If someone isn't legally registered as a homeschooler...

[Greta]

...do you still consider them homeschoolers?  Once many years ago at a homeschooling group event, the moms got to talking about the state's legal requirements for homeschooling.  They are very minimal here:  each year you submit a form declaring your intent to homeschool along with your basic information (name, address, ages of children) and affirming that you have a high school diploma or GED.  That's it.  The state doesn't follow up with you or check in on you in any way.  You don't have to provide a list of curriculum or take standardized tests, nothing.  

So, in this conversation, it came out that about half of the ladies there don't register, some because "why bother?" some because they were outright opposed to the state having any say in homeschooling at all, and were therefore making the conscious decision not to cooperate.  And a couple of people in that latter group were definitely encouraging others not to register.  I was in the half that did register, because my thought was, "why not comply with the law when it is easy and painless to do so, and harms no one?"  

But whichever group you fall into, would you think of all of these people as homeschoolers?  I certainly did, and still do.  

When a "homeschooling" family makes the news for abuse or neglect, I note that when applicable, other homeschoolers are quick to point out that the family wasn't homeschooling, because they hadn't legally registered as homeschoolers.  They were simply truant.  While it's a perfectly valid point to make, I have never heard anyone make that point about normal, functional homeschooling families that aren't legally registered.  It seems to me like we're taking on one definition of homeschooling when it makes us look good (or at least neutral) and another one entirely when it makes us look bad.  Seems like it might be veering little into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not sure I have a point really, just musing, wondering what your thoughts are.  Do most of the homeschoolers you know comply with the law?  Do you consider people who don't comply to be homeschoolers?

[SKL]

Well, there are people who drive without a license.  I guess they are still "drivers."  But they are driving illegally.

I guess you could say someone was homeschooling illegally / off the grid.

But there are also people who are just not sending their kids to school, often because they want to hide abuse / neglect or put the kids to work.  Then when they get caught for truancy, they claim they are homeschooling.  Just because they claim it to try to save their hide doesn't mean it's responsible to report it that way on the news.  It would be more accurate to say "the children were not attending school outside the home.  An investigation has shown no indication that they were registered homeschoolers either."

[bluemongoose]

I think if they are not complying with the law, but they are actually educating their children, they are homeschoolers.

If they are not complying with the law and are not educating their children, they are truant. 

It can sometimes get a little fuzzy...like with unschooling. I know some unschoolers who consider unschooling a type of schooling where they are working hard to educate their children, but in a child led and less structured than traditional way. Others say it is totally left to the child and if the child chooses nothing, well that is unschooling. So if they claim to be homeschooling as unschoolers and it is the latter type of definition of unschooling, it gets tricky. Personally I still see that as not educating and therefore not actually homeschooling, but others do not.

[Jean in Newcastle]

They are not legal homeschoolers.  They are legally considered truant.  They might be truant people who are still schooling their kids at home.

A person can be legally a public schooler.  They have enrolled their kids.  But they are not following the laws regarding attendance.  So they are truant.  Even if they are schooling their kids at home. (Obviously they can't be schooling their kids at public school and still be considered truant.) 

These designations are legal ones, even if most of the time they are also descriptive. 

[Greta]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, there are people who drive without a license.  I guess they are still "drivers."  But they are driving illegally.

I guess you could say someone was homeschooling illegally / off the grid.

But there are also people who are just not sending their kids to school, often because they want to hide abuse / neglect or put the kids to work.  Then when they get caught for truancy, they claim they are homeschooling.  Just because they claim it to try to save their hide doesn't mean it's responsible to report it that way on the news.  It would be more accurate to say "the children were not attending school outside the home.  An investigation has shown no indication that they were registered homeschoolers either."

 

Agree with you completely about the irresponsible and inaccurate way the media sometimes reports it:  the word "homeschooler" or "homeschooling" in the headline, and then way down in the report you find out they weren't legally homeschooling they were just truant.  That's infuriating.  And I also thought about the fact that the parents are most likely only claiming the homeschooling label to try to cover their own butts.  

