Connecticut’s new homeschool law requires child-welfare record checks before some students can leave public school for parent-managed learning, prompting a federal FERPA complaint and a wider debate over privacy, parental rights and child protection.
Editorial Note
This article provides independent educational reporting and general legal analysis. It does not provide legal advice or determine whether Connecticut Public Act 26-37 violates federal law.
The Home School Legal Defense Association has asked the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the law, but the federal agency has not issued a final public determination. The challenged provisions have not yet taken effect, and their implementation may be affected by future guidance, administrative action or litigation.
New To Education is not affiliated with the Connecticut government, the U.S. Department of Education, the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Coalition for Responsible Home Education or any family discussed in this article.
Connecticut’s new homeschool law has become the center of a national dispute over how far a state may go to protect children when parents withdraw them from public school.
Governor Ned Lamont signed House Bill 5468 into law on May 26, 2026. Now designated Public Act 26-37, the law establishes a new statutory framework for what Connecticut calls “parent-managed learning.”
Under the law, certain families seeking to withdraw a child from public school will face a records check involving the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. A student generally cannot be withdrawn for parent-managed learning when an adult living in the household is under an active child-abuse or neglect investigation or is listed on the state’s abuse and neglect registry. The withdrawal-related provisions are scheduled to begin July 1, 2027, while broader annual notification requirements are scheduled for a later phase.
Supporters describe the law as a limited child-safety measure intended to prevent vulnerable children from disappearing from public oversight during active welfare concerns.
Opponents argue that it treats every family seeking to homeschool as a potential child-protection risk and requires schools to disclose protected student information without parental consent.
That disagreement is now moving into the federal student-privacy system.
HSLDA Filed a Federal FERPA Complaint
The Home School Legal Defense Association, commonly known as HSLDA, sent a complaint to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon asking the Department of Education to investigate whether the Connecticut law conflicts with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
FERPA is the principal federal law governing access to and disclosure of student education records by schools receiving federal education funding.
HSLDA argues that Connecticut’s required records-check process would force school districts to provide personally identifiable student and family information to the Department of Children and Families without parental consent or a valid FERPA exception.
The organization announced the complaint publicly on July 15, although its letter to the education secretary was dated June 11. The law itself does not take effect until 2027, so the complaint is a pre-enforcement challenge rather than a claim brought by a family already denied the ability to withdraw a child.
HSLDA maintains that choosing home education should not automatically trigger a government investigation or the disclosure of a student’s records.
Connecticut officials maintain that the records check is a legitimate safety function connected to the state’s obligation to protect children.
What Connecticut’s Law Changes
Connecticut historically maintained relatively limited homeschool regulation compared with many other states.
The new law changes that by formally defining “parent-managed learning” as education managed by a parent or guardian outside a public or nonpublic school.
Beginning with the 2027 implementation phase, a parent seeking to withdraw a child from public school for parent-managed learning will generally have to complete the withdrawal process through the local school district.
The district must then contact the Department of Children and Families to determine whether an adult living in the child’s household is under an active abuse or neglect investigation or appears on the state registry.
The law also creates an annual “intent to educate” process scheduled to begin with the 2028–2029 school year for many school-age children. Parents will indicate whether the child will attend public school, attend a nonpublic school or receive parent-managed learning.
The law does not create a general academic testing requirement for all homeschool students.
Earlier versions of the proposal included broader educational accountability provisions, but lawmakers removed several of those elements before final passage.
The enacted law focuses primarily on notification, withdrawal procedures and child-welfare record checks.
Why Connecticut Adopted the Law
Supporters of the legislation argued that Connecticut’s previous system left the state with too little information about children removed from school.
The debate followed several highly publicized abuse cases involving children who had been withdrawn from public education or were no longer visible through regular school attendance.
One case involved 11-year-old Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres-Garcia, whose death reportedly went undiscovered for approximately a year after she was no longer enrolled in school.
Lawmakers supporting the measure argued that homeschooling itself was not the cause of abuse. Their concern was that withdrawal from school could remove one of the few regular points of contact through which teachers, counselors and other professionals might notice signs of harm.
