These ages vary by state, but are frequently defined as ages seven through 16. See e.g., Ala. Code § 16-28-3 (1975), Alaska Stat. §14.30.010 (2006), and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-33-104 (2000).
2.
See e.g. Ala. Code § 16-28-3 (1975), Alaska Stat. §14.30.010 (2006), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. §15–802 (1990).
3.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (holding unconstitutional a Nebraska statute forbidding teaching school in any language other than English).
4.
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
5.
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
6.
However, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court held that it was acceptable for parents to remove their children from school before the age of 16, without putting the children in a new school, for religious reasons, because the children were Amish in this case. The Court noted a difference between religious and philosophical reasons for exemption from compulsory schooling.
7.
See e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 41-23-37 (1983) (“It shall be unlawful for any child to attend school…either public or private…unless they had been vaccinated.”)
McNeilD. G., “Worship Optional: Joining a Church to Avoid Vaccines,”New York Times, January 14, 2003, at F1.
10.
ReillyS.GonzalezA., “Home-Schooling Up,”USA Today, September 1, 2004, at A1.
11.
Texas and Michigan require no registration for parents to home-school children.
12.
NappenL. P., “The Privacy Advantages of Homeschooling,”Chapman Law Review9, no. 1 (2002): 73–109, at 80, citing “More Kids Learning at Home, U.S. Says,”Asbury Park Press, August 4, 2004, at A5.
13.
KlickaC. J., “Homeschooling Expands around the Globe,” October 2, 2001, available at <http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/200110020.asp> (last visited January 14, 2006). (“Home schooling is gradually but steadily spreading across the world.”)
14.
Id. (“Unfortunately, they often find out it is not legal where they live….A number of these parents have also asked Home School Legal Defense Association for assistance as they seek to gain this freedom in their own countries.”)
15.
See ReillyGonzalez, supra note 10.
16.
S. Bielick, U.S. Department of Education, Homeschooling in the United States: 1999, 2001.
17.
KlickaC. J., The Right to Home School: A Guide to the Law on Parents' Rights in Education, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1998): at 2.
18.
But see, e.g., People v. Levisen, 90 N.E.2d 213 (1950) (noting that home instruction may constitute a private school in Illinois).
19.
Some states, like Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15–802 (1990), require that home schools have specific curriculums, submit to home visits like Minnesota, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 120A.22 (2006), affiliate with a home school organization like Delaware, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14 § 2702 (2006), or take standardized tests like Arkansas, Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-201 (2003).
20.
McMullenJ., “Behind Closed Doors: Should States Regulate Homeschooling?”South Carolina Law Review54, no. 1 (2002): 75–109, at 83.
Ala. Code § 16-28-7 (2001) (“[E]ach private tutor…shall report on forms prescribed by the State Superintendent of Education to the county superintendent of education…or to the city superintendent of schools…the names and addresses of all children between the ages of seven and 16 years who have enrolled in such schools.”)
23.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 10–184 (West 2002). (If “the parent or person having control of such child is able to show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools [then such] parent or person shall personally appear at the school district office and sign a withdrawal form. The school district shall provide such parent or person with information on the educational options available in the school system and in the community.”)
24.
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 76, § 1 (West 2002) (instructing that school superintendents may approve alternative educational systems for children).
25.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3321.04 (A)(2) (1995) (The district superintendent may permit homeschooling after determining that “the child is being instructed at home by a person qualified to teach the branches in which instruction is required, and such additional branches, as the advancement and needs of the child may, in the opinion of such superintendent, require.”)
26.
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 59-65-45 (2001) (“[P]arents or guardians may teach their children at home if the instruction is conducted under the auspices of the South Carolina Association of Independent Home Schools.”)
27.
W. Va. Code § 18-8-1(c)(2)(A) (2003) (“Annually, the person or persons providing home instruction shall present to the county superintendent or county board a notice of intent to provide home instruction and the name, address, age and grade level of any child of compulsory school age to be instructed.”)
28.
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 115.30(3) (West 1999) (Every “home-based private educational program shall submit, on forms provided by the department, a statement of the enrollment on the 3rd Friday of September.”)
29.
State v. Whisner, 470 S.2d 181 (1976) (adopting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 [1972] for Ohio).
