Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 20-2-690 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 20-2-690 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 20-2-690

TITLE 20 EDUCATION

Section 2. Elementary and Secondary Education, 20-2-1 through 20-2-2180.

ARTICLE 16 STUDENTS

20-2-690. Educational entities; requirements for private schools and home study programs.

  1. This subpart recognizes the existence of public schools, private schools, and home study programs as educational entities.
  2. As used in this subpart, the term "private school" means an institution meeting the following criteria or requirements:
    1. The primary purpose of the institution is to provide education or, if the primary purpose of the institution is religious in nature, the institution shall provide the basic academic educational program specified in paragraph (4) of this subsection;
    2. The institution is privately controlled and operates on a continuing basis;
    3. The institution provides instruction each 12 months for the equivalent of 180 school days of education with each school day consisting of at least four and one-half school hours;
    4. The institution provides a basic academic educational program which includes, but is not limited to, reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science;
    5. Within 30 days after the beginning of each school year, it shall be the duty of the administrator of each private school to provide to the school superintendent of each local public school district which has residents enrolled in the private school a list of the name, age, and residence of each resident so enrolled. At the end of each school month, it shall be the duty of the administrator of each private school to notify the school superintendent of each local public school district of the name, age, and residence of each student residing in the public school district who enrolls or terminates enrollment at the private school during the immediately preceding school month. Such records shall indicate when attendance has been suspended and the grounds for such suspension. Enrollment records and reports shall not be used for any purpose except providing necessary enrollment information, except with the permission of the parent or guardian of a child, pursuant to the subpoena of a court of competent jurisdiction, or for verification of enrollment by the Department of Driver Services for the purposes set forth in subsection (a.1) of Code Section 40-5-22; and
    6. Any building used by the institution for private school purposes meets all health and safety standards established under state law and local ordinances.
  3. Parents or guardians may teach their children at home in a home study program which meets the following requirements:
    1. The parent, parents, or guardian must submit within 30 days after the establishment of a home study program and by September 1 annually thereafter a declaration of intent to utilize a home study program to the Department of Education, which shall provide for written or electronic submittal of such declaration of intent;
    2. The declaration shall include a list of the names and ages of the students who are enrolled in the home study program, the address where the home study program is located, the local school system in which the home study program is located, and a statement of the 12 month period that is to be considered the school year for that home study program. Enrollment records and reports shall not be used for any purpose except providing necessary enrollment information, except with the permission of the parent or guardian of a child, or pursuant to the subpoena of a court of competent jurisdiction;
    3. Parents or guardians may teach only their own children in the home study program, provided the teaching parent or guardian possesses at least a high school diploma or a general educational development diploma, but the parents or guardians may employ a tutor who holds a high school diploma or a general educational development diploma to teach such children;
    4. The home study program shall provide a basic academic educational program which includes, but is not limited to, reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science;
    5. The home study program must provide instruction each 12 months to home study students equivalent to 180 school days of education with each school day consisting of at least four and one-half school hours unless the child is physically unable to comply with the rule provided for in this paragraph;
    6. The parent or guardian shall have the authority to execute any document required by law, rule, regulation, or policy to evidence the enrollment of a child in a home study program, the student's full-time or part-time status, the student's grades, or any other required educational information. This shall include, but not be limited to, documents for purposes of verification of enrollment by the Department of Driver Services, for the purposes set forth in subsection (a.1) of Code Section 40-5-22, documents required pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 39 relating to employment of minors, and any documents required to apply for the receipt of state or federal public assistance;
    7. Students in home study programs shall be subject to an appropriate nationally standardized testing program administered in consultation with a person trained in the administration and interpretation of norm reference tests to evaluate their educational progress at least every three years beginning at the end of the third grade and records of such tests and scores shall be retained but shall not be required to be submitted to public educational authorities; and
    8. The home study program instructor shall write an annual progress assessment report which shall include the instructor's individualized assessment of the student's academic progress in each of the subject areas specified in paragraph (4) of this subsection, and such progress reports shall be retained by the parent, parents, or guardian of children in the home study program for a period of at least three years.
  4. Any person who operates a private school without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this Code section or any person who operates a home study program without complying with the requirements of subsection (c) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100.00.
  5. The State Board of Education shall devise, adopt, and make available to local school superintendents, who shall in turn make available to administrators of private schools and parents or guardians with children in home study programs, such printed forms and procedures as may be reasonably necessary to carry out efficiently the reporting provisions of this Code section, but such printed forms and procedures shall not be inconsistent with or exceed the requirements of this Code section.

