Rebuttal to Sarah Eagan’s Testimony on HB-5468
Former Child Advocate Sarah Eagan testified in support of HB-5468, a bill that would impose new state oversight on homeschooling families in Connecticut.
Her testimony was framed as a thoughtful effort to “balance accountability with parental rights.” But when examined closely, the argument rests on a series of assumptions that do not withstand scrutiny.
What emerges is not a balanced proposal. It is a policy built on speculation, selective framing, and the redirection of responsibility away from institutional failures.
The Tragedies Used to Justify the Bill Were Not Homeschool Cases
Throughout her testimony, Eagan referenced horrific child abuse cases that occurred in Connecticut. No one disputes the seriousness of those tragedies. But the central fact remains unchanged: the cases repeatedly invoked in support of HB-5468 were not homeschooling cases.
The children cited during the hearing were:
enrolled in public school at various points
already known to the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
already subject to reports and investigations
In other words, the state already had authority and visibility. The failures that occurred were failures of existing systems, not failures of homeschooling. Using those tragedies to justify sweeping oversight of homeschooling families does not address the cause of those failures. It shifts attention away from them.
The Argument Is Based on Possibilities, Not Evidence
When asked directly whether the proposed regulations would actually prevent abuse, Eagan’s answer was revealing. She acknowledged she did not know.
Her argument repeatedly relied on phrases such as:
“I think it could have made a difference.”
“There’s a possibility the answer may be yes.”
“It might deter some individuals.”
These are speculative claims, not evidence. Public policy affecting thousands of families should not be built on conjecture about what might happen. It should be based on clear evidence that the proposed intervention would solve the problem it claims to address. That evidence was not presented.
The Bill Targets Families Who Were Never Part of the Problem
The justification offered for HB-5468 is that some adults may remove children from school under the “pretense” of homeschooling. Even if that concern exists in isolated cases, the bill does not target those specific situations.
Instead, it creates a regulatory framework applying to all homeschooling families, including families who:
have homeschooled responsibly for years
never had involvement with DCF
withdrew children for legitimate educational or safety reasons
began homeschooling from the start
In effect, a narrow concern about a small number of cases becomes the justification for monitoring thousands of law-abiding families.
The Proposal Expands Institutional Control Over Children
One of the most concerning aspects of the proposal is the assumption that schools or government-approved evaluators should verify homeschooling through assessments or documentation. This raises a critical issue that was largely ignored in the hearing: children themselves have rights.
Families often withdraw children from school for deeply serious reasons, including:
bullying from staff or students
harassment from staff or students
unsafe school environments
chronic academic failure
the needs of children with disabilities
For those families, homeschooling is not simply an educational preference. It is a protective decision. Requiring those same children to prove their education to the institutional systems their parents intentionally left raises serious questions about autonomy, privacy, and the role of government in family life.
The Testimony Acknowledged System Failures — But Did Not Address Them
Eagan openly acknowledged that both the child welfare system and public schools need improvement. That point is correct. But acknowledging institutional failures while proposing expanded authority for those same institutions does not resolve the problem. If agencies responsible for child protection already failed to intervene in known cases of abuse, expanding oversight over families who were never part of those failures does not strengthen child protection. It simply extends the reach of systems that have already demonstrated serious weaknesses.
Regulation Is Not the Same as Protection
Eagan also emphasized that many states regulate homeschooling more heavily than Connecticut. But the existence of regulation elsewhere does not prove that it improves child safety or educational outcomes. Many policies exist simply because they were enacted decades ago and have never been reconsidered. The question legislators must answer is not whether regulation exists somewhere. The real question is whether this regulation solves the problem it claims to solve. That case was never demonstrated.
The Central Contradiction
The most striking contradiction in the testimony is this:
The tragedies used to justify the bill occurred within systems that already had authority to intervene.
Yet the proposed solution is not to fix those systems.
Instead, it is to create new oversight of families who were never involved in those failures.
That approach does not strengthen child protection.
It shifts responsibility.
