Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homeschool Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel unanimously backs substitute that removes affidavit requirement and child-abuse language from homeschool statute
Summary
The committee unanimously recommended the second substitute to HB 209, which eliminates the recurring affidavit notice requirement for home educators and removes language in the homeschool statute that had led some districts to require background checks; sponsors and legal advocates said child-protection statutes remain intact and unchanged.
The House Education Committee unanimously recommended the second substitute to House Bill 209, a measure that removes the annual affidavit/notice requirement for parents who choose to homeschool and strips a passage from current homeschool statute that had led some districts to treat homeschool parents as if they were subject to caregiver background-screening requirements.
Sponsor Representative Nicholeen Peck said the change stems from a 2023 statutory insertion (statute cited as 53G-6-204 in testimony) whose placement next to child-abuse language caused confusion and, in practice, prompted at least one district to require background checks of parents who filed affidavits. Peck said the original sponsor agreed the language should not have been placed with the homeschool section and supported removing it.
Peter Ivole, an attorney with the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told the committee the substitute “removes references to those [abuse] statutes from the homeschool statute.” He stressed that the bill does not change existing criminal statutes or the state’s ability to investigate or prosecute child abuse: “All of those statutes are gonna be untouched by the bill… It will remain a crime for a parent or any other adult to abuse a child.”
Witnesses from multiple homeschool organizations and parents testified in favor, describing the affidavit as extra paperwork that produced no follow-up in many districts and, in at least one instance last year, led to lengthy delay and confusion. One parent, Elizabeth Madrid, described an affidavit she filed that the Davis School District initially rejected and later delayed acknowledgment for 135 days while staff and outside counsel corresponded; she testified the substitute would have prevented that summer-long uncertainty.
Committee members discussed implementation details and effects on existing scholarship programs (Utah Fits All) and dual-enrollment arrangements. Representative McPherson moved the second substitute and the committee unanimously voted to favorably recommend the bill as substituted. The transcript indicates unanimous voice votes; no roll-call tallies were recorded.