(Code 1981, §20-2-690, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1266, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 20; Ga. L. 1986, p. 10, § 20; Ga. L. 1997, p. 760, § 4; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 20; Ga. L. 2004, p. 945, § 1; Ga. L. 2012, p. 358, § 30/HB 706; Ga. L. 2012, p. 648, § 1/HB 39; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141 § 20/HB 79; Ga. L. 2013, p. 1061, § 23/HB 283; Ga. L. 2015, p. 60, § 3-2/SB 100; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1376, § 35/HB 502.)

The 2015 amendments. The first 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, substituted "enrollment" for "attendance" in the last sentence of paragraph (b)(5) and in the last sentence of paragraph (c)(6). See editor's note for applicability. The second 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, inserted "the local school system in which the home study program is located," in the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2).

Cross references.

- Characterization as "unruly" of child who is habitually truant from school, § 15-11-2(12)(A).

Disposition of child found by juvenile court to be unruly, § 15-11-67.

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section28-9-3, in 2012, the amendment of paragraph (c)(6) of this Code section by Ga. L. 2012, p. 358, § 30/HB 706, was treated as impliedly repealed and superseded by Ga. L. 2012, p. 648, § 1/HB 39, due to irreconcilable conflict. See County of Butts v. Strahan, 151 Ga. 417 (1921); Keener v. McDougall, 232 Ga. 273 (1974).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1984, p. 1266, § 1 repealed former Code Section 20-2-690 and substituted in lieu thereof present Code Sections 20-2-690 and 20-2-690.1. Present Code Section 20-2-690.1 is essentially a continuation of the provisions of former Code Section 20-2-690. See the editor's notes to Code Section 20-2-690.1.

Ga. L. 1997, p. 760, § 27(a), not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, this Act shall become effective on July 1, 1997, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date and, except for subsection (b.1) of Code Section 40-5-67.1 as enacted by this Act, this Act shall not apply to offenses committed prior to that date."

Ga. L. 2012, p. 648, § 6/HB 39, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment by that Act shall apply beginning with school year 2012-2013.

Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 54(f)/HB 79, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "In the event of a conflict between a provision in Sections 1 through 53 of this Act and a provision of another Act enacted at the 2013 regular session of the General Assembly, the provision of such other Act shall control over the conflicting provisions in Sections 1 through 53 of this Act to the extent of the conflict." Accordingly, the amendment to paragraph (c)(2) of this Code section by Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 20(7)/HB 79 was not given effect.

Ga. L. 2015, p. 60, § 6-1/SB 100, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that this Act shall apply to offenses which occur on or after July 1, 2015.

Law reviews.

- For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 203 (1997). For note, "A Constitutional Analysis of Compulsory School Attendance Laws in the Southeast: Do They Unlawfully Interfere with Alternatives to Public Education?," see 8 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 457 (1992).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Requiring parents to produce evidence of compliance.

- While responsibility for the enforcement of the statutory requirements pertaining to home study programs rests in large measure upon local school superintendents, a local school superintendent does not have the power to issue subpoenas, require the production of documents, or to otherwise require parents to affirmatively "produce evidence" of the parents' continuing compliance with the law in the operation of home study programs, and while the local school superintendent is free to "request" such materials and statements, the superintendent has no compulsory process which can be invoked to secure such information other than in connection with a pending legal proceeding. 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U86-19.

Fingerprinting of offenders.

- Offense covered by O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690(d) is not currently designated as an offense requiring fingerprinting. 1997 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 97-330.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants, § 14. 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Schools, §§ 266 et seq., 271.

C.J.S.

- 78A C.J.S., Schools and School Districts, §§ 1017, 1019, 1022, 1023, 1026.

ALR.

- Schools: extent of legislative power with respect to attendance and curriculum, 39 A.L.R. 477; 53 A.L.R. 832.

