Letter to Hampton School Superintendent
July 22, 2014
Dr. Linda Shifflette
Hampton Superintendent of Schools
1 Franklin Street
Hampton, VA 23669
Dear Dr. Shifflette,
Home Educators Association of Virginia (HEAV) is the statewide organization instrumental in the passage of the original home-instruction statute by the Virginia General Assembly in 1983. With more than 40,000 families on our mailing list, we continue to protect the rights of home-educating parents by acting as liaison with legislators, division superintendents, school boards, and the Virginia Department of Education; we also provide information and resources that assist parents in this viable educational option.
It has come to HEAV’s attention that the City of Hampton has developed forms and procedures for homeschooling parents that are confusing and inconsistent with the compulsory attendance and homeschool laws in Virginia Codes §22.1-254 and §22.1-254.1.
I would like to address our concerns with each form listed below:
Home School and Non-Religious Exemption: Application for Exemption from Compulsory School Attendance.
Based on the title above and the form’s introductory statement, this form includes home-instructed students in the section referring to exemptions from compulsory attendance laws. However, the policies and requirements for home instruction as described in §22.1-254.1 do not refer to home instruction as an exemption from compulsory attendance. Parents who instruct their children at home are, in fact, complying with the home-instruction statute. They are not applying for an “exemption,” but rather are electing to provide home instruction in lieu of school attendance.
To further clarify, §22.1-254 (B-D) lists students the school board “shall” exempt and those they “may” exempt from attendance at school. Home-instructed students are not included in either list. The introductory statement also indicates parents must complete this form and that incomplete applications will not be processed. The statute does not require parents to complete a particular form; however, they are to annually notify the division superintendent of their intent to provide home instruction. This can be done in a letter or on a form of their choosing that includes the information required by law.
When parents “annually notify the division superintendent,” they are not required to “apply” or to fill out an “application” in order to homeschool. The statute states parents must notify the superintendent’s office of their intention to provide home instruction and indicate the way in which they have complied with the requirements in §22.1-254.1. The statute also gives the superintendent the authority to receive and acknowledge home-instruction notifications—not the school board as referenced in the form’s introductory paragraph.
§22.1-254.1 does not require a parent or pupil of any age to sign under oath with signatures notarized by a Notary Public. Neither does it require the name of the present or planned school enrollment or the grade level.
Notice of Intent to Provide Home Instruction
Regarding the Notice of Intent form, according to §22.1-254.1, the parent is not “requesting authorization” or seeking approval to provide home instruction. The parent is notifying the superintendent of his intent to homeschool and is showing how he has complied with §22.1-254.1.
The same statute does not require that a parent provide a child’s birth date and grade level. The law also does not require a parent to disclose if the child has a current IEP.
Religious Exemption: Application for Exemption from Compulsory School Attendance
§22.1-254 (B)(1) does not indicate the school board has authority to deny an exemption because a parent has failed to describe his religious beliefs on a particular form.
§22.1-254 (B)(1) does not require the parent or student to sign under oath with signatures notarized by a Notary Public.
Neither does §22.1-254 (B)(1) require that a parent and pupil “reaffirm” the contents of the application by completing a renewal form.
Questions based on a parent’s participation in a church or organization are inappropriate, as the courts have ruled that personal beliefs are legitimate and protected by the First Amendment and the Code of Virginia §22.1-254(B)(1). Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707, 715-716 (1981) states that a family is entitled to the exemption even if their convictions are not supported by a tenet or doctrine of their church or denomination. In Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for a religious belief to be legitimate or bona fide, the religious belief may be personal rather than mandated by a church. The Court held that whether or not the individual’s church formally supports the religious belief held by the individual is irrelevant in determining the legitimacy of that religious belief (489 U.S at 833).
Therefore, letters of affirmation may be submitted by those who know the parents and can speak to the sincerity of the beliefs of the parents. The statute does not require having letters submitted by those who can speak to the nature of their affiliation with the church or organization.
The length of association or affiliation, or the timing of a parent’s religious beliefs, is irrelevant and immaterial according to Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 480 U.S. 136, 144 n.9 (1987). “So long as one’s faith is religiously based at the time it is asserted, it should not matter, for constitutional purposes, whether that faith is derived from revelation, study, upbringing, gradual evolution, or some source that appears entirely incomprehensible.”
You have asked the parent to describe the elements of the public school curriculum or practices that are in conflict with the beliefs and tenets of the parent’s and student’s religion. The inquiry and consideration of a school board can only focus on the sincerity of religious beliefs.
You have asked why attendance at a private, denominational, or parochial school; instruction by a tutor or teacher of qualifications; and home instruction conflict with the parent’s and student’s tenets and beliefs. The Virginia Supreme Court in Johnson v. Prince William County, 404 S.E.2d 209 (Va. 1991) ruled that the sole test is the bona fides of their religious beliefs. The Court condemned portions of two attorney general opinions that improperly required families seeking a religious exemption to prove that homeschooling and private schooling do not accommodate their religious beliefs (Id. At 211 and 212). The Court said the sole test is whether public school attendance violates the family’s bona fide religious beliefs.
HEAV is genuinely concerned about Hampton City Schools’ policies that go beyond the requirements of the compulsory attendance and home-instruction laws. HEAV and representatives of Hampton homeschool families would like to meet with you and Dr. Copeland at your earliest convenience to discuss our concerns. It is our goal to work with you in every way we can within the parameters of the law. We would like to resolve these concerns and maintain our good relationship with your office.
Sincerely,
Yvonne Bunn
Director of Legislative Affairs
