Leeper v. Arlington ISD

Leeper v. Arlington Independent School District was a Texas court case which ultimately clarified the rights of Texas parents to homeschool their children and be compliant with the Texas Education Code pertaining to compulsory education.

Background

Texas did not pass a compulsory education law until 1916. Even then homeschooling did not end; the Texas Legislature did not attempt to rewrite the law to prohibit or severely restrict the practice at any time afterwards.

At the time of the case, the law only stated that any student attending a private or parochial school, which in a bona fide manner taught certain subjects, was considered to be compliant with the law.

However, beginning in 1981, certain actions taken by the Texas Education Agency (TEA, the governing body for public education in the state) attempted to outlaw homeschooling:

• First, in 1981 in response to an assistant superintendent's inquiry, a TEA staff attorney stated that homeschooling was not one of the exemptions outlined in the law. However, the attorney -- noting the absence of legislative guidance in this area -- advised caution to both parents and school districts regarding this subject, and further stated that the courts would be the proper forum to determine if homeschooling was a valid exemption.
• The following year, TEA's Assistant General Counsel openly stated that homeschooling was not a valid exemption, and further stated that if homeschooling was to be permitted, legislative action would be required. (Though the Legislature would meet afterwards, and notably several bills were introduced during the 1985 session on this matter, it took no action to rewrite the law.)
• After the Legislature took no action in 1985, TEA issued a publication, "HOUSE BILL 72 AND SUBSEQUENT EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION: COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCES AND EXPLANATIONS", which discussed the compulsory attendance laws (even though House Bill 72 made no changes to them). For the first time, TEA officially declared that homeschooling was not the same as private education, and therefore school districts should file charges against home schooled students.

At the time the case was filed, over 150 prosecutions were initiated, with 80 actually having gone to trial.

District Court

In an effort to halt the prosecutions, a class action was filed in the 17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

The district court concurred with the class action, and certified three classes of plaintiffs:

• The first plaintiff class consisted of all parents; the court specifically defined the class as parents "who either [a] have enrolled their school-age children in private or parochial schools outside their homes receiving the curricula and instruction of these schools in their homes which includes in the course a study of good citizenship or [b] have established a private school in their homes which involves in its course a study of good citizenship."
• The second plaintiff class consisted of school organizations "who have established private or parochial schools where the students receive their curricula including a study of good citizenship and instruction in their homes.”
• The third plaintiff class consisted of organizations other than schools “who provide curricula including in their courses a study of good citizenship and instruction for private schools in homes.”
• Also named as an individual plaintiff was the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The district court certified one class of defendants comprised of all "public school districts and their school attendance officers". There were four individual defendants also named: the TEA; the Texas Commissioner of Education; the Assistant General Counsel of the TEA; and the Attorney General of Texas.

But before the case went to trial, the State Board of Education (SBOE, an elected body which oversees TEA) passed a resolution. The resolution contained two major items:

• First, SBOE called for the Legislature (at its upcoming session in 1987) to either legally define what constituted a "private or parochial school", or give SBOE the authority to define it.
• Second, pending Legislative action SBOE provided the following "guidelines" to assist school districts in determining if an entity was a "private or parochial school":
  • If the entity was accredited by an organization recognized by the Commissioner of Education, or if it provided documentation showing that it met such criteria, or
  • If the entity a) instructed students in facilities meeting fire and sanitation codes, b) had a written plan of instruction sufficient to meet basic educational goals, and c) regularly administered standardized tests to its students.
• The resolution specifically stated that the guidelines "will not be interpreted in such a manner as to interfere with the exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions."

Based on the resolution, the defendants argued that the entire case was moot, an argument the district court rejected.

Also prior to trial, parties to the action reached a proposed agreement concerning how the Education Code section was to be construed; however many of the parental class members objected to the wording, so it was withdrawn.

The case went to trial on January 5, 1987. On September 4 of that year, the district court judge issued his ruling:

• The parental plaintiff class either suffered actual injury by being prosecuted for homeschooling their children, or have been threatened with prosecution for doing so.
• Since the enactment of the original compulsory education laws, TEA was aware that parents homeschooled their children, and neither TEA nor the defendant school districts took the position that such practice did not constitute a violation prior to 1981.
• TEA's 1981 interpretation of the law was decided incorrectly, and that this incorrect interpretation resulted in the prosecutions or threatened prosecutions.
• The SBOE's resolution described private and parochial schools contrary to the literal and historical meanings of those terms when the compulsory attendance law was enacted.
• Any prosecution under the SBOE's definition constituted a violation of the parent's rights "violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Sections 3, 3a and 29 of the Constitution of the State of Texas".
• The use of a home to teach school-age children is a "private, non-commercial use of the home".
• The members of the second and third plaintiff classes " have no judicial forum other than these proceedings within which to protect their clientele or ministry; that very few, if any, parents would purchase for supplementary or enrichment use the curricula and instruction of these Plaintiffs and the class they represent; that the Plaintiffs and the classes they represent have no adequate remedy at law; and that the Plaintiffs and the classes they represent will suffer irreparable injury unless Defendants public school district school attendance officers are permanently enjoined from bringing charges pursuant to Section 4.25 of the Texas Education Code against the Texas members" of HSLDA and the parental plaintiff class.

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to monetary judgment against the school district defendants in specified amounts including increases dependent on how far the case was appealed (he also ruled on the amounts the defendant school districts would obtain if a higher court overturned his decision).

Essentially, the judge ruled that homeschooling in Texas qualified as a "private or parochial school" under the meaning of the Texas Education Code at the time the compulsory attendance law was passed (as students were homeschooled at that time and afterwards), and therefore it could not be outlawed by action of the TEA.

Appellate Court

TEA and the school districts appealed the district court's ruling to the Second Court of Appeals, which had appellate jurisdiction (that appellate court handles all appeals from courts in Tarrant County).

On November 17, 1991, a three-judge panel affirmed the district court's ruling, and denied rehearing on December 31 of that year.

Texas Supreme Court

Again TEA and the school districts appealed, and the court agreed to hear the appeal.

On June 15, 1994, the court (in an almost unanimous opinion, one judge agreed with only parts of the final opinion) reversed the permanent injunction granted by the district court, but affirmed the ruling in all other respects.

Aftermath

The decision made Texas one of the most homeschool-friendly states in the nation (although districts still attempt to threaten parents from time to time).

Though no changes in the law have taken place, over time Texas has become a Republican stronghold. The State Board of Education is now controlled by the Republican party, and therefore no attempts have been made to outlaw homeschooling at the state level. Texas has attempted -- without success -- to pass a school voucher plan to assist homeschoolers, mainly due to an unusual coalition of Democrats - who oppose vouchers going to religious schools - and rural Republicans - who represent small-town schools, that are usually the center of community life.

External Links

• District Court ruling in case
• Appellate Court ruling in case
• Texas Supreme Court ruling in case