Religious beliefs of parents as defense to prosecution for failure to comply with compulsory education law, 3 A.L.R.2d 1401.

What constitutes a private, parochial, or denominational school within statute making attendance at such school a compliance with compulsory school attendance law, 65 A.L.R.3d 1222.

Validity of local or state denial of public school courses or activities to private or parochial school students, 43 A.L.R.4th 776.

Validity of state or local government regulation requiring private school to report attendance and similar information to government - post-Yoder cases, 8 A.L.R.5th 875.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Roemhild v. State, 308 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 25, 1983 | 251 Ga. 569

...Stockton, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Patrick W. McKee, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Ware, Parker, Johnson, Cook & Dunlevie, Wendell R. Bird, amicus curiae. BELL, Justice. This case concerns the constitutionality of OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...school teachers, and that state law does not define what is meant by private school. The trial judge ruled that the Roemhilds had not sufficiently raised the constitutional issues, and were not operating a "private school" within the meaning of OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...Accordingly, the judge found the Roemhilds guilty of nineteen violations of the compulsory school attendance law, which was an assessment of one violation for each school day the children were kept at home. On appeal, the Roemhilds contend, among other things, that OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...hould construe it to permit home education. As we find that the statute is impressibly vague, we need not reach the latter contention. 1). Because the trial court held the Roemhilds had not sufficiently raised their constitutional challenges to OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...was attending a "private school," and thus posed the danger of arbitrary and *573 discriminatory enforcement. Id. at 755-756. We find that the Georgia compulsory school attendance law suffers from the same infirmities. It is clear that neither OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...City of Rockford, 408 U. S. at 108; Sabel v. State, 250 Ga. at 641. In the instant case, the failure of the statute to provide fair notice is evident from the frustration experienced by the Roemhilds when they made a good faith effort to comply with OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...ools or can a "private school" vary their nature? And, finally, must the time schedule of a "private school" be consistent with that of a public school? Because of the subjective nature of the interpretation of the term "schooling," and because OCGA § 20-2-690 (Code Ann....
...equivocal response to the Roemhilds telling them in effect that the decision of whether their actions complied with the compulsory school attendance law was up to the Roemhilds, local law enforcement officials, and local school officials. Thus, OCGA § 20-2-690 (a) (Code Ann....
...§ 32-2104) allows local officials to apply, and even necessitates that they apply, their own standards and predilections concerning education when determining if an individual's actions comply with the compulsory school attendance law. The resolution of whether someone's conduct violates OCGA § 20-2-690 (a) (Code Ann....
...Popanz, 332 NW2d at 755; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. at 108-109. Although the enforcement of any law necessitates the exercise of some degree of judgment by local officials, Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. at 114, we find that OCGA § 20-2-690 (a) (Code Ann....
...of Education (Ga. L. 1919, pp. 288, 291). That statute became, in essence, the present code section, except that the requirement is simply that the responsible person "shall enroll and send such child or children to a public or private school." OCGA § 20-2-690 (a) (Code Ann....
...ot destroy the Compulsory Education Act because the statutory term "private school" is not defined with all of the exceptions, exclusions, reservations, and provisos exemplifying the regulation-writing genius of a federal bureaucracy. NOTES [1] OCGA § 20-2-690 (a) (Code Ann....
Copy

Lowe v. State, 482 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 17, 1997 | 267 Ga. 754, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 957

...Children in the group which includes appellants' children are not only the beneficiaries of a constitutionally mandated right to an education at state expense, supported by taxation (Ga. Const.1983, Art. VIII, Sec. I, Par. I), but also comprise an almost identical group of children who are required to attend school. OCGA § 20-2-690.1....
Copy

Pitts v. State, 293 Ga. 511 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 9, 2013 | 748 S.E.2d 426, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2818

