The HEAV school board monitor team discovered a religious exemption policy that was inconsistent with the law. It stated: “Any request for exemption under Virginia Code § 22.1-254.B(1) must be submitted…four weeks before the first day of the new school year. Exceptions are to be considered on a case by case basis.” The HEAV government affairs team contacted the school board to address concerns regarding these arbitrary requirements.

After speaking with the board’s chairman, HEAV learned the intention of the policy was to provide parents guidance on how they can best comply with compulsory attendance law while waiting for their religious exemption submission to be processed. Although a noble effort was made to provide an answer to the public’s concerns, HEAV explained how the policy was inconsistent with the law and the undue burden such a policy would impose upon parents.

After receiving HEAV’s feedback, the King George school board revised the policy to state, “It is recommended that any request for exemption under Virginia Code § 22.1- 254.B(1) be submitted…before the first day of the new school year.” HEAV is thankful to the King George school board for updating their religious exemption policy to ensure it is consistent with the law.

HEAV contacted the school board regarding a policy stating the superintendent had authority to grant a religious exemption from compulsory attendance. However, the compulsory attendance law gives this authority solely to the school board.

In response to our concern, the school board consulted with their attorney. The attorney advised, although the school board followed the law in practice, the policy did not make this clear. He recommended changing the policy to ensure it is consistent with the law. Following his recommendation, the school board promptly revised its policy.

HEAV is thankful to the Virginia Beach school board for their consistent, top-notch public service, quick responses, effective solutions, and for the example they are to districts around the state.

What You Should Know:

• Policies are not law. Policies should agree with the law. Parents are required to comply with the law.
• The law states: “A school board shall excuse from attendance at school: 1. Any pupil who, together with his parents, by reason of bona fide religious training or belief is conscientiously opposed to attendance at school.
• The law does not indicate that district employees have been given authority to make recommendations or act as an intermediary between a parent and the school board on the matter of religious exemption from compulsory attendance.
• HEAV believes best practice to send religious exemption documents directly to the school board to the attention of the school board chairman. The school board is tasked to review the documentation, determine whether it reflects genuine and sincere religious beliefs; and acknowledge the children are excused from compulsory attendance. HEAV believes the acknowledgement letter should be sent from the school board directly to the parents to ensure confidentiality.
• Reference: §22.1-254.(B)(1), HEAV Article: Religious Exemption.

In July of 2023, HEAV contacted the Prince William superintendent’s office regarding several concerns relating to inconsistencies with the law on the district’s notice of intent form. Our concerns were acknowledged, and we were advised the forms would be up for review in October. However, after finding no changes had been made, HEAV followed up and was recently told deadlines for non-pressing issues tend to be fluid, and the new, final deadline is May 1st, 2024.

What You Should Know:

• HEAV believes the district’s NOI form should indicate the following personal data fields as optional: grade level, date of birth, cell phone, and work phone. It does not.
• The law requires parents to provide a “description of the curriculum, limited to a list of subjects to be studied during the coming year.” HEAV believes the district’s NOI form should reflect this specific language, but it leaves the curriculum description requirement subject to interpretation and overcompliance requests.
• The law states parents who notify under option (iii) may provide their child with “a program of study or curriculum which may be delivered through a correspondence course or distance learning program or in any other manner.” The district’s form, however, requires only one type of evidence for option (iii) that confirms enrollment in a correspondence or distance learning school. It does not indicate the Virginia Department of Education suggests parents provide a list of courses for “in any other manner.”
• HEAV encourages parents to use our NOI form that is consistent with the law, case law, and VDOE guidance (see “Reference” bullet below).
• Reference: HEAV Notice Of Intent Form, §22.1-254.1(A)(iii), §22.1-254.1(B), VDOE Home Instruction Handbook, p. 5

A licensed Virginia teacher, who filed correctly to become a Virginia Certified Tutor under §22.1-254(A), learned her tutor submission was being processed as a notice of intent to homeschool. Additionally, although she explained the law, district representatives persisted in efforts to obtain the full names and ages or birthdates of the students she would be teaching in order to report the data to the VDOE – a task they believed was their duty. Recognizing several errors in the implementation of the law, HEAV reached out regarding district policy.

HEAV learned the district erred in believing students who received instruction via a Virginia-certified tutor were considered homeschoolers under the home instruction statute. After providing clarification on the differences between these two laws, HEAV received feedback indicating the district will no longer request personal student data from Virginia-certified tutors or submit it to the VDOE on the homeschool numbers report.

