Compulsory Attendance Ages: “…earlier of the date on which the student officially enrolls in a school or, except as provided in section 8 of this chapter, the beginning of the fall school term for the school year in which the student becomes seven (7) years of age until the date on which the student:
(1) graduates;
(2) becomes eighteen (18) years of age; or
(3) becomes sixteen (16) years of age but is less than eighteen (18) years of age and the requirements under section 9 of this chapter concerning an exit interview are met enabling the student to withdraw from school before graduation; whichever occurs first.” IC 20-33-2-6
Required Days of Attendance: “…for the number of days public schools are in session:
(1) in the school corporation in which the student is enrolled in Indiana; or where the student is enrolled if the student is enrolled outside Indiana.” (generally, 180 days) IC 20-33-2-5
Required Subjects: “…instruction equivalent to that given in public schools.” IC 20-33-2-28
“A school that is:
(1) nonpublic;
(2) nonaccredited; and
(3) not otherwise approved by the state board;
is not bound by any requirements set forth in IC 20 or IC21 with regard to curriculum or the content of educational programs offered by the school.” IC 20-33-2-12
Home School Statutes: None
Alternative Statutes Allowing for Home Schools: A child may attend “another school taught in the English language.” IC 20-33-2-4
1. The child must be “provided with instruction equivalent to that given in public schools.: IC 20-33-2-28
However, IC 20-33-2-12 has removed all subject requirements (see above). Furthermore, the Indiana Department of Education has not been given the authority to define “equivalent instruction,” nor to approve home schools.
2. The Indiana Appellate Court has held that the Indiana compulsory attendance law allows the operation of homeschools. State v. Peterman, 32 Ind. App. 665, 70 N.E. 550 (1904) Essentially, the court said a school at home is a private school.
The court defined a school as “a place where instruction is imparted to the young…We do not think that the number of persons, whether one or many, make a place where instruction is imparted any less or more a school.” Peterman,70 NE at 551. The court explained further: “Under a law very similar to ours, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has held that the object and purpose of a compulsory educational law are that all the children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular way.” Peterman, at 551.
The court concluded: “The result to be obtained, and not the means or manner of attaining it, was the goal which the lawmakers were attempting to reach. The law (compulsory attendance) was made for the parent who does not educate his child, and not for the parent who…so places within the reach of the child the opportunity and means of acquiring an education equal to that obtainable in the public schools…” Peterman, at 552.
3. In Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, 614 F. Supp. 1152 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (affd. By 798 F. 2nd 230), a federal district court recognized that parents have the constitutional right to educate their children in a home environment (at page 1160). The court wrote concerning the qualifications of home school parents that “…it is now doubtful that the requirements of a formally licensed or certified teacher…would pass constitutional muster.” (at page 1160) On appeal, the circuit court ruled that a school corporation is not immune from a 1983 action for improper enforcement of compulsory attendance.
4. Parents must keep attendance records “…solely to verify the enrollment and attendance of a student upon request of the:
(1) state superintendent; or
(2) superintendent of the school corporation in which the nonpublic school is located.” IC 20-33-2-20
5. “Each principal or school administrator in a nonpublic school that is attended by a student who is subject to the compulsory school attendance law under this chapter shall furnish, on request of the state superintendent, the number of students by grade level attending the school.” IC 20-33-2-21
Teacher Qualifications: None
Standardized Tests: Not required by statute.
(1) graduates;
(2) becomes eighteen (18) years of age; or
(3) becomes sixteen (16) years of age but is less than eighteen (18) years of age and the requirements under section 9 of this chapter concerning an exit interview are met enabling the student to withdraw from school before graduation; whichever occurs first.” IC 20-33-2-6
Required Days of Attendance: “…for the number of days public schools are in session:
(1) in the school corporation in which the student is enrolled in Indiana; or where the student is enrolled if the student is enrolled outside Indiana.” (generally, 180 days) IC 20-33-2-5
Required Subjects: “…instruction equivalent to that given in public schools.” IC 20-33-2-28
“A school that is:
(1) nonpublic;
(2) nonaccredited; and
(3) not otherwise approved by the state board;
is not bound by any requirements set forth in IC 20 or IC21 with regard to curriculum or the content of educational programs offered by the school.” IC 20-33-2-12
Home School Statutes: None
Alternative Statutes Allowing for Home Schools: A child may attend “another school taught in the English language.” IC 20-33-2-4
1. The child must be “provided with instruction equivalent to that given in public schools.: IC 20-33-2-28
However, IC 20-33-2-12 has removed all subject requirements (see above). Furthermore, the Indiana Department of Education has not been given the authority to define “equivalent instruction,” nor to approve home schools.
2. The Indiana Appellate Court has held that the Indiana compulsory attendance law allows the operation of homeschools. State v. Peterman, 32 Ind. App. 665, 70 N.E. 550 (1904) Essentially, the court said a school at home is a private school.
The court defined a school as “a place where instruction is imparted to the young…We do not think that the number of persons, whether one or many, make a place where instruction is imparted any less or more a school.” Peterman,70 NE at 551. The court explained further: “Under a law very similar to ours, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has held that the object and purpose of a compulsory educational law are that all the children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular way.” Peterman, at 551.
The court concluded: “The result to be obtained, and not the means or manner of attaining it, was the goal which the lawmakers were attempting to reach. The law (compulsory attendance) was made for the parent who does not educate his child, and not for the parent who…so places within the reach of the child the opportunity and means of acquiring an education equal to that obtainable in the public schools…” Peterman, at 552.
3. In Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, 614 F. Supp. 1152 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (affd. By 798 F. 2nd 230), a federal district court recognized that parents have the constitutional right to educate their children in a home environment (at page 1160). The court wrote concerning the qualifications of home school parents that “…it is now doubtful that the requirements of a formally licensed or certified teacher…would pass constitutional muster.” (at page 1160) On appeal, the circuit court ruled that a school corporation is not immune from a 1983 action for improper enforcement of compulsory attendance.
4. Parents must keep attendance records “…solely to verify the enrollment and attendance of a student upon request of the:
(1) state superintendent; or
(2) superintendent of the school corporation in which the nonpublic school is located.” IC 20-33-2-20
5. “Each principal or school administrator in a nonpublic school that is attended by a student who is subject to the compulsory school attendance law under this chapter shall furnish, on request of the state superintendent, the number of students by grade level attending the school.” IC 20-33-2-21
Teacher Qualifications: None
Standardized Tests: Not required by statute.