In October, a Pennsylvania appellate court rejected any “rule that requires children to attend public schools when parents who share legal custody cannot agree on home schooling versus public schooling.” Staub v. Staub, 2008 PA Super 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A13018_08.PDF. The Court became the first to establish that homeschooling is equivalent to other modes of education, although it allowed the ultimate decision about the education of the children of divorce to continue to be made by family court.

Parents Brian and Toni Staub began homeschooling their children in 2001, and continued to educate them at home up through their divorce in 2007. The children are now 10 and 13, and “[b]y all accounts, the children are doing well academically. The home school program is supervised by a representative of the Southwestern School District. The children are involved in activities outside of academics, though not necessarily through the school district.” Dr. Ray, an expert on homeschooling, “testified that ‘[the children] are not only above average, but above average of the home-school average, which is above the public school average.’”

After their divorce, the parents shared legal custody, which gave them joint rights “to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their children, including educational, medical, and religious decisions.” But they failed to reach an agreement concerning the children’s education the following fall: the mother wished to continue homeschooling, while the father insisted on sending the children to public school.

The father appealed the dispute to Superior Court, where he asked it “to adopt a bright line rule in favor of public schooling over home schooling, instead of utilizing the best interests standard to decide this educational issue on a case by case basis.” The father argued that allowing one parent to home school the children would exclude the other parent from participating in the children’s education. But the father had previously admitted that he was little involved in his children’s schooling prior to the separation, and that there was no evidence he was truly “excluded from participating in the schooling process.”

The Court noted that the father’s arguments did not prove that public schooling would be in the best interests of his children, declaring that his “arguments do not focus on the best interests of his children or children generally. Instead, they focus on the best interests of the parent objecting to home schooling, who in this case is the father.”

Pennsylvania law allows four forms of education: public schooling, private schooling, religious schooling, and home schooling. The Court observed that the state school code is neutral on these four types of schooling, and suggests no preference for one over the others, provided educational standards are met.

“In light of the above, we decline to adopt a bright line rule or presumption in favor of public schooling over home schooling,” the Court held. “To the contrary, we hold that the well-established best interests standard, applied on a case by case basis, governs a court’s decision regarding public schooling versus home schooling.”

This decision thereby recognized that home schooling is equivalent in merit to public schooling. While the Court left the ultimate power in the hands of family court to decide the educational fate of children after divorce, this ruling sets an important precedent by placing home schooling on footing equal to public schooling.