But I was thinking more about the way the homeschooling community responds - like we accept self-declaration to be the definition of homeschooler in some circumstances, but not in others.

[skimomma]

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

They are not legal homeschoolers.  They are legally considered truant.  They might be truant people who are still schooling their kids at home.

A person can be legally a public schooler.  They have enrolled their kids.  But they are not following the laws regarding attendance.  So they are truant.  Even if they are schooling their kids at home. (Obviously they can't be schooling their kids at public school and still be considered truant.) 

These designations are legal ones, even if most of the time they are also descriptive. 

 

There are states in which there is no registration.  I live in one.   I have never registered to homeschool but have been very much homeschooling for 10 years.

[SKL]

Even if the state does not require registration, I assume there is some law on the books that defines "homeschooling" and makes homeschoolers exempt from certain requirements while still subject to others.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, skimomma said:

 

There are states in which there is no registration.  I live in one.   I have never registered to homeschool but have been very much homeschooling for 10 years.

I obviously meant that people in either definition, public schooler or homeschooler would need to abide by the laws in the state.  If your state laws state that to homeschool you have to do nothing more than not attend public school, then you are following the law.  If there are other laws other than registration and you don't follow those laws then you have broken the laws having to do with homeschooling.  I am not going to look up every single state and country's laws to lay out every single one. 

[Katy]

If they aren't complying with the law I would seriously question if they are homeschooling. But ultimately it would depend on if they are educating or not.

[Loowit]

If they are not following the laws of their state, I would not consider them homeschoolers.  They may be schooling their children, and even doing a wonderful job of it, but that doesn't make them a homeschooler under the law.

[SKL]

When someone tells me they are homeschoolers, my understanding of that term is that they have researched the state law and done the work of meeting the state requirements for homeschoolers.  Also that they are doing something at home to ensure their kids develop the usual range of academic skills and will be career- or college-ready around the age of majority.

[Greta]

11 minutes ago, bluemongoose said:

I think if they are not complying with the law, but they are actually educating their children, they are homeschoolers.

If they are not complying with the law and are not educating their children, they are truant. 

It can sometimes get a little fuzzy...like with unschooling. I know some unschoolers who consider unschooling a type of schooling where they are working hard to educate their children, but in a child led and less structured than traditional way. Others say it is totally left to the child and if the child chooses nothing, well that is unschooling. So if they claim to be homeschooling as unschoolers and it is the latter type of definition of unschooling, it gets tricky. Personally I still see that as not educating and therefore not actually homeschooling, but others do not.

 

Yes, it's that "actually educating" part where it gets tricky, indeed! I knew an unschooling family (and I will be honest that I disagree very strongly with the philosophy of unschooling) where it was obvious how hard the mother worked to encourage her daughter's learning:  she was very thorough and deliberate with "strewing", she always asked her daughter if she wanted to attend school or even just individual classes that she thought would be of interest to her, she had a massive library, they were involved in a huge number of activities and groups, and she kept beautiful scrapbooks of all the cool stuff that her daughter did.  So even though she wasn't formally educating in the traditional sense, I certainly think of her as a homeschooler.  But I've known other families who didn't claim to be unschooling, but called themselves "relaxed" or "child-led" who seemed to be using homeschooling as an excuse for laziness.  They were guilty of what I would consider educational neglect, and I know that at least one of these families also did not adhere to the legal requirement to register.  But I still thought of them as homeschoolers too (just not very good ones).  So, anyway, I guess I'm just pondering my definition of what it means to be a homeschooler, because it seems to be in need of revision.  ?

[Greta]

12 minutes ago, Loowit said:

If they are not following the laws of their state, I would not consider them homeschoolers.  They may be schooling their children, and even doing a wonderful job of it, but that doesn't make them a homeschooler under the law.

