Parent Guide for Talking to Legislators

Below is a 4-part series of supports for parents.

CONTENTS
A. Homeschoolers’ Position:  CT Homeschooling: No New Regulation
B. How to Talk to Legislators About Homeschooling: A Parent Guide
C. Parent Rebuttal Sheet
D. Final Words: Key Message For Legislators

A. CONNECTICUT HOMESCHOOLING: NO NEW REGULATION

One-Page Talking Points for Parents

Homeschooling in Connecticut is already lawful, accountable, and successful.
No additional regulation is needed or supported by evidence.

  1. Connecticut Law Already Governs Homeschooling
  • CGS §10-184 – Duties of Parents assigns full legal responsibility for education and child welfare to parents.
  • This statute is binding and enforceable.
  • Homeschooling is not unregulated and never has been.
  1. Child Protection Is Already Covered
  • Abuse and neglect are addressed through existing child protection, criminal, medical, and mandated reporter laws.
  • These laws apply regardless of schooling method.
  • No homeschool-specific statute would add protection.
  1. Homeschoolers Are Not “Invisible”

Homeschool children are routinely seen by:

  • Physicians, dentists, therapists
  • Tutors, librarians, coaches, employers
  • Community members and mandated reporters

Claims that homeschoolers are “unseen” are factually false.

  1. No Evidence Regulation Prevents Tragedy
  • There is no data showing homeschool regulation prevents abuse or neglect.
  • States with strict homeschool regulation have no better child safety outcomes.
  • Policymaking based on anecdotes is not evidence-based.
  1. False Narratives Have Been Used to Justify Regulation
  • The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) and CRHE relied on flawed and misleading statistics.
  • The FOIA Commission has now indicated OCA may have withheld or misused documents.
  • The most cited “homeschool tragedy” did not involve a homeschooled child.
  • This was a systems failure, not a homeschooling failure.
  1. Public School Oversight Is Not Logical
  • Homeschooling uses hundreds of curricula and methodologies unfamiliar to public schools.
  • Public schools are not experts in home education.
  • Connecticut schools are currently struggling with widespread academic failure.
  • A failing system should not oversee successful alternatives.
  1. “Resources” Like Sports Are a Backdoor to Control
  • Offering sports or activities in exchange for oversight is coercive, not supportive.
  • Homeschoolers reject regulation disguised as opportunity.
  • We do not consent to surveillance in exchange for access.

 

B.  How to Talk to Legislators About Homeschooling

A Parent Guide for the 2026 Connecticut Legislative Session

Purpose

To help parents communicate clearly, confidently, and effectively with legislators without conceding ground, accepting false premises, or unintentionally endorsing regulation.

Homeschooling in Connecticut is already lawful under CGS §10-184 (Duties of Parents). Parents are not seeking permission, accommodations, or oversight — only that lawmakers act on verified facts, lawful authority, and constitutional limits.

  1. Start by Finding the Legislator’s Position

Before persuading, identify what they think they know.

Recommended Opening

“Before I share our concerns, may I ask what sources or information have shaped your understanding of homeschooling in Connecticut?”

Why this matters:

  • Legislators are often relying on summaries from OCA, CRHE, or media
  • This invites honesty and reveals misinformation without confrontation
  1. Correct Misinformation Calmly

If safety, invisibility, or oversight is mentioned:

“The statistics being cited about homeschooling risk in Connecticut are based on cases where children were not homeschooled. Some of those claims are now under FOIA review because the supporting documents were withheld.”

Key points to emphasize:

  • Existing child protection laws apply to all families & homeschooled children are among many mandated reporters in the community and in homeschool circles, doctors, dentists, etc., and narratives claiming otherwise are untrue. Further, those promoting such false narratives cannot prove their claims – because they’re false.
  • No data shows homeschooling is a risk factor
  • No regulation proposed would have prevented past tragedies nor is there data saying it would have
  1. Anchor the Conversation in Law

Always return to what already exists.

“Connecticut law already places full responsibility on parents to educate and raise their children lawfully under CGS §10-184. There is no legal gap that needs to be filled.”

This keeps the discussion grounded in statutory reality, not hypotheticals.

  1. Address the ‘Resources’ or ‘Sports’ Narrative Clearly

If extracurricular access or sports are raised:

“Offering benefits in exchange for government oversight is not voluntary — it’s coercive. Homeschool families are not seeking access to public systems, and oversight is neither necessary nor appropriate.”