The Question Legislators Must Ask
Everyone agrees that children deserve safety. But lawmakers must decide whether expanding state oversight of homeschooling families actually addresses the problem described. The evidence presented during the hearing suggests something very different. The children cited in these tragedies were already known to the system. They were not invisible. The system failed them anyway. Before creating a new regulatory framework for families who had nothing to do with those failures, legislators should first confront the harder question:
Why did the systems already responsible for protecting those children fail to act?
Until that question is answered honestly, expanding oversight of homeschooling families risks repeating the same mistake — focusing on the wrong problem while the real one remains unresolved.
Let’s look at specific points in her testimony that are eye-opening to what she’s framing.
1. Her Claim: “States regulate homeschooling and courts allow it.”
What she said (paraphrased) – Courts have long held that states can regulate homeschooling.
The Problem
This is technically true but irrelevant to the argument she is making. Why? Because courts allowing some regulation does not mean any regulation is justified, necessary, or constitutional in a particular case.
Simple Rebuttal
The question is not whether states can regulate homeschooling.
The question is whether this regulation solves a real problem — and no evidence was presented that it does. “Permitted” does not mean “necessary,” and it certainly does not mean “effective!”
2. Her Claim: “Some parents withdraw children under the pretense of homeschooling.”
What she said: “Adults can remove children from school claiming homeschooling but have no intention of educating them.”
The Problem
She provides no data to show this is a widespread issue. Even she admits atrocities are rare. Yet the policy response regulates every homeschool family.
Simple Rebuttal
Public policy should not treat thousands of responsible families as suspects based on speculation about what a few bad actors might do.
Even sharper version: If abuse is already illegal, the answer is enforcing existing laws — not regulating innocent families.
3. Her Claim: “A framework might deter bad actors.”
What she said: “A regulatory framework might deter someone from withdrawing a child under false pretenses.”
The Problem: This is pure speculation. Even she admits it would not prevent most cases.
Simple Rebuttal
Government should not impose sweeping oversight of families based on the hope that it might deter something that is already illegal. Policy built on “maybe” is not policy — it’s guesswork.
The Most Damaging Contradiction in Her Testimony
This is the single line that collapses the argument: She acknowledged that the major tragedies cited were NOT homeschooling cases. That means the system already had authority and visibility. Yet the proposed solution is to regulate homeschool families instead of fixing those failures.
One sentence that exposes it: The tragedies cited in support of this bill occurred within systems that already had authority to intervene — yet the proposed solution is to regulate families who were never involved in those failures.
Her testimony acknowledges the tragedies weren’t homeschooling cases.
Her proposal regulates families who were never involved in those failures.
The evidence presented never shows that the bill would actually prevent abuse.
That sure does make the argument much harder to dismiss politically.
“If there’s nothing in place to follow up on a child that is permanently withdrawn from school for a stated purpose, then how do we prevent that pretense?”
At first glance it sounds reasonable. But when you slow down and examine it, it exposes the entire premise behind the push for regulation. The key word is “pretense.” What she is arguing is that the state must assume that some parents who say they are homeschooling are lying — and therefore a system must exist to verify that parents are telling the truth. That is the philosophical shift underlying the entire proposal.
It moves homeschooling from a presumption of parental good faith to a presumption that parents must prove their legitimacy to the state.
Once that premise is accepted, everything else follows naturally:
annual demonstrations
outside evaluations
documentation requirements
potential state involvement if the state disagrees with a parent’s decisions
In other words, the goal is not merely to respond to specific abuse cases. The goal is to create a mechanism to verify homeschooling families on an ongoing basis. That is why this sentence matters. It reveals that the policy is built on a preventive suspicion model — the idea that the state must monitor families in order to detect possible deception. The difficulty with that premise is obvious.
Under American law and tradition, families are generally presumed to be acting lawfully unless evidence shows otherwise. Policies built on suspicion invert that principle. They treat the absence of government oversight as a problem in itself. And once that shift occurs, the question is no longer whether abuse occurred in a particular case.
The question becomes whether families must prove to the government that they are legitimate.
That is the real debate at the center of this bill — and that single sentence from Eagan’s testimony reveals it clearly.