Heated testimony as committee considers requiring intent declarations at age 6
Summary
The committee heard SB 6,261, which would require parents who do not enroll a child in public/private school at age 6 to file an annual signed declaration of educational intent; supporters say it aligns Washington with other states and helps planning, while many homeschool families called the bill intrusive and burdensome.
Senate Bill 6,261 would require parents who do not enroll a child in public or private school at age 6 to file an annual signed declaration of intent describing whether they plan to provide or are providing home‑based instruction or plan to enroll the child in public or private school. Under current law a declaration is required beginning at age 8; the bill would shift the earliest required declaration to age 6 while keeping compulsory attendance effective at age 8.
State Superintendent Chris Reykdal urged the committee to support the measure, calling Washington “the only state in the nation” that waits until age 8 to collect homeschool declarations and saying earlier reporting would improve planning and avoid leaving federal resources on the table. “We just want to understand where kids are, like all the other states do,” Reykdal said.
The hearing drew a large public turnout, overwhelmingly opposed. Homeschool parents, students and advocates described the bill as an unwarranted intrusion and a burdensome administrative expansion. Witnesses said the current declaration is a short statement that notifies a district a child is not truant; the proposed change, they argued, would turn that notification into an intrusive plan form and create privacy and enforcement concerns. One parent asked whether schools would use the information for advertising or outreach; staff said the bill does not address those protections but the superintendent offered to support amendments limiting information sharing.
Opponents described a range of concerns: filing a plan at age 6 could be premature because families are still choosing approaches; the requirement could trigger truancy exposure for parents who fail to file; and expanded OSPI authority and vague form language were singled out as risks. Several witnesses said many families choose Washington because existing homeschool rules have permitted flexibility and stability.
Committee discussion included clarifying that the bill preserves the current legal effect of compulsory attendance and that districts use monthly apportionments to reconcile midyear enrollments. The chair closed testimony after an extended public record of opposition; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
