An Act Concerning The Provision Of Parent-managed Learning.
Summary
HB 5468, Public Act 26-37, creates a new statutory framework for “parent-managed learning” in Connecticut. The bill amends the state’s compulsory attendance laws so that children ages 5 through 17 who are not high school graduates may satisfy the education requirement by enrolling in public school, attending a nonpublic school, or being instructed through parent-managed learning. It also preserves existing provisions allowing delayed school entry for 5- and 6-year-olds, and it updates withdrawal rules for students leaving public school, including special procedures for 17-year-olds entering adult education and for students 18 or older withdrawing on their own.
The act requires the Department of Education to develop standardized “intent to educate” and withdrawal forms by July 1, 2027, and it creates annual filing requirements beginning in the 2028 school year for families using public school, nonpublic school, or parent-managed learning. It also requires school districts to make contact attempts if an expected form is not received and to notify the Department of Education if they cannot reach the family. In addition, the bill revises the reporting rules for nonpublic schools and adds parent-managed learning counts to the state’s education data reporting system.
A major policy change in the bill is that a parent or guardian withdrawing a child from public school for parent-managed learning must undergo a Department of Children and Families records check for all adults in the home. If any adult is on the child abuse and neglect registry or under active investigation for abuse or neglect, the withdrawal is not effective. The bill also authorizes DCF to receive educational records for these cases and makes related changes to confidentiality and records-disclosure statutes. These provisions are intended to create a formal, regulated pathway for home-based education while adding child-safety screening and administrative oversight.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears mixed but ultimately favorable enough for passage, with the bill advancing through committee and receiving majority support in both chambers. However, the repeated failed amendment votes in the Senate and the narrower margins on some votes suggest significant disagreement over parts of the proposal. The most notable point of contention is the DCF background-check requirement for adults in the home, which likely raised privacy, family autonomy, and administrative burden concerns, while supporters appear to have emphasized educational choice, clearer procedures, and state oversight of home instruction.
Impact
The bill substantially revises Connecticut’s compulsory attendance and school withdrawal statutes, especially section 10-184, by formally recognizing parent-managed learning as a lawful educational option alongside public and nonpublic schooling. It also amends section 10-188 to tie nonpublic-school compliance to annual attendance reporting and updates section 10-10a to require the state to track the number of children educated through parent-managed learning. Related changes to DCF records-disclosure law expand access for school districts and state agencies in connection with the new withdrawal screening process.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had a generally supportive but divided reception. It cleared committee votes and passed both chambers, indicating enough bipartisan or cross-faction support to move forward, but the multiple failed Senate amendment votes and the size of the no votes show that the proposal was controversial. Support likely centered on parental choice and clearer homeschooling rules, while opposition likely focused on the new state oversight and DCF screening requirements.
Contention
The main controversy is the requirement that school districts conduct DCF records checks on all adults living in a home before a child can be withdrawn for parent-managed learning. Critics may view this as intrusive, burdensome, or unfair to families seeking home education, while supporters likely see it as a child-protection safeguard. Additional points of debate include the new annual intent-to-educate filing requirement, the reporting obligations imposed on districts and nonpublic schools, and the broader question of how much state oversight should accompany home-based education.
An Act Concerning The State Budget For The Biennium Ending June 30, 2027, And Making Appropriations Therefor, And Provisions Related To Revenue And Other Items Implementing The State Budget.