On May 4th, 2026, 7 minutes before midnight, HB 5468 passed and is heading toward the Governor’s desk for approval or a veto.
The Senate session lasted almost 6 hours with Republicans who commented and/or raised amendments, all of which were voted down on party lines. Below are the amendments. Nine of the thirty-nine were called.
To reference the full bill text: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/FC/PDF/2026HB-05468-R000724-FC.PDF
🧾 Amendment LCO 5905 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have allowed parents to:
👉 Sign an affidavit (sworn statement) instead of providing documentation to prove a child will attend a nonpublic school.
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill: Requires proof (e.g., acceptance/enrollment evidence)
- Amendment: Would allow self-attestation under oath
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Less paperwork
- More privacy
- Greater reliance on parental responsibility
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Harder to verify
- Easier to bypass documentation
- Weakens enforcement of the system
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 The amendment tried to shift from “prove it” → “attest to it”
👉 It was rejected because the bill is built around verification, not self-certification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5904 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have required the state to:
👉 Define and provide guidance on what counts as acceptable proof that a child is attending a nonpublic school.
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill:
Requires parents to provide “evidence” — but doesn’t clearly define what that is - Amendment:
Would have made the State Department of Education:- Clarify acceptable proof
- Give guidance to both parents and districts
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Reduces confusion
- Creates consistency across districts
- Prevents districts from making up their own standards
- Cons (why it was likely rejected):
- Limits flexibility for districts/state agencies
- Delays or complicates implementation
- Reduces discretionary control
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to add clarity and consistency
👉 It was rejected, leaving “acceptable evidence” undefined and open to interpretation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5905 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have allowed parents to:
👉 Sign an affidavit (sworn statement) instead of providing documentation to prove a child will attend a nonpublic school.
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill: Requires proof/evidence
- Amendment: Would allow self-attestation under oath
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Less paperwork
- More privacy
- Relies on parental honesty
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Harder to verify
- Easier to bypass documentation
- Weakens enforcement
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to shift from “prove it” → “attest to it”
👉 It was rejected because the bill relies on verification, not self-reporting
🧾 Amendment LCO 5911 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have:
👉 Exempted children of military families from the requirements of this law
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill:
Applies to all families, including military families - Amendment:
➡️ Military families would not be subject to these requirements
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Recognizes frequent moves and unique challenges of military families
- Reduces administrative burden for those families
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Creates unequal treatment between families
- Carves out an exception from a statewide system
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to exclude military families from the law
👉 It was rejected, so the law applies equally to military families as well
🧾 Amendment LCO 5912 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have:
👉 Made the entire law contingent on federal approval under FERPA
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill:
Moves forward assuming DCF can access education records as a “state educational authority” - Amendment:
➡️ Required the U.S. Department of Education to approve that designation first
➡️ If approval is denied or not given, the law would not take effect
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Ensures compliance with federal privacy law (FERPA)
- Prevents implementation if data-sharing is not legally allowed
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Could delay or block the law entirely
- Adds federal dependency to a state law
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to say: “No federal approval = no law”
👉 It was rejected, so the bill proceeds without requiring that federal sign-off first
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5914 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have:
👉 Required legislative approval and public input before the required forms could be used
🧠 What That Means
- Current bill:
The Department of Education creates the forms and distributes them - Amendment:
➡️ Forms must be:- Reviewed by the legislature
- Subject to a public hearing
- Approved (or rejected) before use
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Adds transparency
- Allows public input
- Provides legislative oversight
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Slows implementation
- Adds another approval layer
- Reduces agency control
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to add oversight and public review of the forms
👉 It was rejected, leaving form creation entirely with the Department of Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5917 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have:
👉 Required DCF to report annually on how it helps families with truant children
🧠 What That Means
- DCF would:
- Track its efforts to assist families dealing with truancy
- Submit a yearly report to the legislature
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Increases accountability
- Focuses attention on existing truancy issues
- Provides data to guide policy
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Adds reporting requirements
- Shifts focus away from the bill’s main purpose
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to add accountability on truancy efforts
👉 It was rejected, so no additional reporting requirement was added
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5884 — Simple Summary
This amendment would have:
👉 Required the Governor to participate in a federal program supporting scholarship-granting organizations
🧠 What That Means
- The state would:
- Identify approved scholarship organizations
- Submit them to the federal government
👉 These organizations typically help fund private education options
⚖️ Why It Matters
- Pros:
- Expands school choice options
- Provides financial support opportunities for families
- Cons (why it was rejected):
- Not directly related to the homeschool bill
- Adds a separate policy issue into the legislation
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to add a school choice / scholarship component
👉 It was rejected as outside the scope of the bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧾 Amendment LCO 5884 — Simple Summary
👉 Would require the Governor to opt Connecticut into a federal scholarship program
🧠 What That Means
- The state would:
- Identify scholarship organizations
- Send that list to the federal government
👉 These programs help fund private education options
🔎 Bottom Line
👉 This amendment tried to add a school choice funding piece
👉 It was rejected as unrelated to the main bill