 

That would seem to be the most logical, consistent definition.  And it would mean that about half of the homeschoolers I know aren't actually homeschoolers!

[TechWife]

Not every state has a registration procedure for homeschooling. People are either educating their children within the boundaries of the law or they are not. That education could be public, private or homeschool. 

[SKL]

To be fair, how would you know if most people were following the law ... I assume most people don't announce which requirements they are skipping.  I've had lots of people tell me they are home schooling and I don't require proof before I accept them at their word.  I would still call them homeschoolers unless convinced otherwise.

[EmseB]

I think anyone who is educating their kids at home is homeschooling.

 

Whether they follow the legal requirements of any given state is another question entirely.  By that logic I could be considered a homeschooler in CA but not in MD. That wouldn't make any sense, as we'd be doing the same things at home regardless of legal requirements.

[BlsdMama]

47 minutes ago, Greta said:

...do you still consider them homeschoolers?  Once many years ago at a homeschooling group event, the moms got to talking about the state's legal requirements for homeschooling.  They are very minimal here:  each year you submit a form declaring your intent to homeschool along with your basic information (name, address, ages of children) and affirming that you have a high school diploma or GED.  That's it.  The state doesn't follow up with you or check in on you in any way.  You don't have to provide a list of curriculum or take standardized tests, nothing.  

So, in this conversation, it came out that about half of the ladies there don't register, some because "why bother?" some because they were outright opposed to the state having any say in homeschooling at all, and were therefore making the conscious decision not to cooperate.  And a couple of people in that latter group were definitely encouraging others not to register.  I was in the half that did register, because my thought was, "why not comply with the law when it is easy and painless to do so, and harms no one?"  

But whichever group you fall into, would you think of all of these people as homeschoolers?  I certainly did, and still do.  

When a "homeschooling" family makes the news for abuse or neglect, I note that when applicable, other homeschoolers are quick to point out that the family wasn't homeschooling, because they hadn't legally registered as homeschoolers.  They were simply truant.  While it's a perfectly valid point to make, I have never heard anyone make that point about normal, functional homeschooling families that aren't legally registered.  It seems to me like we're taking on one definition of homeschooling when it makes us look good (or at least neutral) and another one entirely when it makes us look bad.  Seems like it might be veering little into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not sure I have a point really, just musing, wondering what your thoughts are.  Do most of the homeschoolers you know comply with the law?  Do you consider people who don't comply to be homeschoolers?

It really depends on the state and its laws.  We are required, by law, to register here.  Therefore if we do not, we are considered truant in the eyes of the law.

So, I have to ask - is it worth the risk?  Let's say in some scenario a family comes under scrutiny.  Not being registered or obeying the law casts a dubious light on the family, IMO.


I am one of those that marks a line between homeschooling and truant.  But, when a family is neglectful of the children's basic needs, I feel it's a safe jump to say they aren't educating their children.  If they don't worry about removing POOP from the floor, then do they care much about teaching math?  I'm thinking not so much.

[HS Mom in NC]

Nope.  If they're not legally homeschooling then on principle I don't consider them homeschoolers.  They're criminals because they're breaking the law. (They're not like murderer or traitors, but they're still criminals.)  This happens enough that around here there are groups that actually use the phrase, "If you homeschool and obey the law..."  or "By homeschoolers we mean someone who has turned in their homeschooling affidavit" They don't allow people homeschooling illegally to participate in their groups or associate with them in any way and they want to distinguish between those legally registered as public schoolers doing public school at home online. 

People who refuse to obey homeschooling laws are the people who will end up getting everybody heavily regulated. 

[HS Mom in NC]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

To be fair, how would you know if most people were following the law ... I assume most people don't announce which requirements they are skipping.  I've had lots of people tell me they are home schooling and I don't require proof before I accept them at their word.  I would still call them homeschoolers unless convinced otherwise.