The Coalition for Responsible Home Education supported the law and described the withdrawal check as a guardrail for children living in households already connected to an active welfare investigation or substantiated abuse concerns.
From that perspective, the law is not designed to investigate how ordinary families teach at home.
It is designed to prevent a child from being removed from school oversight while the state is already evaluating serious concerns within the household.
Why Homeschool Families Object
Many homeschool families reject the idea that their educational decision should trigger contact with a child-welfare agency.
They argue that withdrawing a student for homeschooling is a lawful exercise of parental authority and should not be treated as evidence that abuse or neglect may be occurring.
The law’s critics are especially concerned that the process applies automatically.
A school district does not need an allegation that a particular parent has harmed a child. The parent’s decision to withdraw the student is enough to initiate the records check.
Opponents say that creates a presumption of suspicion around homeschooling.
They also worry about errors within child-welfare systems. An adult may appear on a registry following an administrative process rather than a criminal conviction, and some registry decisions may later be challenged or reversed.
For a family, even a temporary or incorrect result could interfere with education plans and place sensitive information into an unfamiliar administrative process.
The Central FERPA Question
The federal dispute turns on whether Connecticut may legally require school districts to share student and family information with DCF for the records check.
FERPA generally requires parental consent before a school discloses personally identifiable information from a student’s education records.
The law contains exceptions.
Schools may disclose information without consent in certain circumstances, including to authorized officials performing specified educational functions or to child-welfare agencies under particular legal conditions.
Connecticut attempted to address the privacy issue by designating the Department of Children and Families as a state educational authority for purposes of the withdrawal check.
The state law allows DCF to receive records involving a child whose parent has signed a withdrawal form.
HSLDA argues that this label does not resolve the problem. According to the organization, the check is a child-welfare investigation rather than a legitimate educational function, and the information-sharing requirement extends beyond the narrower situations Congress intended FERPA’s child-welfare exception to cover.
Connecticut’s position is that the state may structure cooperation between education and child-protection authorities to determine whether a legally authorized withdrawal can proceed.
The U.S. Department of Education will have to decide whether that arrangement fits within FERPA’s permitted disclosures.
A Privacy Dispute Without a Simple Answer
Student privacy is not absolute.
Schools routinely share information in limited circumstances involving transfers, audits, health and safety emergencies, court orders and services provided by authorized contractors or public agencies.
The question is whether this particular disclosure is necessary, appropriately limited and legally authorized.
Supporters of the law may argue that the state is requesting only enough information to determine whether the statutory restriction applies.
Opponents may respond that a family’s educational choice should not provide the government with an automatic basis to transmit names, addresses and household information to a child-welfare department.
The dispute therefore involves more than whether personal information is being shared.
It concerns the purpose of the disclosure, the authority under which it occurs and whether the process is proportionate to the risk Connecticut is trying to address.
Parental Rights Are Also at the Center
Parents generally have substantial authority to direct their children’s upbringing and education.
That authority includes the ability to choose among public schools, private schools and lawful home-education options, subject to state requirements.
However, parental authority is not unlimited.
States may enforce compulsory-education laws, investigate abuse and neglect, and establish reasonable safeguards intended to protect children.
Connecticut’s law brings these principles into direct tension.
Homeschool advocates view the decision to educate at home as a protected family choice that should not depend on approval from a child-welfare agency.
Supporters of the law argue that a parent’s educational freedom does not require the state to ignore an active abuse investigation involving someone who lives with the child.
Both positions begin with legitimate interests.
Families have a legitimate interest in privacy and educational autonomy.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children who may be at risk.
The difficult legal question is whether Connecticut selected a narrowly tailored method of balancing those interests.
The Law Does Not Ban Homeschooling Generally
Some public discussion has described the law as a broad prohibition on homeschooling.
That description is too expansive.
Connecticut has not eliminated parent-managed learning. Most families without a relevant DCF investigation or registry issue will still be permitted to homeschool after completing the applicable procedures.
The law targets a narrower group of households in which an adult is involved in an active abuse or neglect investigation or appears on the state registry.
That distinction is important.