30.
JacksonC. L., “State Laws on Compulsory Immunization in the United States,”Public Health Report84, no. 9 (1969): 787–795, at 787.
31.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 1 (1905).
32.
Id., at 25 (“[T]he police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and public safety.”) It is clear that among the exemptions implied was that the government could not take citizens aside on the street and demand to inject them with vaccinations, as what happened to the plaintiff in this case.
33.
FowlerW., “Principal Provisions of Smallpox Vaccination Laws and Regulations in the United States,”Public Health Reports56 (1941): 167–173, at 167 (laying out smallpox vaccination statistics).
34.
Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922).
35.
AndersonR. M.MayR. M., Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1991): at 31.
ParmetW. E.GoodmanR. A.FarberA., “Individual Rights versus the Public's Health – 100 Years after Jacobson v. Massachusetts,”New England Journal of Medicine352, no. 7 (February 17, 2005): 652–654, at 652.
38.
See e.g., Ala. Code § 16-30-3 (2) (1975) (“A competent medical authority may provide an individual exemption, to be presented to the admissions officer of the school), 4 Alaska Admin. Code tit. 4, § 06.055 (b)(2) (2006) (“Affidavit signed by a licensed doctor… stating that immunization would be hazardous to the health and welfare of the child or to members of his family or household.”)
39.
See e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-4-901(2)(a), (b)(2) (2000) (“A signed statement that the child or parent ‘is an adherent to a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to immunizations….’”)
40.
See e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15–873 (A)(1) (1990) (“The parent… may submit a signed statement to the school administrator stating that they have received information from the department of health services, understand the risks and benefits of immunization and non-immunization, and that due to personal beliefs do not consent to immunization.”)
41.
N.Y. Pub. Health § 2164.8.
42.
See McNeilD. G., supra note 9.
43.
Brown v. Stone, 378 So. 2d. 218 (Miss. 1979), cert. denied 449 U.S. 887 (holding that Miss. Code Ann. § 41-23-37 [1972], which allowed religious exemptions to vaccination requirements, was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
44.
Miss. Code Ann. § 41-23-37 (1983) (It “shall be unlawful for any child to attend any school, kindergarten or similar type facility intended for the instruction of children (hereinafter called ‘schools’), either public or private, with the exception of any legitimate home instruction program…unless they shall first have been vaccinated against those diseases specified by the state health officer.”)
45.
105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27–8.1 (6) (2005) (noting that all schools, including private and home schools, must report “the number of children who have received the necessary immunizations” and “the number of children who are exempt”).
46.
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§39–115C-548, −556 (West 2001).
47.
See ParmetGoodmanFarber, supra note 37.
48.
SerpellL.GreenJ., “Parental Decision-Making in Childhood Vaccination,”Vaccine24, no. 19 (2006): 4041–4046, at 4045. (“People are, reasonably enough, more likely to believe the reassuring part of a message if they feel they are being given all the negative information.”)
49.
Id., at 4041–42, quoting NeumannD.GarelM., Attitudes about Childhood Immunization – 2003 Survey Results, paper presented at the 38th National Conference Immunization Conference, 2004.
50.
TaylorB.MillerE.FarringtonC. P., “Autism and Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association,”Lancet353, no. 9169 (1999): 2026–29.
51.
StotoM. A.EvansG.BostromA., “Vaccine Risk Communication,”American Journal of Preventative Medicine13, no. 3 (1998): 237–239, at 237.
52.
DiekamaD. S., “Responding to Parental Refusals to Immunization of Children,”Pediatrics115, no. 5 (May 2005): 1428–1431, at 1429.
53.
See Jacobson, supra note 31.
54.
See Center for Disease Control, “Update, Multistate Outbreak of Mumps – United States, January 1-May 2, 2006,”available at <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d518a1.htm> (last visited May 9, 2007) (noting that, in mumps outbreaks, “accumulation of susceptible persons who were not successfully immunized might be sufficient to sustain transmission in certain settings”).
55.
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§39–115C-548, −556 (West 2001).
56.
See Miss. Code, supra note 44.
57.
See Diekama, supra note 52 (describing the “limited circumstances under which parental refusals should be referred to child protective services agencies.”).
