Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

By CT Homeschool Network

Representative and Education Committee co-chair, Jennifer Leeper, who has been clearly invested in passing a pet project, HB 5468, stated: “We as a state believe that children deserve to be protected from being exited from school to be further isolated in a home where there is a reasonable suspicion of child neglect or abuse.”

But that description does not accurately capture the trigger built into PA 26-37 as HSLDA describes it.

Not at all.

The federal complaint argues that the records check is triggered by the parent's decision to withdraw for homeschooling, (parent-managed learning)—not by a preexisting individualized reasonable suspicion concerning that particular family. HSLDA's complaint specifically characterizes the law as requiring automatic disclosure and screening without a specific allegation, individualized suspicion, or court order.

That point is clear:

If the law were limited to families where there was already a reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect, that would be one thing. In that case, they should already be known to the system. But that is not the system Connecticut enacted.

The educational choice itself triggers the DCF process.

The second major point is the contradiction involving Commissioner Russell-Tucker. The Courant quotes her March 2026 testimony saying FERPA severely restricted the department's ability to share student data for individual case management and that violating FERPA could jeopardize millions in federal funds. Then the final legislation inserted language declaring DCF a “state educational authority.” That is precisely the maneuver now under federal challenge. HSLDA argues that a state cannot simply redefine a child-welfare screening function as an educational audit or evaluation for FERPA purposes.

And the article leaves a very important unanswered question hanging in plain sight:

The Connecticut Department of Education did not answer whether the new “educational authority” designation actually resolved the Commissioner's original FERPA objection.

That is a big deal.

The Questions Connecticut Still Has Not Answered

Rep. Jennifer Leeper told the Hartford Courant that PA 26-37 is intended to protect children from being withdrawn from school into homes where there is a “reasonable suspicion” of abuse or neglect.

But that is not the central legal problem now before the U.S. Department of Education.

PA 26-37 does not require an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing before the DCF records-check process is triggered. A parent's decision to withdraw a child for parent-managed learning (homeschooling), triggers the process.

That distinction matters.

Before this legislation passed, Connecticut Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker warned legislators that FERPA severely restricted the state's ability to share confidential student information for individual case management and that violating federal law could place millions of dollars in federal education funding at risk. Yes, yes. She got that one right.

The solution adopted by lawmakers was not to eliminate the disclosure.

Instead, the final legislation declared DCF—a child-welfare agency—to be a “state educational authority.”

Now HSLDA has formally asked the U.S. Department of Education to determine whether Connecticut can legally do that. The Hartford Courant asked the Connecticut State Department of Education whether the new designation resolved the Commissioner's original FERPA concerns.

The Department did not answer.

Attorney Deborah Stevenson of NHELD gave the Hartford Courant a statement but it was unpublished in their article - so it fits directly here:

“The fraudulent labeling of the agency for the purpose of intentionally skirting federal law in order to keep the money flowing.”

That is her legal assessment, and it is a powerful response to what changed between March and passage: the federal problem was identified, and instead of removing the underlying data transfer, lawmakers changed the statutory label attached to DCF.

Connecticut families deserve clear, truthful, complete answers.

• What personally identifiable information will schools send to DCF?
• What federal FERPA exception authorizes that disclosure?
• Why does a lawful decision to homeschool trigger a government records check without individualized suspicion?
• And how can a state legislature transform a child-welfare agency into an educational authority merely by writing those words into state law?

What does that leave us with?

The concerns raised by Connecticut homeschool families throughout the legislative process were not imaginary. They were and are very real, and thousands of voices were dismissed.

Those voices are now the subject of a formal federal complaint.

We promise - this story is far from over.

If you haven't already joined the Connecticut Homeschool Network (CHN), we invite you to become part of our statewide community. Stay informed about legislation, advocacy, events, resources, and issues affecting Connecticut homeschool families. Follow us on Facebook (current homeschoolers) and (current & prospective homeschoolers).

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'