Homeschoolers Already Participate in Sports — Independently

Homeschool students in Connecticut already participate in a wide range of non-public, community-based, and competitive sports programs without government oversight or school-based control, including:

  • Youth and community soccer leagues
  • Travel and club basketball
  • Baseball, softball, and Little League
  • Hockey (house, travel, and club teams)
  • Gymnastics and competitive cheer
  • Martial arts (karate, taekwondo, jiu-jitsu, judo)
  • Swimming and competitive swim clubs
  • Track and field clubs
  • Tennis clubs and lessons
  • Dance (ballet, jazz, modern, competitive teams)
  • Equestrian sports
  • Rock climbing teams
  • CrossFit youth programs
  • Archery clubs
  • Skiing and snowboarding teams
  • Rowing clubs
  • Fencing
  • Golf programs
  • Homeschool athletic leagues and co-ops

These programs:

  • Are voluntary
  • Are parent-directed
  • Operate without school jurisdiction
  • Do not require academic surveillance or data submission


Why Public School Sports Are Not Necessary — or Appropriate

Homeschool families do not lack opportunities for athletics, teamwork, or competition.

Proposals to offer public school sports to homeschoolers are not solutions to a problem — they are attempts to:

  • Create jurisdiction where none exists
  • Establish monitoring authority
  • Introduce oversight unrelated to safety or academics

This is not about access.  It is about control.


Clear Position (No Soft Language)

Homeschool families do not seek, need, or support public school sports access if it carries oversight, reporting, eligibility rules, or monitoring authority.

We reject:

  • “Resources” offered as leverage
  • Oversight disguised as opportunity
  • Any exchange of participation for compliance

Homeschooling in Connecticut is lawful, functional, and thriving as it is.

  1. If the Legislator Is Supportive

Reinforce alignment and ask for vigilance:

“We appreciate your understanding. Our concern is preventing bills based on flawed data or pressure campaigns from advancing quickly during this short session.”

  1. If the Legislator Is Neutral or Hesitant

Shift to process integrity:

“Regardless of personal views on homeschooling, legislation should not be built on disputed statistics, withheld records, or narratives that have not withstood scrutiny.”

  1. If the Legislator Is Pro-Oversight

Do not debate philosophy. Emphasize limits:

“The issue isn’t intent — it’s authority. Oversight without evidence of necessity violates parental rights and exceeds the state’s role.”

Silence after this statement is powerful.

 

SAFE, CLEAR LANGUAGE TO USE

✔ “Homeschooling is already lawful and regulated by statute.”
✔ “There is no evidence-based justification for new regulation.”
✔ “Parental rights are not contingent on government approval.”
✔ “Legislation must be grounded in verified facts and transparency.”
✔ “The burden of proof lies with the state — not families.” (Read that again)

Final Reminder for Parents

You are not:

  • Asking for permission
  • Negotiating your rights
  • Seeking benefits

You are defending an existing, lawful practice against policy driven by misinformation and institutional overreach.

C.  HOMESCHOOL REGULATION: Q&A REBUTTAL SHEET

Q: Aren’t homeschoolers unregulated?

A: No. Homeschoolers are governed by CGS §10-184 and all child protection laws. The claim of “no regulation” is 100% a false narrative.

Q: Don’t children need to be “seen” by schools to be safe?

A: Safety is addressed by medical providers, mandated reporters who are even within the homeschool community, the general community members, family members, friends, neighbors, the many social & educational circles that homeschoolers are in, and law enforcement – not school attendance. Public school is known to be unsafe for children.

Q: Haven’t homeschool tragedies shown a need for oversight?

A: No. The most cited cases were not homeschooling cases. They were repeated agency failures, now confirmed through FOIA proceedings. Those children were enrolled in public school and had prior DCF involvement – which failed – repeatedly.

Q: Why shouldn’t we collect more data to have “eyes on the child” for homeschoolers?

A: Data collection, new regulations and controls, especially under the guise of needing “eyes on the child”, when forced upon one segment of the population like homeschoolers, becomes surveillance. For concerns of abuse, it is known that the overwhelming majority of child abuse/neglect occurs before age 3. Selecting out the homeschoolers, who are of compulsory education school age, is discrimination and surveillance. There is no evidence additional data improves safety or outcomes. Further, let’s remember – child protection laws apply to all children.

Q: CRHE says oversight is necessary—why disagree?

A: CRHE relied on OCA statistics that were flawed, incomplete, and improperly used. They have cited them repeatedly in media outlets and referred to CT homeschoolers as being known to “torture” their children. That’s inaccurate and defamatory.

  • Their methodology exaggerated risk.
  • Legislators and media accepted claims without verification.
  • Policy built on false data is unsound.
  • Their list of children who experienced harm or worse – had prior DCF involvement and school enrollment.

