By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1989, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m47 m65 c0389
A federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that
a state law regulating homeschooling was invalid. The law in
question permitted homeschooling, but required "properly qualified
private tutors" to provide the daily instruction. The term
"qualified private tutor" was not adequately defined by the law,
and this led to differing interpretations among the 501 school
districts within the state. The court quoted one education expert
who had testified that he "had heard everything that one can
imagine, from persons qualified with an eighth grade education to
Ph.Ds." Such a law, concluded the court, was so vague that a parent
who educated his or her children at home could not determine in
advance whether such instruction was lawful under the state
homeschooling law. Such a law is "unconstitutional for vagueness."
Jeffery v. O'Donnell, 702 F. Supp. 516 (M.D. Pa. 1988).