Interpretation's Date: January 29, 1991
by superintendent Henry Marockie
Section: II. Curriculum
January 29, 1991
Mrs. Nancy Imhoff
Dear Mrs. Imhoff:
You have asked for clarification of the statement in my October 4, 1990, letter to Mr. J. Michael Smith, Vice President, Home School Legal Defense Association, that reads:
If the plan of instruction is deemed inadequate, then the remedy
is advice and perhaps, also, technical assistance from the public
county schools - ultimately, the remedy could be an order from the
State Superintendent of Schools denying the home instruction and
subjecting the child and his/her parents to the compulsory attendance
This statement is an interpretation of W.Va. Code 18-8-1, Exemption B(b), where it prescribes:
"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Exemption B, the person or persons providing home instruction meet the requirements for Exemption B when the conditions of this subsection are met: Provided, That the county superintendent shall have the right to seek from the circuit court of the county an order denying the home instruction, which order may be granted upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer educational neglect or that there are other compelling reasons to deny home instruction."
* * * *
"(3) The person or persons providing home instruction outline a
plan of instruction for the ensuing school year . . ."
Mrs. Nancy Imhoff
My position seems to be clear. If the plan of instruction is deemed inadequate and is not able to be amended and agreed upon by the parents and the county, then Exemption B status could be denied by my office or the county superintendent could seek the remedies available in circuit court.
Hoping that I have been of service, I am,
cc: Mr. Robert J. Brewster