HEAV is thankful to Powhatan for its positive and prompt response in resolving this concern as well as its commitment to the Virginia Code.

What You Should Know:

• Virginia-certified teachers can file with the superintendent to be recognized as a Virginia-certified tutor. Once acknowledged by the superintendent, they can teach their own children and be hired to teach other people’s children under §22.1-254(A).
• Neither private schools nor Virginia-certified tutors, nor the parents that use them, are required by the  law to provide personal student data to their local public school districts.
• In the case of home instruction, §22.1-254.1, the law allows the local public school superintendent to report to the state superintendent, “the number of students in the school division receiving home instruction.”
• Although districts may report the number of students receiving home instruction, the law does not require the student’s birthdates.
• The 2020 Virginia Supreme Court in Sosebee v. Franklin County School Board concluded public school districts cannot require information beyond what is required in the law; only the state legislature can do so. The homeschool statute does not require parents to fill out district forms or provide information that goes beyond what the statute requires.
• Reference: §22.1-254(A), HEAV Law Flowchart, 2023 HEAV Letter to Superintendents, HEAV Article: Certified Tutor Option, §22.1-254.1(G), Virginia Supreme Court Case: Sosebee v. Franklin County School Board

A parent, who notified of her intent to homeschool under option (iii) “in any other manner,” was asked to submit proof of enrollment in an online program or a written description of her homeschool curriculum as evidence of having met this option’s criteria for providing home instruction. Additionally, she was asked to provide grade level data for her children. Although the parent advised the requested information was not applicable, the district persisted. The parent then contacted HEAV for help.

HEAV reached out to the supervisor of pupil personnel to clarify the law and address public school district limitations regarding personal data of homeschooled children.

The supervisor responded favorably to HEAV and we are thankful to Hopewell for this positive resolution.

What You Should Know:

• Under NOI option (iii), the law indicates any parent may homeschool “if he (iii) provides the child with a program of study or curriculum, which may be delivered through a correspondence course or distance learning program or in any other manner.”
• The VDOE Home Instruction Handbook states: “If the teaching parent provides a program of study or curriculum that is delivered through any other manner, a list of the courses to be studied for the coming year must be submitted to the school division. Submission of these materials is for information purposes only.” Neither the law nor VDOE guidance indicate parents are required to provide a written description of their homeschool curriculum for this NOI option.
• The law states the description of curriculum requirement is “…limited to a list of subjects to be studied during the coming year.”
• The law does not require parents to provide information that goes beyond what the statute requires.
• The law does not require homeschool parents to assign or provide a grade level for a public school district’s administrative purposes.
• The Virginia Supreme Court has determined that public school districts cannot add requirements to the law; only the state legislature can do so.
• Reference: §22.1-254.1(A)(iii), §22.1-254.1(B), VDOE Home Instruction Handbook, p. 5, Virginia Supreme Court: Sosebee v. Franklin County School Board, HEAV Article: Options 3 and 4

HEAV contacted the Williamsburg-James City school board regarding the unconventionally swift, ten-day review and adoption timeframe of a policy that included text inconsistent with the home instruction law. The district’s policy incorrectly indicated parents must attain the required evidence of progress scores “on a battery of achievement tests approved by the State Board of Education for use in the public schools.”

Although the school board did not respond to our communications, the HEAV School Board Monitor Team discovered our correspondence was, indeed, received and reviewed by the school board attorney. Three months after our initial concerns were presented to the board, the policy was updated, and the error was corrected.

HEAV appreciates the board’s action in ensuring their home instruction policy is consistent with the Virginia Code.

What You Should Know:

• The law states: “Each local school board shall maintain and follow up-to-date policies. All school board policies shall be reviewed at least every five years and revised as needed.” The review, revision, and adoption process generally takes between two to four months, ensuring the public has ample time to respond and address concerns before final action is taken on the item.
• The law offers several evidence of progress options to parents including, “…evidence that the child has attained a composite score in or above the fourth stanine on any nationally normed standardized achievement test.”
• The law does not require the State Board of Education to maintain a list of approved achievement tests. The VDOE Home Instruction Handbook notes: “…VDOE does not maintain a list of approved tests and evaluations.” The handbook verifies, ‘a parent may use any nationally normed standardized achievement test as evidence of academic achievement.’
• Reference: HEAV’s Virginia Laws Flowchart, §22.1-254.1(C), VDOE Home Instruction Handbook, p. 8, §22.1-253.13:7

An HEAV school board monitor identified a violation of the homeschool statute’s privacy law, §22.1-254.1(G). A homeschool child’s personal identifying information–full name, city and state of residence, grade level, and new-homeschooler status–was posted publicly on a school board agenda.

