The Home School Court Report
VOLUME XVIII, NUMBER 1
- disclaimer -
JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2002
Cover
Previous Issue  C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S  


Cover Story
Charter schools: The price is too high

Charter schools: Look before you leap

Regular Features
Freedom watch

A contrario sensu

Active Cases

Notes to members

Prayer and praise

President's page

Across the States
State by State

FYI
HSLDA social services contact policy

A plethora of forms

HSLDA legal contacts for August 2001

H  O  M  E     S  C  H  O  O  L  I  N  G     N  E  W  S     F  R  O  M
Across the States
AL · AR · CA · CO · CT · FL · GA · HI · IA · IL · KS · LA · MA · MI · MO · MT · NC · NE · NJ · NM · NY · OH · OK · RI · SD · TN · TX · VA · VT · WY
New York
Rochester rejects 35 IHIPS

According to the Rochester City School District, the Individualized Home Instruction Plans (IHIPs) submitted by 18 Home School Legal Defense Association member families for their children are deficient because they do not contain the same course content as that offered in the public school. Rochester school officials rejected IHIPs for 35 children-an unprecedented number needing HSLDA's assistance in a single school district.

On behalf of our member families, HSLDA Attorney Dewitt Black responded to the district's coordinator of home school instruction, pointing out that state law does not require the course content of subjects taught in a home instruction program to match what is offered in the public school. This understanding of state law is also shared by the New York State Education Department as indicated in its Revised Questions and Answers on Home Instruction published in July 1996. Any contrary interpretation would effectively destroy private education in all forms.

Even if course content information were required as part of the IHIP, Rochester had been at least two weeks past the legal deadline with each of the notices it sent to these families. State regulation requires the school district to either notify the parents that the IHIP complies with the regulation or give the parents written notice of any deficiency in the IHIP within 10 business days of receipt of the IHIP or by August 31, whichever is later. Because of this, HSLDA took the position that Rochester officials had waived any right to complain about the IHIP contents.

Continuing difficulties such as these emphasize the need for revision of New York law governing home instruction programs. We urge our member families to support Senate Bill 4767 when the New York legislature reconvenes in 2002. This bill would eliminate the IHIP requirement.

- Dewitt T. Black