However, the fact that a law affects only some families does not automatically answer whether its process is fair or legally valid.
A limited restriction can still raise significant privacy and due-process concerns.
Registry Status Is Not the Same as a Criminal Conviction
One controversial feature is the law’s reliance on child-abuse and neglect registry information.
A state administrative registry is not identical to a criminal record.
A person may appear on a registry without having been convicted of a crime. The legal standards and procedures used in child-welfare decisions can differ from those used in criminal court.
HSLDA argues that registry placement may occur under a lower evidentiary standard and that some placements are later overturned.
That creates concern about whether a parent or another adult in the household could lose access to a preferred education option based on an administrative determination that remains disputed.
Supporters of the Connecticut law would likely respond that child-protection systems are designed to prevent harm rather than wait for a criminal conviction.
A state may need to act during an active investigation when the available information suggests that a child could be at risk.
The conflict reflects a broader tension throughout child-welfare law: acting too slowly can leave children in danger, while acting too quickly can impose serious consequences on families before allegations are fully resolved.
Due Process May Become Another Legal Issue
The federal complaint currently emphasizes FERPA, but future challenges could raise procedural questions as well.
Families may ask how quickly DCF must complete the records check, what information the district receives and how a parent can challenge an incorrect result.
They may also seek clarity about what happens to the child’s education while the withdrawal remains pending.
A strong implementation system would need clear timelines, written explanations and a meaningful process for correcting mistakes.
Without those protections, a records check designed as a limited safeguard could become an open-ended barrier.
The law’s practical effect will depend heavily on regulations, agency guidance and how consistently local districts apply the rules.
The Law Could Affect Families Differently
Families with financial resources may be better positioned to seek legal help, correct records or pursue another educational arrangement while a dispute is resolved.
Lower-income families may have fewer options.
A parent who believes public school is no longer appropriate may not be able to afford private tuition while waiting for an administrative decision.
Families living in rural areas may also have limited alternatives.
Children with disabilities, students experiencing bullying and families seeking a specialized learning environment may be especially affected when a withdrawal is delayed.
This does not mean the state should abandon child-safety checks.
It means lawmakers and agencies must consider whether the process creates unequal burdens for families with fewer resources.
School Districts Will Carry New Responsibilities
Local school districts will become an important part of the new system.
Employees will need to understand when a withdrawal form is required, what information may be disclosed, how to communicate with DCF and what parents must be told.
Errors could create legal exposure.
A district that shares too much information may face a privacy complaint. A district that fails to complete the required check may be accused of ignoring state law.
Districts will also need to explain that they are administering a statutory process rather than independently accusing the family of wrongdoing.
Training and clear state guidance will therefore be essential before the law takes effect.
The Law May Influence Other States
Connecticut’s action is likely to attract national attention because states vary widely in how they regulate homeschooling.
Some require annual notice, assessments or portfolio reviews.
Others impose relatively few reporting requirements.
Lawmakers in other states may study Connecticut’s model as they consider how to respond when a child is withdrawn during an active welfare investigation.
Homeschool advocates will likely use the federal complaint to argue that automatic information sharing creates serious privacy problems.
Child-protection organizations may point to Connecticut as evidence that a state can introduce targeted safeguards without establishing broad academic control over every homeschool family.
The outcome of the FERPA review could influence which approach other states take.
Oversight and Educational Quality Are Separate Questions
Connecticut’s law primarily addresses child safety and government awareness.
It does not create a comprehensive system for measuring educational quality.
A completed records check does not establish that a child is receiving effective instruction. It only determines whether a particular child-welfare restriction applies.
Similarly, the presence of an annual intent form tells the state where a child is expected to receive education but does not evaluate curriculum, progress or learning outcomes.
This distinction matters because debates over homeschooling often combine several different questions.
One question is whether the child is safe.
Another is whether the child is receiving an adequate education.
A third is whether parents have sufficient freedom to choose the form of education they believe is appropriate.
Connecticut’s law focuses mainly on the first question and on creating a clearer administrative record.
It does not resolve the broader debate over educational accountability.
