CHN and NHELD are here to support parents in gaining confidence when speaking to their legislators. It’s a wonderful opportunity to talk to them and be a real person – a real family – for them to connect with. Do you wonder what to discuss with them? Here are some ideas that are a good springboard to get a conversation going. We encourage you to consider these lines of thought and of course, add your own experiences!
Below are some facts that you can share with your legislators, family and friends, too. You’ll want to ask them what they have heard, what they know, and what they feel about supporting parental rights.
Tightening your existing points (with legislator-friendly framing)
1. Parent education levels
National data consistently shows a high percentage of homeschooling parents hold college degrees.
At the same time, decades of research show parent degree status is not predictive of homeschool student outcomes.
The takeaway: homeschooling works across educational backgrounds, which undermines the premise that credentialing parents improves outcomes.
Framing: “Outcomes are driven by individualized instruction and family engagement, not parent credentials.”
2. Homeschoolers are not a special risk category
There is no empirical evidence that homeschooled children are abused or neglected at higher rates than other children.
Labeling homeschoolers as a “risk group” is a policy claim, not a data-supported conclusion.
Framing: “Policy should be evidence-based, not assumption-based.”
3. ‘Invisible children’ is a myth
Homeschooled children routinely interact with: doctors, dentists, therapists, coaches, librarians, tutors, church leaders, co-op instructors, employers, trade mentors, volunteer coordinators, family, friends and neighbors. Many of these environments include mandated reporters. Homeschoolers are not exempt from being reported to DCF. They are subject to the same laws for child protection as any other family.
Framing: “Homeschooling changes where children are seen, not whether they are seen.”
4. Academic and postsecondary outcomes
Homeschoolers consistently: score above national averages on standardized tests, graduate college at higher rates, are widely accepted by U.S. colleges and universities (including Ivy League).
Colleges actively recruit homeschoolers because they tend to be: self-directed, academically prepared, resilient learners.
Framing: “Higher education is the ultimate accountability system — and it is not raising concerns.”
5. Connecticut child tragedies
In every high-profile CT child death case cited in legislative discussions: the child was known to DCF, the child had public school enrollment or school system involvement, the child was not homeschooled. These tragedies represent system failure, not parental absence.
Framing: “These cases demonstrate oversight failure where oversight already existed.”
6. Fixing agencies vs. expanding surveillance
Expanding oversight to families who are not failing does not fix institutional breakdowns.
Without addressing: staffing shortages, caseload volume, training failures, accountability gaps, the same failures will repeat — with or without new homeschool rules.
Framing: “Policy should fix what’s broken, not expand the scope of what already isn’t working.”
7. Why families are homeschooling now
Many families have turned to homeschooling because of: unsafe school environments, unaddressed bullying, inadequate special education services – chronic truancy mismanagement. Homeschooling is often a protective response, not an avoidance behavior.
Framing: “Homeschooling is increasingly a safety and access decision.”
Additional strong points to add
8. Connecticut already has one of the least intrusive systems — and it works
CT has decades of stable homeschooling outcomes without: mandatory assessments, reporting requirements, home visits, There is no crisis signal justifying a policy shift. The crisis is within the agencies and systems who repeatedly are failing children and not keeping them safe.
Question for him: “What problem are we solving that hasn’t already been solved for decades?”
9. Oversight creep is real
Other states show that “small” changes (data collection, screening tools, notifications) often become: compliance enforcement, investigative triggers, data-sharing pipelines, Families are right to be cautious of “light touch” proposals.
Framing: “Once authority exists, future legislatures decide how it’s used.”
10. Civil liberties and neutrality
Educational choice is protected by long-standing constitutional precedent. Any policy that: treats one educational choice as suspect, or conditions it on compliance, raises equal protection and due process concerns.
Framing: “Parental rights should not depend on educational philosophy.”
11. Data integrity
Legislators should ask:
who is collecting the data?
how categories are defined
whether families are being double-counted
whether DCF involvement predates homeschooling?
Bad data → bad policy.
Framing: “We should not legislate based on unvetted or emotionally framed data.”
Finally, if a proposal is truly about child safety, it should apply to the settings where children are demonstrably being harmed — and be supported by clear evidence that it will reduce that harm.
That puts the burden back where it belongs — on the state – and they have failed to produce such data. The various claims of “homeschool abuse” around the country have all been preceeded by public school enrollment by children who were known to protective services – and, in all cases – were failed. This is a nationwide, systemic problem – NOT A HOMESCHOOL ONE.
Children are unsafe in schools – unsafe from the adults and the other students.
Children are being academically failed or compromised in public schools.
Not homeschoolers – many of whom have escaped those very systems and given their child a chance to learn in a safe, loving environment that contributes to the academic success of millions of homeschooled children.