HINES, Presiding Justice. Following the denial of her motion for new trial, Chanell Pitts appeals her convictions and misdemeanor sentences for violations in 2011 of OCGA § 20-2-690.1,1 which provides for mandatory education for children between the ages of six and sixteen (“mandatory *512education statute”). Her sole challenge is to the constitutionality of *513OCGA § 20-2-690.1.2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On January 31, 2012, Pitts was charged by accusation with nine separate counts of violation of OCGA § 20-2-690.1 in regard to her son’s unexcused absences from school in August 2011. On May 29, 2012, she filed a “Plea in Bar; Motion to Dismiss Accusation; Motion to Declare O.C.G.A. 20-2-690.1 Unconstitutional,” arguing that the statute violated due process and equal protection under the State and Federal Constitutions, and the doctrine of separation of powers under the State Constitution....
...In considering the question of whether statutory notice satisfies the requirements of due process the statute may be considered in pari materia with other legislation and regulations. See Richards v. Blackmon, 233 Ga. 739 (1) (213 SE2d 638) (1975). First, OCGA § 20-2-690.1 (c) provides in relevant part that: ....
..., or other person by certified mail, return receipt requested. .. . (Emphasis supplied.) It is plain that the statute criminalizes “unexcused” absences. And, OCGA § 20-2-693 confirms that excused absences are exempt and that a violation of OCGA § 20-2-690.1 requires that the absences be without legal excuse: (a) Children during the ages of mandatory attendance as required in subsection (a) of Code Section 20-2-690.1 who are excused from attendance in public school by county or *515independent school system boards in accordance with general policies and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education shall be exempt from this subpart....
...The state board, in promulgating its general policies and regulations, shall take into consideration sickness and other emergencies which may arise in any school community. (b) Children during the ages of mandatory attendance as required in subsection (a) of Code Section 20-2-690.1 who are excused from attendance at private schools or home study programs for sickness or emergencies or for other reasons substantially the same as the reasons for excused absences from attendance at public school authorized by st...
...which lists various circumstances in which an absence may be excused. Again, the requirement of due process is that the law give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning of the conduct which is forbidden or mandated, and it is clear that OCGA § 20-2-690.1 punishes the legally unjustified failure to send a child for whom one is responsible to school....
...elieve that the wholesale failure to provide ANY attempt to excuse a child’s absence could qualify as an ‘excused’ absence under any conceivable definition of the word.” Pitts’s due process challenge fails. 2. Pitts next asserts that OCGA § 20-2-690.1 violates equal protection because it treats similarly-situated people differently based on criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute....
...And, Pitts has not carried her burden. For equal protection purposes, criminal defendants are similarly situated if they are charged with the same crime. Fair v. State, supra at 246 (1) (A). However, even accepting that Pitts is situated similarly to others charged with violation of OCGA § 20-2-690.1, she raises only the possibility of different treatment under the statute....
...ome rational basis for the classification, it does not offend constitutional safeguards merely because the classification is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it may result in some inequality. Id. First, it is plain that OCGA § 20-2-690.1 is reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest of ensuring that the children residing in Georgia are afforded the opportunity of an education....
...But, differences in the circumstances and resources of local school boards and the residents of each school district require that the varying school districts be allowed some flexibility in determining what constitutes an unexcused absence from school so as to trigger possible application of the *517sanctions of OCGA § 20-2-690.1....
...Simply, the statute has not been shown to run afoul of constitutional equal protection. Decided September 9, 2013. Donna A. Seagraves, Carla D. Brock, for appellant. Donald E. Moore, Solicitor-General, Donald L. Hudson, Jr., Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee. 3. Finally, Pitts fails in her claim that OCGA § 20-2-690.1 is unconstitutional because it improperly delegates legislative power to determine what acts constitute a crime to both the executive branch and local school boards in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers....
...This is so because in such instance the delegatee is not performing a legislative function, that is, it is not making a purely legislative decision, but is acting in an administrative capacity by direction of the legislature. Id. As has been discussed, OCGA § 20-2-690.1 is to be considered in conjunction with OCGA § 20-2-693, which does provide realistic guidance for enforcement of the penalty provisions of OCGA § 20-2-690.1....
...ch guidelines must be flexible in order to account for the varying exigent circumstances which might bear on school attendance. There is no violation of the Georgia separation-of-powers doctrine. Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur. OCGA § 20-2-690.1 in effect in 2011 provided: (a) Mandatory attendance in a public school, private school, or home school program shallbe required for children between their sixth and sixteenth birthdays....