Homeschooling Should Not Be Equated With Abuse
The cases that motivated Connecticut’s law were severe, but they should not be used to characterize homeschooling families generally.
Most parents who educate their children at home are not attempting to hide abuse.
Families homeschool for many reasons, including academic flexibility, religious beliefs, disability needs, bullying, travel, health concerns and dissatisfaction with local schools.
Public policy should distinguish between homeschooling as an educational practice and the misuse of school withdrawal to isolate a vulnerable child.
Failing to make that distinction can unfairly stigmatize families.
At the same time, refusing to discuss situations in which withdrawal contributed to a child’s isolation can leave serious policy gaps unaddressed.
Responsible debate requires acknowledging both realities.
Child-Safety Measures Need Evidence and Precision
A state should be able to explain why a new restriction is likely to address the problem that motivated it.
Connecticut’s theory is that an automatic records check can prevent a child from being removed from school during an active abuse or neglect concern.
That is a specific connection.
The state is not merely asserting that homeschooling may be risky. It is identifying a point at which a child already connected to the welfare system could lose regular contact with school personnel.
The effectiveness of the policy will depend on whether it identifies meaningful risks without producing unnecessary disclosures or delays for families who present no safety concern.
Connecticut should collect data after implementation showing how many checks occur, how many withdrawals are delayed, how many decisions are corrected and whether the policy improves child safety.
Without transparent results, the public will have difficulty determining whether the law works as intended.
What Families Should Know Before the Law Takes Effect
The challenged withdrawal provisions are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2027.
The annual intent-to-educate process begins later, starting with the 2028–2029 school year for many families.
Because implementation guidance may change, Connecticut families should not rely only on social-media summaries or advocacy materials.
They should review information from the Connecticut State Department of Education, their local district and qualified legal professionals when necessary.
Families should also retain copies of withdrawal forms, correspondence and any information provided by the district.
The federal complaint does not suspend the law.
Unless a court, federal agency or Connecticut official changes the situation, districts will be expected to implement the enacted requirements on schedule.
What the U.S. Department of Education Could Do
HSLDA has asked the Department of Education to investigate whether the state’s information-sharing system violates FERPA.
The department could seek additional information, issue guidance, determine that the complaint lacks sufficient legal grounds or conclude that changes are needed before implementation.
FERPA disputes are often handled administratively rather than through immediate courtroom litigation.
The department may examine what information districts are required to disclose, whether DCF qualifies as an authorized recipient and whether the disclosure fits within an established FERPA exception.
A federal finding against the state could pressure Connecticut to revise the process.
A finding supporting the law could encourage other states to adopt similar child-welfare checks.
The agency’s eventual response will therefore matter beyond Connecticut.
A Better Policy Would Protect Children Without Presuming Guilt
The strongest version of this policy would preserve the state’s ability to respond to known child-safety risks while limiting unnecessary information sharing.
The records check should use only the minimum information required.
Families should receive clear notice explaining what data will be shared, who will receive it and how long it will be retained.
The process should include firm deadlines and a fast method for correcting mistaken identities or outdated registry information.
A denial or delay should be provided in writing and should explain available appeal rights.
There should also be strict safeguards preventing the information from being used for unrelated investigations.
These protections would not eliminate every disagreement, but they could reduce the risk that a child-safety measure becomes a broad system of surveillance.
How New To Education Supports Homeschool Families
New To Education provides educational reporting, practical homeschool guidance, tutoring and learning support for families using traditional, online, hybrid and parent-managed education.
Homeschool families should begin with the legal requirements in their own state before choosing curriculum, recordkeeping systems or outside services.
Rules involving withdrawal, notification, attendance, subjects, assessment and access to public-school programs differ significantly across jurisdictions.
New To Education’s role is to make those developments easier to understand while recognizing that families may hold different views about government oversight and parental authority.
Key Takeaways
Connecticut enacted Public Act 26-37 on May 26, 2026, creating a new legal framework for parent-managed learning.
Beginning July 1, 2027, families withdrawing a child from public school for homeschooling will face a records check involving the Department of Children and Families.
A withdrawal generally cannot proceed when an adult in the household is under an active child-abuse or neglect investigation or appears on the state abuse and neglect registry.