She clearly stated in the OP that she had a conversation about it and half the people participating in the conversation said they hadn't obeyed the law and some of them were encouraging others not to bey the law.

[Innisfree]

Years ago, there were a couple of quiverful families who attended our local pool. This was before I was homeschooling, but I was curious, and I got to talking with one of the moms one day. She was very open about not registering. I got the feeling that it was actually a point of pride for her: the government has no business being involved in their family was the general theme. She had no idea who I was, other than just another mom hanging around the pool. So I know some people are not exactly hiding this choice.

Personally, I think I like the idea of newspapers identifying whether families are following state laws if the matter comes up. I might privately consider careful, diligent unregistered people who teach their own children to be homeschoolers, but for public discussion, I think I come down on the side of not identifying them that way unless they are following the local laws.

[G5052]

I'm done homeschooling, but I would say maybe 5% of the people I knew hadn't notified the county as the law states here.

I appreciate them not violating their conscience by doing that, but they are taking a huge chance IMHO. I once talked to a truancy officer who said that they don't pursue homeschool truancy cases because they don't have the resources, but if it comes up in some other investigation, they add that into the mix of legal violations. I knew of one case where there was a child endangerment case over a kid who ended up in the ER after knowingly eating food he was allergic to at a church event (Cheetos), and they were very aggressive with the parents and didn't drop the truancy issue until they registered the kid in school.

[Annie G]

We live in a state that doesn’t require registration. There have been pushes to voluntarily register but we never did. We were homeschooling. Some people might have registered but not been actually providing an education. So they would be considered homeschoolers because they registered?

People drive without a license but we don’t deny they are driving just because they aren’t doing it legally. (That applies to having a car registered and insured, too)

I guess I’d consider people not following the  laws to be non compliant homeschoolers, whether the noncompliance is failing to register or failing to adequately educate.  It’s tough to nail down what ‘adequate education’ is and it’s further muddled when there is abuse or neglect also involved. 

[regentrude]

If they educate their kids at home, I consider them homeschoolers. Whether they meet your state's legal requirements is irrelevant for that.

In my state, we don't have to register, but we have to keep records and log hours. The vast majority of the homeschoolers in my local group do not comply with this state regulation. They're still homeschoolers for all intents and purposes; they're just not keeping the required records. To me, the issue is whether they are educating their children.

If a person drives a motor vehicle, I consider this person a driver - whether they have a valid license and the car is properly registered, or not.

 

[SKL]

Just now, Annie G said:

I guess I’d consider people not following the  laws to be non compliant homeschoolers, whether the noncompliance is failing to register or failing to adequately educate.  It’s tough to nail down what ‘adequate education’ is and it’s further muddled when there is abuse or neglect also involved. 

I could accept this with regard to those not registering.  Not with those who aren't educating.  If kids are not getting an academic education then anything with the word "schooling" in it is a lie.

[regentrude]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

I could accept this with regard to those not registering.  Not with those who aren't educating.  If kids are not getting an academic education then anything with the word "schooling" in it is a lie.

Yes. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to be in compliance with our state law and NOT provide an adequate education. Filing paperwork does not equal educating.

[Annie G]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I could accept this with regard to those not registering.  Not with those who aren't educating.  If kids are not getting an academic education then anything with the word "schooling" in it is a lie.

I see your point. But I don’t know how to categorize them. Some public and private schools fail to adequately educate kids. so do some homeschools.  I know some families who truly thought they were homeschooling but absolutely failed their kids. ACE paces done without oversight, or the kids were allowed to read books with no check to see if they a truly did read them or if they understood them. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Lots of parents educate their kids at home and still send their kids to public school.  They are not homeschoolers.  There is a reason why homeschool laws actually define what it means to be a homeschooler in your state or country.  For the sake of attendance at a park day, the legal definition doesn't have to apply.  (Though of course the park day organizers could make it apply if they wanted to.)  For the sake of attendance at a support group, the legal definition doesn't have to apply.  For the sake of CPS or the Board of Education getting involved in a situation, it applies.  For the sake of an article, it's a grey area.  I personally think that it should be qualified in some way - "they identify as homeschoolers but do not actually follow state laws regarding that and thus are technically truant." 

