case has drawn a (previously nonexistent) sharp distinction between private schools and home schools, the latter of which have to satisfy the ISD that they are private schools before they get the protections of Leeper.

[Elisabet1]

In TX homeschoolers are unaccredited private schools? Is it described somewhere as a private school? I thought in TX there were no regulations on homeschooling. Are there no regulations on private schools too? I'm sure someone can point out the errors in my thinking, so I'm letting you know this is written pre-coffee.

There actually are no regulations on private schools. And public schools are only loosely regulated. The state will not step in to investigate any complaints or otherwise against any school. Everything is run at district level in this state. If you don't believe me, call TEA and ask.

[jaderbee]

I believe you! I just was just not quite grasping that the two were considered the same. They are here in CA. I assumed that since in TX there was no regulation regarding homeschool it wasn't even labeled as a private school.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I gather the court is saying that, as you say, the local ISD doesn't certify private school curricula; but home schools aren't necessarily private schools, and it's the ISD that gets to make that determination - and they can do that by examining, if they want, our curriculum. So among other kinds of damage, this case has drawn a (previously nonexistent) sharp distinction between private schools and home schools, the latter of which have to satisfy the ISD that they are private schools before they get the protections of Leeper.

But wait...and keep in mind that I am pretty ignorant about the specifics of the law... :lol:

 

If the TX Supreme Court ruled that we are private schools in the Leeper decision, how can a lower court say we are not? Because on the face of it, it makes zero sense that the public schools would be the ones to certify us as private schools.

[texasmama]

I can't tell you how often I thought this! We are from Fort Worth, but are currently living out of state. Boooooo! I miss Texas! Otherwise, I would be at coffee with bells on. LOL

Well, that is horrible.  When can you rush back to Fort Worth and have coffee with me?  :D  (Grew up in Fort Worth and still live close by...)  And why would you ever want to leave Texas?  (Probably for some sort of dh's job or some such less important thing than coffee with me.  ;) )  We probably went to high school together and actually know each other...I just feel it...lol

 

(My apologies for the thread derailment...<bag over head>)  Carry on.

[Violet Crown]

But wait...and keep in mind that I am pretty ignorant about the specifics of the law... :lol:

If the TX Supreme Court ruled that we are private schools in the Leeper decision, how can a lower court say we are not? Because on the face of it, it makes zero sense that the public schools would be the ones to certify us as private schools.

The district court said that Leeper doesn't actually say that we are necessarily private schools, but that we are private schools, if we are teaching a bona fide curriculum. And that the determination as to whether that curriculum is bona fide - and therefore we're private schools - is properly made by the ISD.

 

I agree, this seems to eviscerate Leeper, and turn on its head how both homeschoolers and the TEA have always understood Leeper to be interpreted. We aren't subject to the school district ... If the school district determines we're not.

 

I wonder if this is going to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Or if it's going to be a political football in the Lege.

[texasmama]

But wait...and keep in mind that I am pretty ignorant about the specifics of the law... :lol:

 

If the TX Supreme Court ruled that we are private schools in the Leeper decision, how can a lower court say we are not? Because on the face of it, it makes zero sense that the public schools would be the ones to certify us as private schools.

I'll go with this.

 

We are in a school district in which 90% of the families with kids in the schools live at or below the poverty line.  We homeschoolers are the least of their problems. 

[RootAnn]

Not arguing with your point, but to split hairs, Texas is a NO regulation state.  Yes, there are laws governing homeschooling, but nothing is required of us in Texas, not even an LOI.

 

Absolutely agree. But one wonders if this decision will change that, at least in one ISD's opinion? 

 

My original rant actually had to do with the family in this lawsuit just filling out a piece of paper that said they were doing what they were supposed to be doing when confronted. (Or, simply letting it rest once the charges were dropped instead of filing suit.)

 

Now, theoretically, it could morph into many families filling out pieces of paper when they previously had to do nothing.

  :rant:  At least under a worst-case scenario.

[texasmama]

Absolutely agree. But one wonders if this decision will change that, at least in one ISD's opinion? 

 

My original rant actually had to do with the family in this lawsuit just filling out a piece of paper that said they were doing what they were supposed to be doing when confronted. (Or, simply letting it rest once the charges were dropped instead of filing suit.)

 

Now, theoretically, it could morph into many families filling out pieces of paper when they previously had to do nothing.

  :rant:  At least under a worst-case scenario.

As a "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" kinda gal, I agree with you. 

 

El Paso is pretty far away from me.  It is a Mexico border town, and I would think they have more issues than homeschooling...

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'll go with this.

Yes. I just reject this decision. :lol: It will be interesting to see what happens with it though.

 

The district court said that Leeper doesn't actually say that we are necessarily private schools, but that we are private schools, if we are teaching a bona fide curriculum. And that the determination as to whether that curriculum is bona fide - and therefore we're private schools - is properly made by the ISD.

