Current Issue | Archives | Advertising | About | Search
VOLUME XXI, NUMBER 2
- disclaimer -
March / April 2005


FEATURES
Taylor broke ground with NCAA
Judicial Tyranny Goes Global
Let the Facts Speak

DEPARTMENTS
Freedom watch
From the heart

Realizing dreams

For more information

From the director

HSF Mission Statement
Across the states
Members only
Active cases
About campus

PHC grad wins prize for economics paper
President's page

ET AL.

On the other hand: a Contrario Sensu

HSLDA social services contact policy/A plethora of forms

HSLDA legal inquiries


 «
  LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE UPDATES  

» 


ACROSS THE STATES

CA · CT · FL · HI · IL · IN · IA · KS · LA · MA · MI · MN · NE · NY · NC · OH · OK · RI · SD · TX · VA · DC · WI

NEW YORK

Districts threaten families

Recently, several public school districts threatened to report individual Home School Legal Defense Association member families to social services for educational neglect or otherwise deny the parents the right to homeschool their children. In each of these situations, HSLDA was able to defuse the threats.

In one school district, a member family was threatened with educational neglect charges because the district had lost the family's quarterly report forms from the previous school year. HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt wrote to the district that the family had already submitted these forms. He pointed out that the administrative failure of the district to properly keep track of records would not justify a claim of educational neglect.

Another member family was told that because their child had scored below the 33rd percentile on a standardized test, they would be required to submit a remediation plan for him. However, since the test score reflected one academic year's growth since the previous year, Schmidt notified the district that the child had made adequate academic progress and no remediation plan was legally required.

Yet another school district reported a family for educational neglect because of the child's special education needs. District officials did not approve of the parents' decision to teach the child at home because they felt the family could not provide an appropriate education for him. Schmidt informed the school social worker that the family had worked very closely with a special education specialist to develop a tailored program for their child. In addition, the special education provider confirmed that the student's needs were being met.

— by Thomas J. Schmidt