[TravelingChris]

I have homeschooled in many places but until I got into an argument here with one person who has since left, did anyone admit to me they were homeschooling illegally.  That person, who admitted to homeschooling illegally, was all for super regulations on the ones who do it legally.  I don't know if it was a troll or what but after a few responses, I didn't see any more from that person.  

[skimomma]

6 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

We lived in a no registration state for awhile, but we were still legally homeschooling, because we were complying with the laws regarding home education in that state.  They just happened to be pretty much non-existent.  And if I had to legally defend my education of the children in that state by content or hours or whatever I could have done so.  

 

I guess that is my point.  My state requires nothing.  No registering, no reporting, no testing, no tracking of hours, no portfolios, no curriculum, nada.  If the definition of a "true homeschooler" is following the homeschooling laws of your state, then a "true homeschooler" could vary widely, to the point of being comical, based on what state the family lives in.  To me, that makes the question of whether a family is registered as homeschooling irrelevant when I am trying to determine who is considered a homeschooler.  A family could be doing nothing other than vaguely "providing education" (whatever the parent interprets that to mean) in my state and be following the law whereas someone providing an excellent home education in the next state that happened to choose not to register would not be.  That is not to say that I advocate for breaking the law or feel there is no risk in doing so, I just do not think it is relevant when determining who is actually "homeschooling" or not.

[Jean in Newcastle]

6 minutes ago, skimomma said:

 

I guess that is my point.  My state requires nothing.  No registering, no reporting, no testing, no tracking of hours, no portfolios, no curriculum, nada.  If the definition of a "true homeschooler" is following the homeschooling laws of your state, then a "true homeschooler" could vary widely, to the point of being comical, based on what state the family lives in.  To me, that makes the question of whether a family is registered as homeschooling irrelevant when I am trying to determine who is considered a homeschooler.  A family could be doing nothing other than vaguely "providing education" (whatever the parent interprets that to mean) in my state and be following the law whereas someone providing an excellent home education in the next state that happened to choose not to register would not be.  That is not to say that I advocate for breaking the law or feel there is no risk in doing so, I just do not think it is relevant when determining who is actually "homeschooling" or not.

There are lots of things that are determined at a state level in the United States.  It isn't comical to understand that.  There are differing laws, for example on when someone can get married.  If you are sixteen and "married" in a state that does not recognize sixteen year olds as being able to marry, then you are not married unless you had gone to a state where it is legal and followed their laws.  And even then it only applies because states recognize the marriage certificates from other states even if the marriage laws are different.  It doesn't matter if the sixteen year old insists that she is married because she's "practicing marriage".  In the case of schooling, if you move from one state to another,you then need to follow the homeschooling laws for that state.  (Though I don't know if there are rules on the timing of when you register in the new state if they require registration.) 

[Jean in Newcastle]

None of us are government entities.  We can take someone at their word and treat them as homeschoolers because we don't have to follow the legal definition.  (Same as we might take someone at their word if they are calling their live in boyfriend their husband even though legally they aren't married.)  Or just like in the boyfriend example, we can know and talk about how they aren't legally homeschooling or married but it doesn't affect our relationship with them because it doesn't matter in a casual relationship setting.  In the private sector people can self identify and it doesn't matter.

Where it gets tricky is when people get in trouble with an actual government entity.  At that point the legal definition matters.  And in the case of this thread, where the OP referenced articles which are talking about people who are in trouble with an actual government entity, it still matters.  You wouldn't expect an article to say that a couple was married if they were not legally married.  I don't think that we should let an article say that a family is homeschooling if they are not legally homeschooling because the whole point of it coming up is in relation to their legal status with the government entity that is investigating them. 

