In Alabama, there is a great deal of encouragement given to new -- and existing -- homeschooling families to form their own church school and cover their own family. Those who believe that this is the "ideal" scenario place much emphasis on the so-called "legal basis" for this argument being the fact that "church" is not defined in Alabama law.

However, that is not only not a guarantee of protection against prosecution, there is evidence to suggest that it is anything but protection. When a term is not defined by law, the courts can take at least two different stances -- probably more -- but at least two that preclude the absence of definition being considered a protection.

The first is that they apply the principle of "common usage". For example, in the state of Florida two families were prosecuted for forming their own private school that included only their own family (each family had their own school, not one school with two families). Even though the term "private school" was not defined in FL law, the courts ruled against them by applying "common usage" to define "private school". A family that believed their protection was in the fact that "church" is not defined by AL code, worst case, could be ruled against individually.

The second possible stance by the courts -- considered also by the FL courts in the above-mentioned case -- is a finding that the code itself is "unconstitutionally vague". So does the family win in this case? Well, they escape personal liability for their previous actions, but "win" is not the word I would apply, since the remedy could (fact) and most certainly would (opinion) curtail the amount of liberty we now enjoy.

The remedy for unconstitutionally vague statutes is rewriting them until they are no longer vague. Anyone who thinks that would result in a "loose" definition of the word "church" that would maintain the freedom we now have in our educational choices is simply whistling in the wind.

First of all, it is doubtful that attempts to remedy the vagueness would take the form of defining the word "church", not because it would violate separation principles (which is in vogue now anyway), but because that would not accomplish what legislators always must accomplish when non-public education is addressed, which is securing the state's compelling interest. They MUST do this or the education establishment, the very props for the entire little house of cards, would collapse.

The simpler remedy would be to regulate church schools. Don't believe it can't happen. Church schools CAN be regulated. They are, most notably in our neighboring state of (southern, proud, freedom-oriented, and inclined to be testy about separation) TN. There is simply no end to what can happen when legislators -- who do, by the way, want the votes of the entrenched education establishment constituents -- get on a roll. In AL, private schools might as well be public schools when it comes to regulation, but this is not true in most other states. It is not realistic to think that the AL code, that the mood and temperament of a legislature which controls private schools as if they were public, would not also regulate church schools in the same manner in seeking a remedy for vagueness.

I also believe that a ruling on vagueness would result in the legislature defining homeschool and passing home education regulations. And what's wrong with that? Don't we "NEED" homeschool regs? Don't we "DESERVE" homeschool regs?

Hey. I'm glad you brought that up.
 

We NEED a homeschool law, Don't We!