NEW YORK
Proposed Revision of IHIP Requirements
As has been reported in earlier editions of The Home School Court Report, a number of New York school districts have been insisting that the Individualized Home Instruction Plan (IHIP) submitted by parents contain either one of two methods of curriculum description: a list of the syllabi, curriculum materials, or textbooks; or a plan of instruction. This interpretation of the home instruction regulation arose out of a decision by the Commissioner of Education in June of 1990 known as the White case. Home School Legal Defense Association was not involved in representing the home-schooling family in the White case and has steadfastly opposed the interpretation and application of the IHIP provisions to limit parents to two choices in describing their curriculum.
On December 9, 1994, after an unsuccessful effort to have the State Education Department acknowledge that the IHIP provision had been wrongly interpreted, HSLDA attorney Dewitt Black wrote a letter to Samuel W. Corsi, Jr., the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic School Services at the State Education Department. Attorney Black enclosed with the letter a number of documents provided by veteran home-schooling leaders in New York which reveal the regulatory history of the IHIP provisions. Also included for Mr. Corsi's consideration were affidavits from Michael Farris, President of HSLDA, and Sharon Grimes, a representative of New York State Loving Education at Home (LEAH), both of whom were original drafters of the regulatory language. The affidavits stated that the intent of the original drafters of the regulations was that there be four choices, not two. In other words, a parent may submit 1) a list of the syllabi, 2) a list of the curriculum materials, 3) a list of textbooks, or 4) a plan of instruction.
In a letter dated December 15, 1994, Margaret E. Lynch-Brennan, Program Manager for Home Instruction at the State Education Department, advised HSLDA that the Department's Home Instruction Advisory Group (HIAG) agreed that parents were entitled to choose one of four methods of describing their curriculum, not two. HIAG intends to ask the Commissioner of Education to modify his decision in the White case in order to rectify the consequences of the previous interpretation. In closing, Ms. Lynch-Brennan stated:
The information you submitted with your December 9th letter is exactly the documentation on the original intent of Section 100.10(d)(2) that we have been seeking. I believe this information will be of great help to us in seeking the re-visiting of the Appeal of White and the clarification of the Commissioner's interpretation of Section 100.10(d)(2).
Printer Friendly Version