HEAV immediately sent an urgent request to the school board clerk, chair, vice chair, and superintendent to remove the child’s personal data from public view. Unfortunately, Columbus Day weekend had begun, and the child’s personal data was not removed from public view until staff returned the next work day.

HEAV was contacted by the human resources coordinator the following Tuesday afternoon. She thanked us for letting them know about the incident, apologized for the error, and confirmed the child’s personal information had been removed from the public agenda. HEAV appreciates Rappahannock’s positive response and correction to this concern.

What You Should Know:

• In 2015, HEAV initiated a change to the homeschool law, ensuring privacy protections for homeschool parents and children.
• The homeschool law prohibits school districts from disclosing information received from a parent or student when notifying the superintendent of their intent to homeschool (NOI form) or submitting information regarding a religious exemption. This information cannot be disclosed to anyone outside the school district without the parent’s consent. Districts are prohibited from providing information to other school districts, the VDOE (other than the annual number of homeschoolers), neighbors, employers, military recruiters, colleges, academies, or other entities.
• Reference: §22.1-254.1(G)

A parent contacted HEAV after receiving a form letter indicating “homeschool instruction…will not be approved” until “required documentation is submitted.” The requirement included a “curriculum outline for each child” and additional, personal data fields on the district’s NOI form. On behalf of all Clarke County parents, HEAV reached out to the superintendent’s office to clarify the requirements in the law and help ensure its proper implementation.

HEAV received a prompt response from the office manager who thanked us for providing information about the law and advised appropriate changes would be made to the letters and forms. Parents should see these concerns resolved in future correspondence. HEAV is thankful for Clarke County’s positive response to our concerns.

What You Should Know:

• Public school districts do not have the statutory authority to approve a parent’s decision to enroll in a private school, hire a Virginia-certified tutor, or homeschool.
• The law requires parents to provide “a description of curriculum, limited to a list of subjects to be studied during the coming year.“
• Public school districts may not add to the requirements of the law; only the state legislature can do so.
• We suggest parents use HEAV’s NOI as it is consistent with the law, case law, and VDOE guidance.
• Reference: §22.1-254(A), §22.1-254.1, Sosebee v. Franklin County School Board, HEAV’s NOI Form

While responding to a parent’s inquiry regarding information on the district’s notice of intent form that was inconsistent with the law, HEAV discovered several other concerns with the district’s forms, website, and homeschool policy. After reaching out to the superintendent and school board, we received a letter from the school board attorney in response.

The attorney advised the following:

• Inconsistencies on the district’s NOI form “will be considered” for an update including additional personal data fields, the description of curriculum, and the evidentiary requirements under NOI option (iii) and (iv). Note: As of 12/06/23, the district has not updated the notice of intent form provided on their website (see “What You Should Know” below);
• Language on the website indicating that the school board approves an individual’s homeschool status, “could be updated,” noting the school board’s actual practice is not to approve home instruction; and
• Inconsistent language in policy LBD regarding the description of curriculum “will be proposed to the School Board for revision.”

What You Should Know:

• Parents are required to comply with the law. Parents may wish to contact an attorney if a district insists they comply with a policy that is inconsistent with the law.
• Notice of Intent: The law does not require parents to use district forms. Parents may wish to provide their notice using a prepared form that is in agreement with the law (see HEAV’s NOI form linked below) or they may choose to submit their NOI by writing a simple letter.
• NOI Data Requirement: The law does not require parents to provide personal data such as date of birth, the grade level, the school the student would attend, or more curriculum detail than a list of subjects to be studied in the coming year.
• NOI Option (iii) and (iv) evidentiary requirements: The law does not require homeschool programs to align with the public school’s Standards of Learning. Additionally, homeschool students are prohibited from taking SOLs.
• Notice of Intent: The law requires parents to provide a notice of their intention to home educate; approval is not required. Further, the law does not indicate public school districts have the statutory authority to approve a parent’s decision to enroll in a private school, hire a Virginia-certified tutor, or homeschool.
• Reference: §22.1-254.1(A), §22.1-254.1(B), VDOE Home Instruction Handbook, p. 5, Virginia Supreme Court (case law) Sosebee v Franklin County, HEAV’s NOI Form