[Greta]

Thanks for all the replies!  I really am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts.  I think Jean pretty much summed it up with the point that there is an "everyday" definition that most of us generally use, and a legal definition that's obviously going to be the one used when the government gets involved.  I do wish the media would use the legal definition, since the everyday definition is too wishy-washy to be useful when you're reporting about a legal matter (I'm talking about the way they report cases where the government has gotten involved, of course).

[Greta]

2 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Nope.  If they're not legally homeschooling then on principle I don't consider them homeschoolers.  They're criminals because they're breaking the law. (They're not like murderer or traitors, but they're still criminals.)  This happens enough that around here there are groups that actually use the phrase, "If you homeschool and obey the law..."  or "By homeschoolers we mean someone who has turned in their homeschooling affidavit" They don't allow people homeschooling illegally to participate in their groups or associate with them in any way and they want to distinguish between those legally registered as public schoolers doing public school at home online. 

People who refuse to obey homeschooling laws are the people who will end up getting everybody heavily regulated. 

 

Interesting - I'm in a neighboring state (NM) and it's pretty common here too (though perhaps not that common).  Do you think it's something cultural about this region of the country?  This is the only place I've ever homeschooled, so I have no basis of comparison.

[Momto6inIN]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Even if the state does not require registration, I assume there is some law on the books that defines "homeschooling" and makes homeschoolers exempt from certain requirements while still subject to others.

Indiana doesn't require registration, the only legal requirement is that you have to keep track of attendance and have instruction for 180 days. So someone who wasn't keeping attendance or instructing for 180 days, might in fact be providing an education, maybe even a really superior one, but legally their kids would still qualify as "truant" because the law was not being satisfied.

I know several homeschoolers who don't do this and it drives me nuts. We live in a very low-regulation state, why would we jeopardize that by not following the extremely easy laws?!?

[Dmmetler]

I know of several people here who are or have been unregistered. Usually it’s just a matter of not bothering to do the paperwork, either for the local school district or a cover school (and there are cover schools that offer fee waivers for low income families).  My impression is that usually there is some significant family dysfunction at the time, and that “homeschooling” in the sense of learning in any structured manner is likely to be a low priority as well.  Usually, that’s a season of life issue, and it gets caught up later. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that in states that do require registration, the registration itself is particularly significant because that is what signs you up for the legal category of being a homeschooler.  It's like being a licensed driver.  Obtaining that license is what makes you legally a driver under state law.  You might break another law as a driver but you are still a licensed driver if you have that license and maintain it.  (This is separate from the act of getting behind a wheel and driving which can be done by anyone even if they don't have a license.)

[LMD]

23 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Adding, there is very rarely any dysfunction* in families I observe who are engaged in homeschooling but unregistered. Most unregistered families have religious or philosophical objections to registration. 

Families who call themselves homeschoolers, do not actively home educate, and are unregistered ? Literally in 16 years I have never come across such a family. If they are not home educating, they are unlikely to be found at park days, group lessons, co-op etc. 

*at least, not more than in registered families.

 

 

 

This matches my experience exactly. Most who don't register here have a personal conviction about it. The less rigourous educators I know are all registered, it's not difficult or, imo, an effective measure.  We looked at the wording of the law very carefully before first registering, of course they changed the law afterwards. Sometimes I wish that we hadn't... 

[Jean in Newcastle]

35 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Adding, there is very rarely any dysfunction* in families I observe who are engaged in homeschooling but unregistered. Most unregistered families have religious or philosophical objections to registration. 

Families who call themselves homeschoolers, do not actively home educate, and are unregistered ? Literally in 16 years I have never come across such a family. If they are not home educating, they are unlikely to be found at park days, group lessons, co-op etc. 

*at least, not more than in registered families.