I agree, this seems to eviscerate Leeper, and turn on its head how both homeschoolers and the TEA have always understood Leeper to be interpreted. We aren't subject to the school district ... If the school district determines we're not.

I wonder if this is going to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Or if it's going to be a political football in the Lege.

Well I am going with that I am a private school teaching with a bona fide curriculum. And because the public schools have no authority over private schools, I am a private school and they have no authority over me...precisely because I am a private school using a bona fide curriculum.

 

I am dizzy from that. :lol: But that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

[Alte Veste Academy]

And why would you ever want to leave Texas?

I didn't wanna! I didn't wanna! :( I was dragged out, kicking and screaming. :nopity:

[texasmama]

I didn't wanna! I didn't wanna! :( I was dragged out, kicking and screaming. :nopity:

I suspected as much...

[Lanny]

Ok, I didn't read through all of it...but I got enough that these kids were not being schooled.  That is clear.  The oldest child ran away to go to school and was 17 and had to be placed in 9th grade b/c she had no clue what she had been taught and could not tell the school what she had been taught.  17 years old!  She would have known if schooling was taking place.  The family was concerned and they are who notified the state.

The lawyer from HSLDA should have told them to sign 1 simple letter stating they were schooling within the laws.  That was all it would have taken.

I do personally see it as having gone south and fast for homeschoolers in TX.  It is a case were the children's welfare was being questioned by relatives, an actual child of this family ran away seeking an education, and they for the most part told the state to stick it.  I could see where it could have farther reaching implications.  It may not.  

We live in a low regulation state and HSLDA used to have an example of how they helped someone in our state, but they really didn't.  They just had them use the lower option to file than the option where you did have to declare a grade level.  

In this case, the state just wanted a written document signed by the parents saying they were complying with the law.  That is a no-brainer.  The homeschool family should have complied.  It would have been simple.  

Reading through it all, I would be worried about these kids and the educational neglect that is evidenced.  

 

Yes. This. I read the entire 34 pages of her ruling. Very early in the ruling, the parents stated that they were "preparing their children for rapture" or something very close to those words. Their 9 children were not being educated.

 

It is my belief that the home schoolers who participate here on WTM are very serious about educating their children. Those parents in El Paso were not serious about educating their children.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Yes. This. I read the entire 34 pages of her ruling. Very early in the ruling, the parents stated that they were "preparing their children for rapture" or something very close to those words. Their 9 children were not being educated.

 

It is my belief that the home schoolers who participate here on WTM are very serious about educating their children. Those parents in El Paso were not serious about educating their children.

I don't disagree about the probable lack of a serious education, but this is not entirely accurate.

 

Initially, the children were taught out of empty space in a motorcycle dealership owned by Michael and his twin brother, Tracy. Tracy testified in his deposition that during the time home schooling operated out of the dealership, he never observed the children pursuing traditional schoolwork. While the children would sing or play instruments, he never saw them reading books or doing arithmetic, nor did he observe any computers or other school equipment. Tracy overhead one of the McIntyre children tell a cousin that they did not need to do schoolwork because they were going to be raptured.

So, overheard, second hand knowledge that could have been a joke, tongue in check, whatever. I don't doubt that some people homeschool (or rather, don't homeschool) based on the idea of the rapture being true, but we don't know that these were the words and thoughts of the accused.

[Alte Veste Academy]

dp

[Happy]

Hey, if we are having coffee near Ft. Worth, I want IN. :)

 

 

[texasmama]

Hey, if we are having coffee near Ft. Worth, I want IN. :)

Happy is in!  (But only if you are really cool like AVA and me.  :D)

 

ETA:  I read your siggie and you seem supercool. 

[Sdel]

Personally, I'm not too worried about it.  I suspect that if it becomes a problem judicially, the legislature will step in and "fix" it.  The homeschoolers here have enough political clout to pressure such a correction.

 

Stefanie

[Alte Veste Academy]

Happy is in! (But only if you are really cool like AVA and me. :D)

 

ETA: I read your siggie and you seem supercool.

Judging by happy's signature, she is infinitely cooler than I am. :lol: You two have fun!

[Butter]

It appears that the problem is they really didn't follow the law.  They simply weren't educating their kids and that's not allowed.  Texas really is a very, very, very low, rather than no, regulation state.  For most people, beyond withdrawing their kids if they were enrolled in school, there will never be another thing to do (or anything if the kids were never enrolled).  But we do have requirements.

 

http://www.thsc.org/homeschooling-in-texas/state-requirements/

• The instruction must be bona fide (i.e., not a sham).
• The curriculum must be in visual form (e.g., books, workbooks, video monitor).
• The curriculum must include the five basic subjects of reading, spelling, grammar, mathematics, and good citizenship.

 

Now, the vast majority of people will never have to prove those three things, but if a complaint is made, as in this case, you really do have to prove you were meeting those requirements.  If you are not educating your children, as it appears these people weren't, you are not in compliance with the law.