In recent months, interest has grown in passing a “Tim Tebow” law in Oklahoma—legislation that would allow homeschooled students to participate in public school athletic programs. These proposals are named after NFL quarterback Tim Tebow, who was homeschooled in Florida while playing for his local public school team.
Homeschool Oklahoma appreciates the desire for more opportunities for students and understands that families differ in their circumstances. However, after decades of observing the long-term consequences of education policy—both intended and unintended—we cannot support Tim Tebow–style legislation. This essay will explain why.
(editor’s note – an executive summary of HSOK’s position is available here)
Oklahoma’s Freedom Rests on “Other Means of Education”
Oklahoma homeschoolers occupy a uniquely free legal position. The Oklahoma Constitution merely requires attendance at “some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided” (Okla. Const. art. 13, §4). The term “homeschool” appears nowhere in Oklahoma law or statute. There are no registration requirements, reporting obligations, or government oversight mechanisms.
That simplicity is our protection. Because homeschooling is not legally defined, it cannot be narrowly regulated. Families retain full liberty to direct the education of their children without state intrusion.
Enacting a Tim Tebow law would change this. Any legislation granting homeschooled students access to public-school sports would require the state—or the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA)—to define what constitutes a homeschool, who qualifies, and how “academic eligibility” is verified. Once the term is defined, it can only become narrower. Defining it would mark the first step toward regulation, paperwork, and oversight that have never encumbered Oklahoma’s homeschooling families.
Government Benefits Invite Government Oversight
Oklahoma homeschoolers have historically enjoyed freedom precisely because they have never received government-funded benefits. The public has trusted that homeschool families are not seeking financial or material advantage, but acting out of conviction and responsibility. Once government benefits enter the homeschool arena, that perception—and the freedom it protects—changes (see also, “Why We Don’t Want the Option of Free Money“).
A Tebow law would attach a government benefit to homeschool status. With that benefit comes the inevitable question: Who qualifies to receive it? The answer will not be left to parents; it will be determined by the state.
This shift from independence to entitlement would invite regulatory scrutiny. Every new program that grants benefits must also create systems to prevent fraud and misuse. In this case, that means state verification of academic progress, attendance, and eligibility—precisely the kind of state involvement Oklahoma has wisely avoided.
Lessons from Other States: Access Brings Regulation
Supporters of Tebow laws often argue that homeschoolers in other states have gained sports access without losing freedom. In reality, most states that have adopted such laws have done so by introducing mechanisms for oversight and definition, or utilizing ones that already existed.
- Florida (Tim Tebow’s state): Home-educated students must maintain an annual educational portfolio reviewed by a certified teacher, licensed psychologist, or equivalent professional, and must demonstrate educational progress to remain eligible (Fla. Stat. §1002.41; Fla. Stat. §1006.15). Because the state already certifies homeschool education through these annual reviews, sports access is regulated as part of that process.
- Virginia: Repeated “Tebow bills” introduced in the Virginia General Assembly required homeschoolers to provide standardized test results or “evidence of academic progress” from the previous two years to participate (Va. HB1626, 2015). Though vetoed for other reasons, the bills illustrate how such legislation inevitably defines and polices homeschool academics.
- Colorado: Under Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) rules, homeschoolers may participate only if they meet CHSAA academic eligibility standards verified by the district or a designated program. Parents must sign eligibility forms and comply with the same academic checkpoints as enrolled students (CHSAA Bylaws, Article 17).
- Iowa: Homeschoolers gain access through “dual enrollment” and must meet state eligibility rules found in Iowa Administrative Code 281–36.15. They are required to file academic eligibility forms with the district, and the same transfer and grade-point rules apply to them as to full-time students (Iowa Admin. Code r. 281–36.15).
In each of these states, “access” was granted only because the state established criteria to verify homeschool academic performance. These mechanisms define homeschooling and tie it to state standards. That is regulation by definition.
The Risk of Fraud and the Burden of Oversight
Homeschool Oklahoma has consistently opposed educational neglect or truancy masquerading as homeschooling. Unfortunately, such misclassification already happens under pressure from school accountability metrics.