 

 

Those are not the families being written about in articles about yet another abusive “homeschool “ family that is being investigated by CPS. 

[Ravin]

Undocumented homeschoolers are still homeschoolers even if not abiding by the law, much like undocumented immigrants are still immigrants.

[Greta]

44 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

So in a state that requires registration of some sort, what is the penalty for NOT registering? Is it like a warning or a ticket, or more like they put you in jail? I'd assume you'd only be found out if there was some other red flag like CPS or nosy neighbors reporting as truant? Just wondering how it works. 

 

I've wondered this too, but I have never been able to find any official answer.  I suspect not registering could you make you vulnerable to prosecution for truancy, which in my state carries a small fine and community service for a first offense, and a larger fine and jail time for a second offense.  But in reality I would guess that rarely/never happens.  They probably just tell you "register or you will be prosecuted" and that's the end of it.  (I'm guessing!)

[shinyhappypeople]

5 hours ago, Greta said:

Thanks for all the replies!  I really am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts.  I think Jean pretty much summed it up with the point that there is an "everyday" definition that most of us generally use, and a legal definition that's obviously going to be the one used when the government gets involved.  I do wish the media would use the legal definition, since the everyday definition is too wishy-washy to be useful when you're reporting about a legal matter (I'm talking about the way they report cases where the government has gotten involved, of course).

 

 

Me, too.  I do question how much the children in the most recent case were actually being educated.  I mean, yes, it's possible, but with raising10 young children (an enormous task on its own) and both parents working full-time (sounded like dad worked days, mom worked nights) it means that there was very little time the kids had an awake parent to help them. Again, maybe they found a way to make it work, but I'm skeptical.

One good thing about this case being made public is that it serves to highlight the fact that regulations - even EASY ones, as is the case in California - do NOT improve student safety or academic outcomes.  Abusive parents will abuse, regardless.  This family refused to comply will CA's regs, do you think that if we had regs like PA or NY they would magically comply with those?  No.  Of course, homeschool skeptics will fail to put two and two together, but in this case the facts speak for themselves.

[Ellie]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

Even if the state does not require registration, I assume there is some law on the books that defines "homeschooling" and makes homeschoolers exempt from certain requirements while still subject to others.

Why would you assume that? For example, New Jersey has nothing--no law on the books that defines "homeschooling" and no requirements of any kind. California and Texas have no laws on the books that define "homeschooling," although they do have court cases which decided that homeschoolers are the equivalent of unaccredited private schools, but there's still nothing that *defines* "homeschooling."

[Ellie]

11 hours ago, Greta said:

...do you still consider them homeschoolers?  Once many years ago at a homeschooling group event, the moms got to talking about the state's legal requirements for homeschooling.  They are very minimal here:  each year you submit a form declaring your intent to homeschool along with your basic information (name, address, ages of children) and affirming that you have a high school diploma or GED.  That's it.  The state doesn't follow up with you or check in on you in any way.  You don't have to provide a list of curriculum or take standardized tests, nothing.  

So, in this conversation, it came out that about half of the ladies there don't register, some because "why bother?" some because they were outright opposed to the state having any say in homeschooling at all, and were therefore making the conscious decision not to cooperate.  And a couple of people in that latter group were definitely encouraging others not to register.  I was in the half that did register, because my thought was, "why not comply with the law when it is easy and painless to do so, and harms no one?"  

But whichever group you fall into, would you think of all of these people as homeschoolers?  I certainly did, and still do.  

When a "homeschooling" family makes the news for abuse or neglect, I note that when applicable, other homeschoolers are quick to point out that the family wasn't homeschooling, because they hadn't legally registered as homeschoolers.  They were simply truant.  While it's a perfectly valid point to make, I have never heard anyone make that point about normal, functional homeschooling families that aren't legally registered.  It seems to me like we're taking on one definition of homeschooling when it makes us look good (or at least neutral) and another one entirely when it makes us look bad.  Seems like it might be veering little into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not sure I have a point really, just musing, wondering what your thoughts are.  Do most of the homeschoolers you know comply with the law?  Do you consider people who don't comply to be homeschoolers?