HSLDA has asked the U.S. Department of Education to investigate whether the required sharing of student and family information violates FERPA.
Supporters argue that the law creates a targeted safeguard for children already connected to the welfare system.
Opponents argue that it automatically treats homeschool families as suspects and discloses protected information without proper consent.
The federal complaint has not yet produced a final public ruling, and the challenged provisions have not taken effect.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Connecticut ban homeschooling?
No. Connecticut continues to permit parent-managed learning. The law adds new procedures and restricts withdrawal in certain households involving active DCF investigations or registry findings.
When does the records-check requirement begin?
The withdrawal-related requirements are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2027.
What is parent-managed learning?
The law defines it as education managed by a parent or guardian in a setting other than a public or nonpublic school.
Why did HSLDA file a FERPA complaint?
HSLDA argues that the law requires school districts to disclose protected student and family information to DCF without parental consent or a valid federal privacy exception.
Has the U.S. Department of Education ruled against Connecticut?
No final public determination has been announced.
Does the law require annual testing of homeschool students?
The enacted law does not create a general annual academic-testing requirement for all homeschool students.
Will every Connecticut homeschool family receive a DCF investigation?
The law creates a records check connected to certain public-school withdrawals. That is different from opening a new abuse investigation into every family, although opponents argue that even the automatic check is an unjustified intrusion.
Can the law still change?
Yes. Federal review, state guidance, future legislation or litigation could affect how the law is interpreted or implemented.
Final Thoughts
Connecticut’s homeschool law presents a difficult policy question because it places two legitimate concerns in direct conflict.
Parents have a strong interest in choosing how their children are educated without unnecessary government intrusion.
Children also have an interest in remaining visible to protective systems when credible abuse or neglect concerns already exist.
Connecticut has chosen an automatic records check as the point where those interests meet.
Supporters see a narrow safeguard designed to prevent children from being isolated during an active welfare concern.
Opponents see a system that places every family seeking to homeschool under suspicion and uses education records for a purpose FERPA may not allow.
The outcome should not depend on slogans about either parental freedom or government protection.
It should depend on whether the law is lawful, narrowly designed, transparent and supported by procedures that protect families from error.
A state should not ignore serious child-safety information merely because a family chooses homeschooling.
It also should not treat home education itself as evidence of wrongdoing.
The strongest policy will be one that can protect vulnerable children without turning a lawful educational choice into an automatic presumption of danger.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and practical guidance covering homeschooling, educational law, parental rights, student privacy and public policy.
Readers can support our work by sharing this article, following New To Education on social media, subscribing to our updates or exploring the support options available through our website.
Related Articles
Why State Homeschool Rules Should Shape Your Plan Before Curriculum
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/why-state-homeschool-rules-should-shape-your-plan-before-curriculum-6a38edd188dc6
California’s AB 495: What Homeschool Families Should Know About the New Law
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/californias-ab-495-what-homeschool-families-should-know-about-the-new-law-6a41d3eaadea2
Sources
Connecticut General Assembly — Public Act No. 26-37
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00037-R00HB-05468-PA.PDF
Connecticut General Assembly — Bill Analysis for House Bill 5468
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/BA/PDF/2026HB-05468-R010724-BA.PDF
CT Insider — National Homeschooling Group Challenges New Connecticut Law Over Student Privacy
https://www.ctinsider.com/news/education/article/ct-homeschool-law-ferpa-dcf-privacy-complaint-22353853.php
Home School Legal Defense Association — HSLDA Files Federal FERPA Complaint Against Connecticut’s Public Act 26-37
https://hslda.org/post/hslda-files-federal-ferpa-complaint-against-connecticut%27s-public-act-26-37
Home School Legal Defense Association — Letter to the U.S. Secretary of Education
https://hslda.org/docs/librariesprovider2/public/hslda-letter-to-secretary-mcmahan---ct-public-act-26-37-%2811-june-2026%29-%281%29.pdf
Coalition for Responsible Home Education — Connecticut Passes the First Protections for Homeschooled Children in the State
https://crhe.org/connecticut-victory/
