Update – March 20, 2026: The original version of this article incorrectly stated that HB 1268 removes “education as required by law” as a standalone trigger for neglect under RSA 169-C. The final House-passed bill instead adds a protective carve-out in RSA 169-C:3, XIX: a child in a home education program (RSA 193-A) or EFA program (RSA 194-F) “shall not be considered a neglected child under this chapter solely on the basis of such participation.”
This is a meaningful protection against baseless referrals, but educational neglect remains possible under the broader neglect definition if other factors are present. The article’s central claim — that families still face a reactive burden to prove compliance under RSA 193:1 and RSA 189:35-a when questioned — remains accurate and unchanged.
*****
The House of Representatives recently passed HB 1268, a bill that would rewrite New Hampshire’s home education law.
Supporters often describe the bill as reducing paperwork for home education families. That is true: the bill removes the current initial notification and several record-keeping provisions from the statute.
But when we look at how the broader legal framework works, the practical effect is more complicated. Understanding that framework helps explain why some homeschool families have concerns about what could happen if the bill passes in its current form.
Laws do not exist in isolation. Other education statutes also affect home education families.
New Hampshire law begins with compulsory attendance
Under New Hampshire law, children between the ages of 6 and 18 must attend school unless they qualify for a lawful exemption.
Home education is one of those exemptions.
In other words, the legal starting point is not “children may stay home if parents choose.” The legal starting point is that children must attend school unless the family qualifies for an exemption such as home education.
Most of the time this distinction does not matter. Home education families go about their lives without any issues.
But if a question arises about whether a child is enrolled in school or receiving lawful home education, the exemption may need to be demonstrated.
Officials can verify whether the exemption applies
Truancy laws apply to all school-age children in New Hampshire, not just those attending public school.
If a report is made that a child is not enrolled or is absent without lawful excuse, officials such as school district attendance officers or investigators may verify whether the child is receiving lawful home education.
This does not mean families are automatically accused of wrongdoing. It simply means the official must confirm that the child is legally exempt from compulsory attendance.
When that happens, the family may need to prove that their child is being home educated in compliance with the law.
Current law provides a simple way to resolve questions
Under the current statute, most homeschool families file a one-time notification when they begin home education.
The acknowledgement is a receipt of that documentation, confirming that the family has established a home education program.
If questions arise later, the paperwork can usually resolve the issue quickly and easily. Families can show the notice and the acknowledgement, and the inquiry typically ends there. This often answers simple enrollment questions before investigations escalate.
HB 1268 removes that simple documentation tool
The House-passed version of HB 1268 creates two situations for conditional notification, but it is otherwise eliminated.
The bill creates two situations when a declaration is required:
- when a student withdraws from public school, or
- when a family wants their homeschooled child to participate in public school activities under the Equal Access law.
Families who never enroll their child in public school and who do not seek Equal Access would not need to create any declaration at all.
In those cases, there would be no official record created in advance that the child is being home educated.
The enforcement framework remains the same
Importantly, HB 1268 does not change New Hampshire’s compulsory attendance law or the statutes that allow officials to investigate possible truancy. Those laws remain in place exactly as they are today.
The bill does make one major change: it removes “education as required by law” as a standalone trigger for educational neglect under child protection statutes. That change should reduce the possibility of investigations based solely on home education status.
However, if a truancy concern arises, or if another investigation is already underway and officials need to verify enrollment status, the family may still need to demonstrate that the child qualifies for the home education exemption.
What families might have to show instead
Because HB 1268 removes the notification requirement and also removes portfolio and assessment provisions from the statute, families would have wide discretion in how they document their home education program.
But that flexibility also means there is no longer a simple piece of paper that clearly establishes the exemption.
If questions arise, families may instead need to show examples of their child’s learning, such as:
- portfolios or samples of work
- curriculum materials
- testing results or evaluations
- personal records of learning activities
Some families already keep these kinds of records and would do so regardless of the law.
Others, particularly families who use more flexible or “unschooling” approaches, may keep less documentation.
And families with children who have special education differences or work at their own pace may worry about how their learning would be interpreted by someone unfamiliar with their educational approach, needs, and progress.
Some families experience private disputes or custody situations where a child’s education status is questioned or challenged and authorities become involved. A preexisting document can sometimes help defuse these situations when enrollment status is part of the concern.
The practical question: how quickly and conclusively can an inquiry be resolved?
The key difference is not whether families are home educating legally.
The key difference is how easily and conclusively they can demonstrate that fact if questioned.
Under current law, the notification and acknowledgement often resolve questions immediately.
Under HB 1268, there may be no simple document to show. Families might instead need to explain their program and provide learning materials or other evidence. This is a more invasive and subjective determination.
For most families, this may never arise. But if it does, the interaction could be more complicated than it is today.
A possible private documentation approach
Some advocates have suggested a simple solution that would preserve family independence while giving them a proactive way to document their home education status.
One idea is a private, notarized self-declaration that families could keep in their own records and show only if questions arise.
Notarized documents are commonly used across the country for many routine legal purposes, such as powers of attorney, healthcare directives, and certain property transactions. Notaries are widely available and inexpensive, and documents typically remain private unless they need to be presented in a particular situation.
This approach would:
- require no filing and no government permission
- create no new bureaucracy
- create no approval or permission process
- preserve complete parental independence and rights
- provide evidence created in advance if enrollment status is questioned
- demonstrate good faith and preparation
If recognized in statute, such a declaration would function as presumptive proof of lawful home education unless there were clear reasons to doubt it.
Without statutory recognition, a notarized statement could still have some evidentiary value. It demonstrates that the family documented their home education program ahead of time and verified their identity when signing. This carries some evidentiary value, but not the same weight it would have if explicitly recognized in the home education law as sufficient proof on its own.
Understanding the broader framework
The debate around HB 1268 often focuses on whether the bill reduces paperwork.
It does.
But the broader legal structure of compulsory attendance and truancy enforcement still exists.
For that reason, the practical question for families becomes not just whether paperwork is reduced, but how homeschooling status will be demonstrated if it ever needs to be verified.
Understanding that interaction between the statutes helps explain why the conversation around HB 1268 has focused not only on deregulation, but also on how families may document their lawful exemption under the state’s compulsory attendance framework.
Thankfully, few families experience investigations by truancy or DCYF officials each year. However, it happens more often than people may think, and families should have an optional way to prepare for those situations.
While HB 1268 makes many favorable changes to New Hampshire’s home education law, it leaves a gap with how it interacts with other critical education statutes that affect families.
GSHE hopes legislators will consider adding an optional notarized self-declaration into HB 1268 for those families that want it.