If their children are compulsory school age, and they are home instead of going to a public or private school, then yes, they are homeschoolers. Not all states have homeschool laws which require parents to "register" as homeschoolers (Texas, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Indiana, to name a few), so we cannot use that as a measurement. Personally, I would not advise anyone to *not* comply with her state's laws, but if she didn't, I would still think of her as a homeschooler.

[KungFuPanda]

I consider them truant, not homeschoolers. 

[HS Mom in NC]

For me to consider someone a homeschooler they must do 2 things: comply with the homeschooling laws in their state and provide developmentally appropriate academics on a regular basis. Otherwise they're frauds.  I don't get hung up on a project based vs. book based approach or unschooling vs. any other homeschooling approach.  I've seen every kind of homeschooling done really well. I get that some kids are not neurotypical and what's developmentally appropriate for them is different than for other kids who are neurotypical.  I get that kids develop at different paces. I assume anyone introducing themselves as a homeschooler is doing both of those things unless they tell or show me otherwise, so of course I couldn't possibly know if someone is a fraud just by hanging around them at a group activity.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The only reason that a not-legally-homeschooling family is going to come up in the news is because they have done something to actually warrant a CPS investigation (beyond just vague accusations). The only reason that people would say that they are “not really homeschooling “ is because something in their bio shows that they are not actually complying with the homeschool laws for their particular state - no matter what those regulations might be. If there are absolutely  zero regulations (not content or hours or registration or ...) then technically people cannot point to them as not being legal. That’s simple logic. 

[kiwik]

Why has the US not managed to get consistent laws across states? Have you not tried (I find that hard to comprehend) or has it just been too hard?  You have the same president and are in the same country but reading here there seems to be a lack of cohesion.

[Carrie12345]

5 hours ago, Ellie said:

Why would you assume that? For example, New Jersey has nothing--no law on the books that defines "homeschooling" and no requirements of any kind. California and Texas have no laws on the books that define "homeschooling," although they do have court cases which decided that homeschoolers are the equivalent of unaccredited private schools, but there's still nothing that *defines* "homeschooling."

That's not entirely true.  In NJ, homeschooling is required to be "equivalent instruction". While that doesn't give specific Ts to cross and Is to dot, it is a legal requirement, and the Board of Ed CAN initiate truancy proceedings and attempt to prove that education is not occurring. It's very similar to the legal procedures in PA, except we go in knowing we're required to document our education, while NJ residents may find themselves scrambling if they haven't documented for their own non-reporting purposes.  

[Carrie12345]

21 minutes ago, kiwik said:

Why has the US not managed to get consistent laws across states? Have you not tried (I find that hard to comprehend) or has it just been too hard?  You have the same president and are in the same country but reading here there seems to be a lack of cohesion.

 

Our government isn't set up that way.  Each state has the power to handle non-constitution issues.

 

[Targhee]

10 hours ago, Ravin said:

Undocumented homeschoolers are still homeschoolers even if not abiding by the law, much like undocumented immigrants are still immigrants.

 Yes, but what makes them immigrants (of any kind) is theit moving to a country that was not their country of birth.  You wouldn’t call them undocumented immigrants if they never left their natal country.  So by that example an undocumented homeschooler would still have to be homeschooling in order to be an undocumented homeschooler. So, if they are not actually schooling in their home, as in cases of neglect/abuse/forced work where being home is not about education but about avoiding detection of the abuse,  they do not meet the definition of any type of homeschooler. There can be undocumented immigrants and there can be undocumented residents (no birth certificate, no school records, no driver’s license, etc) but they aren’t undocumented Homeschoolers unless they are also homeschooling (providing an education at home).