Overview

Homeschool Oklahoma recognizes that access to extracurricular opportunities is important to many families. However, we firmly oppose “Tim Tebow” laws—legislation that would allow homeschooled students to participate in public-school sports programs. While well-intentioned, such laws would fundamentally alter Oklahoma’s legal foundation for home education, inviting government oversight and eroding the freedom that has long defined homeschooling in our state.

(NOTE – this is the executive summary – for the full article, see here)

1. Oklahoma’s Unique Legal Freedom

Oklahoma homeschoolers enjoy an exceptional level of liberty. The Oklahoma Constitution requiresattendance at “some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided” (Okla. Const. art. 13, § 4). The phrase “homeschool” does not appear in state law, and there are no registration, testing, or reporting requirements. This deliberate simplicity protects families from unnecessary government interference. A Tebow-style bill would require the legislature—or OSSAA—to define who qualifies as a homeschooler for eligibility purposes. Once “homeschooling” is defined in law, that definition can only grow narrower. The resulting administrative rules would open the door to state regulation of academic content and performance.

2. Benefits Bring Regulation

For decades, Oklahoma homeschoolers have refused government funding to preserve independence and integrity. Once government benefits are attached to homeschooling, oversight inevitably follows. If the state grants access to athletics—a taxpayer-funded benefit—it must also determine who qualifies and how eligibility is verified. That means academic documentation, progress standards, and recordkeeping, all under state review. Florida’s experience illustrates this reality. There, homeschoolers may join public sports only if they maintain a state-reviewed academic portfolio demonstrating annual progress (Fla. Stat. §§1002.41, 1006.15). Similar bills in Virginia would have required standardized test scores or “evidence of progress” (Va. HB1626, 2016). Colorado’s CHSAA rules demand district-verified academic eligibility (CHSAA Bylaws, Art. 17), and Iowa’s dual-enrollment model requires formal documentation (Iowa Admin. Code r. 281–36.15). In case after case, access came with regulation, or riding upon existing regulation.

3. Fraud Risks and Accountability Pressures

Oklahoma has already witnessed how easily “homeschool” status can be misused. In 2010, Kathy McKean, director of the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center, warned that some schools were encouraging parents to claim homeschooling to improve dropout statistics (Tulsa World, June 13, 2010). In Texas, the Education Agency’s “Leaver Code 60” allows a student to be marked as homeschooled with minimal proof—an issue repeatedly flagged in audits (Texas Education Agency, Leaver Data Documentation, 2024). If Oklahoma adopts a Tebow law, these problems would multiply. Families could withdraw struggling or suspended students, claim homeschooling, and re-enter athletics immediately. The only way to prevent abuse would be to require proof of academic work—thus introducing regulation.

4. Academic Gatekeeping Means Oversight

Public-school sports are an academically gated activity. Eligibility depends on grades, attendance, and progress. For homeschoolers to participate, the state must decide how those factors are measured—by tests, portfolios, or official evaluations. Each of those mechanisms narrows freedom and invites scrutiny of family-directed education. By contrast, homeschoolers using public parks or libraries face no oversight because those benefits are not tied to academics. Sports are different; they require compliance systems by design.

5. Oklahoma’s Homeschool Sports Thrive Without State Control

Across Oklahoma, homeschool athletics already flourish—football, basketball, volleyball, track, and more. The OKC Patriots and Tulsa NOAH Jaguars have even played in venues like the Dallas Cowboys Stadium. These programs were built by parents, not legislation. A Tebow law would siphon players away from homeschool teams and discourage the formation of new ones, especially in rural areas. The homeschool community thrives through initiative, not government partnership.

6. Protecting Liberty for the Next Generation

Homeschooling families in Oklahoma have long chosen independence over convenience. Like the Israelites longing for “the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost” (Numbers 11:5), we must resist the temptation to exchange freedom for free benefits. Our current constitutional framework already provides all we need—true liberty in education through “other means of education.” Maintaining that freedom requires saying no to well-intentioned but dangerous legislation.

Conclusion

Homeschool Oklahoma exists to promote, protect, encourage, and equip families pursuing education at home. Tim Tebow laws—however appealing on the surface—would require defining and regulating homeschooling, invite misuse by public-school systems, and erode the goodwill and liberty that have sustained our community for generations. Oklahoma’s homeschoolers do not need state-defined permission to thrive. We need only the freedom we already have—and the courage to keep it.

Recommended Citation: Homeschool Oklahoma. *Executive Summary: Why Homeschool Oklahoma Opposes Tim Tebow Laws.* November 2025.