Q: Why oppose “reasonable” regulation?

A: Because:

  • There is no demonstrated need
  • Existing laws already apply so no overreach is needed
  • Oversight powers are routinely expanded and abused
  • Once granted, control is rarely limited or reversed
  • It isn’t reasonable; it’s another grab for power & control

Q: What should legislators focus on instead?

A:

  • Fix failures within existing agencies
  • Hold systems accountable and enforce the laws we already have
  • Open an investigation into the agencies that failed children – repeatedly
  • Stop misattributing institutional breakdowns to families
  • Respect parental rights already protected by law
  • Failure to do these things assures that another child will suffer
  • Scapegoating homeschoolers assures that agencies will see another child suffer on their watch

Final Words: Key Message for Legislators

Homeschooling is not the problem.
Systemic failure is.
No new regulation is justified or supported by evidence.

 

 

D. Media Caution Guide for Homeschool Parents

How to Protect Yourself When the Media Reaches Out

Why This Matters

Connecticut media outlets have repeatedly:

  • Accepted Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) statistics without verification
  • Framed homeschooling as a risk factor without evidence
  • Omitted corrections or context when errors were identified
  • Used emotionally charged cases to advance policy narratives

At this time, media engagement carries real risk to families and the homeschool community.

  1. You Are Never Obligated to Speak to the Media

This includes:

  • Reporters
  • Bloggers
  • Podcast hosts
  • Documentary producers
  • “Just looking for parent perspectives”

Silence is not guilt. Silence is protection. Parents should also refrain from providing their last name or town when interacting with the media. There is documented precedent for this information being misused. In one prior incident, a Connecticut public school superintendent heard a media interview involving homeschool parents and subsequently reported a family to law enforcement simply because he did not recognize their name after seeing them listed in the media as speakers at a legislative public hearing. Police later arrived at the family’s home and questioned the mother while she was alone with her children, after her husband had departed on a business trip. This was an inappropriate use of governmental authority and illustrates why caution is necessary. This is just one incident of decades-long stories.

  1. Understand the Structural Bias

This is not about “bad reporters.” It is about:

  • Government agencies being treated as authoritative sources
  • Advocacy statistics being cited as fact
  • Homeschool parents being treated as subjects, not experts
  • Stories written before interviews occur

Your words may be:

  • Edited
  • Paraphrased
  • Placed next to misleading statistics
  • Used to legitimize regulation narratives
  1. Default Response Script (Use Verbatim)

If contacted by media:

“I’m not available for interviews. Any questions about homeschooling policy should be directed to our statewide organizations.”

Stop there. Do not explain. Do not justify.

  1. If You Feel Pressured to Respond

Use this:

“Given the history of inaccurate reporting on homeschooling in Connecticut, I’m choosing not to participate.”

This is factual and non-inflammatory.

  1. Never Speak ‘Off the Record’

There is no such thing as off the record unless confirmed in writing — and even then, it is often ignored.

Assume:

  • Everything you say is usable
  • Everything you write is quotable
  • Everything can be reframed
  1. Do NOT Attempt to ‘Correct’ the Media Individually

This often backfires because:

  • Corrections are rarely published
  • Disputes are framed as “controversy”
  • Parents are portrayed as defensive or evasive

Systemic bias cannot be corrected in one interview.

  1. Approved Topics vs. High-Risk Topics

    Why? Because your words almost certainly will be misrepresented for sensationalism as a priority. Why bother risking that?

Lower Risk (Still Not Recommended)

  • Personal homeschooling philosophy
  • General educational choices
  • Non-political community activities

High Risk — Do Not Engage

  • Child safety
  • Abuse cases
  • OCA reports or statistics
  • CRHE claims
  • Regulation proposals
  • “Why not oversight?”
  • “What about invisible children?”
  1. If Media Asks About OCA or CRHE Statistics

Do not debate. Use this single sentence:

“Several of the statistics being cited are currently under FOIA review because the supporting documents were withheld.”

PERIOD. Then disengage.

  1. Direct All Media to Centralized Spokespeople

Parents should refer media to:

  • CHN
  • NHELD
  • Designated legal or policy representatives

This ensures:

  • Message discipline
  • Legal accuracy
  • Protection of families
  1. Remember: Media Attention Is Not Neutral

At this moment:

  • Media is part of the pressure pipeline
  • Stories are being used to justify legislation
  • Emotional narratives are prioritized over facts

Choosing not to participate is a responsible civic decision, not avoidance.

Bottom Line for Parents

You do not owe the media:

  • Your story
  • Your family
  • Your emotions
  • Your words

You owe your children protection.