In several states—most notably Texas—public schools have been found to reclassify underperforming or truant students as “withdrawn to homeschool” to avoid reporting them as dropouts (see also HSLDA’s report on Indiana). The Texas Education Agency’s “Leaver Code 60” allows a student to be marked as homeschooling based solely on a parent’s statement, and audits have repeatedly found inflated homeschool withdrawal numbers linked to accountability concerns (Texas Education Agency, Leaver Data Documentation, 2024).
In Oklahoma, similar concerns were raised in 2010 when Kathy McKean, then director of the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center, told the Tulsa World:
“As accountability goes up, the number of students who all of a sudden become home-schooled goes up. School officials are encouraging parents to say that. Families that really are homeschooling ought to be outraged over this because these people are using homeschooling as a sham—and it’s not just the families’ fault. It’s one of the most unethical things happening in schools in our state right now.”
(Tulsa World, “TPS dropout figure still in doubt after correction,” June 13, 2010)
If Oklahoma enacted a Tebow law, the incentive for such misclassification would increase dramatically. A student struggling academically or facing suspension could be withdrawn to “homeschool” status, then quickly re-enter athletics through Tebow access—without ever being truly educated at home.
To prevent abuse, the state would have to impose verification rules—academic documentation, testing, or portfolio reviews. Either outcome—fraud or regulation—harms constitutional homeschoolers.
Academic Gatekeeping Means State Standards
Some argue that homeschoolers already access public resources such as libraries, parks, or museums without additional oversight. The key difference is that these are public benefits not tied to academic performance.
Sports participation, by contrast, is an academically gated benefit. Eligibility depends on grades, attendance, behavior, and academic progress. Once homeschoolers are admitted into that system, the state must determine how to measure those factors, which means deciding what counts as “academic progress,” who certifies it, and what documentation must be provided.
In practice, that means defining homeschooling—and regulating it.
Homeschool Sports in Oklahoma Are Already Thriving
A common argument for Tebow laws is that homeschoolers lack athletic opportunities. In major Oklahoma cities, that simply isn’t true.
Over the past two decades, homeschoolers have built an impressive network of athletic programs: football, basketball, track, tennis, volleyball, and more. In 2024, the Oklahoma City Patriots opened their season against Tulsa’s NOAH Jaguars at Dallas Cowboys Stadium—a level of opportunity most public schools never experience.
These teams thrive because homeschool parents created them. They are community-based, self-sustaining, and values-aligned. A Tebow law would drain participants toward public programs and weaken the very teams that parents worked to build. In rural areas, it would prevent new programs from forming, since families would default to public school options instead of building their own.
Homeschooling has always succeeded through community initiative, not government intervention.
Freedom Requires Sacrifice: A Biblical Perspective
Throughout Scripture, God’s people are cautioned not to trade long-term freedom for short-term comfort. When the Israelites longed for the “free fish” of Egypt, they forgot that it came with slavery:
“We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic.” (Numbers 11:5)
They remembered the benefits and forgot the bondage.
Homeschooling in Oklahoma has been marked by independence—educational, philosophical, and spiritual. We invest time, energy, and resources precisely so that we do not have to place our children under state authority. It makes little sense to avoid government control in academics only to invite it back in for extracurriculars.
Building, Not Bargaining
Homeschool Oklahoma sympathizes with families—especially in rural areas—who want more athletic options. Sports can play a valuable role in character and community development. But the solution is not to return to the system we left. The solution is to build.
Every successful homeschool program in Oklahoma—academic, athletic, artistic—exists because parents cared enough to create it. Our freedom has always been paired with responsibility. The same can be true for sports.
Conclusion
Homeschool Oklahoma exists to promote, protect, encourage, and equip homeschooling families. We cannot endorse legislation that threatens the freedom that has allowed homeschooling in Oklahoma to flourish for generations.
- Tim Tebow laws require defining homeschooling—and definitions bring regulation.
- They incentivize fraudulent withdrawals that harm true homeschoolers.
- They erode the thriving, self-built homeschool sports community.
- They exchange liberty for convenience, freedom for fleeting benefits.
If Oklahoma wants to preserve its unparalleled homeschool freedom, it must continue to say no to policies that would require the legislature—or any state agency—to define what homeschooling is. Once that definition exists, it will be narrowed, amended, and regulated over time.
Oklahoma’s Constitution already provides all the freedom we need through “other means of education.” That freedom is our birthright. It is worth protecting.
