Summary: The same organization that pushed failed homeschool regulation bills in California in 2018 is once again advancing its agenda—this time gaining traction in other states. Recent legislation in Nebraska and a bill in Connecticut reflect a coordinated, national effort led by the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) to increase government oversight of homeschool families. Framed as child protection, these proposals shift the foundational presumption of trust in parents toward suspicion and regulation. What California families successfully stopped once is now re-emerging with new momentum, making it critical to understand the pattern and prepare for its likely return.
California homeschool families should not view what is happening in Connecticut and Nebraska as isolated events. A bill advancing in Connecticut would require families to undergo government screening—including checks tied to child welfare systems—before they are permitted to begin homeschooling their own children. This is not a minor administrative adjustment. It represents a fundamental shift in how the relationship between family and state is understood.
It is important to state this clearly and without ambiguity: the same movement behind this Connecticut bill is the same movement that pushed the bad homeschool bills in California in 2018. The Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) has been advancing this agenda for years. What California families successfully opposed in 2018 has not disappeared—it has been refined, expanded, and carried into other states. [Read More About 2018 Victories Here]
We are now watching that strategy unfold in real time across the country. In recent days, CRHE has celebrated new legislation in Nebraska as a major milestone. That law expands state involvement in situations tied to child welfare and homeschooling. At the same time, similar policy ideas are being advanced in Connecticut. These are not isolated developments. They are coordinated steps in a broader national effort.
The pattern is now unmistakable. The same organization that pushed legislation in California is now celebrating regulatory wins in Nebraska and supporting expanded regulation in Connecticut. This is not speculation. It is a clear trajectory—state by state, building precedent, gaining ground, and preparing the way for future efforts in places like California.
For those who were engaged in 2018, this should sound familiar. The proposals then were presented as reasonable safeguards. But underneath the language was a significant shift: moving from a system that presumes parents are responsible to one that treats every parent as a potential threat to their child. That same shift is at the heart of the current proposals.
HSLDA President Jim Mason has articulated this concern with clarity. In response to the Connecticut bill, he notes that it would require “every family to undergo a government background check” [1] before homeschooling. That requirement alone signals something deeper than policy—it signals a change in starting assumptions.
Mason explains the implication directly: “In effect, the state must clear you before you may begin to teach your own child.” [2] That is the core issue. The question is no longer simply how homeschooling is practiced, but whether it is treated as a natural responsibility of parents or as a regulated activity requiring prior government approval.
This represents a direct challenge to longstanding American legal principles. As the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed, “The child is not the mere creature of the State.” That statement establishes a boundary. Children belong first within the family, and parents carry primary responsibility for their upbringing and education.
The Court has gone even further, warning against the very reasoning now being used to justify these laws. It rejected “the statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases… because some parents abuse and neglect their children,” calling that idea “repugnant to American tradition.” That is strong language—but it is directly relevant to what is being proposed today.
Supporters of these bills consistently point to tragic cases of abuse. Those cases are real, heartbreaking, and demand serious response. But the existence of abuse does not justify abandoning foundational principles. As Mason notes, the issue is not whether abuse exists—it is how a free society responds without treating all families as suspect.
What we are seeing instead is a shift toward universal suspicion. Rather than intervening where there is evidence of harm, these proposals impose broad requirements on every family—background checks, registration systems, and preconditions for homeschooling. This approach does not target wrongdoing. It assumes the possibility of wrongdoing everywhere.
That shift has practical consequences. It introduces delays, bureaucratic hurdles, and the potential for expanding oversight over time. Once the state is positioned as the gatekeeper for homeschooling, it becomes far easier to add new layers of regulation in the future. What begins as a “modest safeguard” can evolve into a comprehensive regulatory framework.
For California families, this is not hypothetical. In 2018, similar ideas were introduced here and came dangerously close to becoming law. Those efforts were stopped because families were informed, engaged, and unified. But the underlying philosophy was not defeated—it simply moved on to other states where it could gain traction.
That is what we are seeing now. Nebraska represents a significant step forward for this movement. Connecticut represents another. Each success builds momentum. Each law creates precedent. And each step makes it more likely that similar proposals will return to California in the future.
There is also a broader cultural shift reflected in these efforts. Increasingly, freedom is being reframed not as a good to be preserved, but as a risk to be managed. Under this framework, liberty is no longer the starting point. It becomes something that must be justified, monitored, and controlled for the sake of safety.
Jim Mason captures this well when he observes that in proposals like these, “Trust in parents is replaced with suspicion.” [3] That inversion is not limited to homeschooling policy. It reflects a deeper reordering of how authority and responsibility are understood in society.
A better path is both possible and necessary. Laws already exist to address abuse and neglect, and they should be enforced vigorously. Where there is evidence of harm, the state has a duty to act. But that is very different from imposing broad restrictions on every family without cause.
We can protect children without reversing the presumption that parents are generally fit and act in the best interest of their children. We can pursue justice without undermining liberty. And we can address real problems without creating new ones that affect every family.
Ultimately, this debate is about more than one bill in one state. It is about where we believe authority begins. Is the family the starting point—or the state? For California homeschool families, that question is not theoretical. It has already come before us once, and it will almost certainly come again.
Read HSLDA’s Connecticut Statement Here:
Read About FPM’s 2018 Victory: