Everything You Need to Know About The Rewrite of Homeschool Extracurriculars

Welcome to the HEF Deep Dive on SB538/HB731 (2026)

2026 Florida Senate Bill 538 / Florida House Bill 731:

Senator Simon SB538

Representative Abbot HB731

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to extracurricular activities

Before we begin, you can find a copy of the bill at the bottom of this article to download and compare.

This bill rewrites the 1006.15 statute that we’ve lovingly referred to as the Craig Dickinson Act for almost 3 decades now. They are not changing this reference—it will still be known as the Craig Dickinson Act—and we were very focused on protecting both the legacy of the Dickinson name as well as the rights that it protected for home education families. 

So what ended up happening?

The bill passed today (March 11, 2026), after undergoing many changes along the way.

What changes does this bill bring to Florida statute 1006.15?

That's the purpose of the rest of this post!

(NOTE: The links throughout this post are to the current statutes. The 2026 statutes will be updated after this bill goes into effect July 1st. The changes from this bill, as of the time of this writing, have not yet been applied.)

The Quick and Relevant Short Version (with FAQs):

If you’ve been navigating the world of Florida homeschool sports, you know the Craig Dickinson Act has been our "north star" for nearly 30 years. This deep dive by the Home Education Foundation into the legislative rewrite is essential reading because it highlights vital issues we faced this year in the move toward "eligible student" as a unifying term in this statute. While "uniformity" often sounds like a buzzword for "standardized," the Home Education Foundation (HEF) worked hard to ensure this didn't mean losing our unique identity or our parental authority.

The most significant "win" in this bill is the protection of our evaluation rights. There was a real risk that homeschoolers would be forced to meet public school academic criteria to play sports. Instead, the law maintains that parents and principals must agree on evaluation methods, keeping our students' progress tied to the home education statutes we already follow (F.S. 1002.41). Families should also pay close attention to the new distinction between Home Education (1002.41) and PEP (1002.395) students. If you are a traditional home education family, you shouldn't be charged extra fees that public students don't pay—after all, you're already a taxpayer and registered with the county and they have your funds. However, if you're a PEP student, districts now have the green light to assess fees (capped) since your enrollment and funding flows through a Scholarship Funding Organization (SFO) rather than the county.

FAQs about this bill:

FAQ 1: How does Florida law define a "homeschooler" for sports eligibility?

Legally, the term "homeschooler" does not exist in Florida statutes. Students are classified as either Home Education students (under s. 1002.41) or Personalized Education Program (PEP) students (under s. 1002.395). Both fall under the new umbrella term "eligible student" for participation purposes.

FAQ 2: How does this change in Florida law affect "Umbrella Homeschoolers" for sports eligibility?

Legally, the term "homeschooler" or “Umbrella Homeschooler” does not exist in Florida statutes. Umbrella Students are registered with a private school, and are therefore by law, private school students. Fortunately, these students fall under the new umbrella term "eligible student" for participation in extracurricular activities.

FAQ 3: Are Home Education Students and PEP students still treated the same when it comes to eligibility in extracurricular activities? 

Yes. Florida Statute 1002.01 still gives Personalized Education Students the same “flexibility and opportunities” as home education students in F.S. 1002.41(3)-(12) which includes extracurricular activities. Also, the new term used in F.S. 1006.15, “eligible student,” is a new, all-encompassing term.

FAQ 4: Can a Home Education Student play at any school in the district?

Yes. A Home Education student and a PEP student can play at any school in the district because they are not currently enrolled in any school that provides an activity. 

FAQ 5: Can an Umbrella Homeschool Student play at any school in the district?

Yes. An umbrella homeschool student is a private school student according to Florida Statute. Private school students are considered eligible students to participate in extracurricular activities at another school other than the school they are enrolled in if their school does not provide the activity. 

FAQ 6: Does the Craig Dickinson Act only allow for participation in sports?

No. The Craig Dickinson Act has always allowed for participation in "extracurricular activities" which was defined as "any school-authorized or education-related activity occurring during or outside the regular instructional school day." F.S. 1006.15 This has been clarified in the new bill and separated out from the paragraph to make it easier to read. Some schools and districts have refused participation in activities that were not "sports." However, this is a misunderstanding by the local administrators, and a misapplication of local policies over statute which specifically states an "activity or a sport."

FAQ 7: Does a Home Education Student have to pay fees to play sports at a public school in the district?

No, unless the school is also charging the public school students enrolled in that school the exact same fees. A Home Education student is not required to pay anything that a student enrolled in the school would also not pay. However, if the school decides to assess fees to their own students enrolled in the public school, then they can also assess these same fees to the home education student. Home education students have always had to pay the same out-of-pocket costs that public school students have had to pay to cover additional items like jerseys, equipment, etc. This remains the same.

FAQ 8: Does a PEP Student have to pay to play sports at a public school in the district?

It depends. A PEP student is required to pay any fees that the school board has voted on as an action item and transparently placed on their website by July 1 of that year. The PEP student is enrolled with the scholarship funding organization (SFO), not the county, and is presumed to be in receipt of their own education funds to spend at their discretion, not the county. However, if the school district fails to assess the fee by making it an action item,  voting on it,  and placing it on the website, then they may not assess the fees.

FAQ 9: Does my homeschool student have to maintain a certain GPA in order to play sports at a public school?

By Florida Statute, a home education program student must meet the requirements of the home education program pursuant to F.S. 1002.41. Further, when determining the academic eligibility of a home education student they must demonstrate that “by a method of evaluation agreed upon by the parent and the school principal.” F.S. 1006.15. This can include: review of the student’s work by a certified teacher chosen by the parent; grades earned through correspondence; grades earned in courses taken at a Florida College System institution, university, or trade school; standardized test scores above the 35th percentile; or any other method designated in s. 1002.41. For a PEP student (Personalized Education Program 1002.01), they are granted the same flexibility and opportunities as a home education student. For PEP students, there is no requirement in statute to keep a portfolio, so the standardized test scores could be used instead, or another method listed. Please do not use the term “homeschool student” as there is no such thing in statute, and there are no requirements or rights conferred to “homeschool students.”

FAQ 10: Where will I go to look for the fees my county/school may require for playing sports?

By July 1, activity fees developed for extracurricular activities MUST be approved by the district school board. They must be voted on as an action item. Each school must then publish a complete list of fees developed on its website before the beginning of each school year. If this process is not followed, the school or county may not assess fees for participation in extracurricular activities that have not met these requirements by law. F.S. 1006.15

FAQ 11: If my homeschool student played a sport at a private school, can they then play sports at a public school the same year?

No, not without being granted specific approval by the applicable governing organization’s executive director. The language in the law states, “A student may not participate in sports at two different schools during the same school year, unless”... they are granted a specific exception by statute. One of those exceptions is the express approval of the executive director after hearing their situation. 

FAQ 12: Will this expand our access to after-school activities (not just sports, more STEM focused) at public schools for students on the scholarships?

No need to EXPAND. Access to those were already granted in statute as "extracurricular activities" and yes, that is preserved in this bill, and it should be CLEARER to districts and schools when implementing.

FAQ 13: How will this affect my home education student who is already playing sports at a school they're not zoned for?

It won't. Language regarding being "zoned" was removed from this statute in the 2026 cleanup. And now it is clear that a home education student can select any school in the district in which they reside. (This also applies to PEP students.)

Now Begins the LONG VERSION (the Full Deep-Dive).

Some things to note before we dive into this rewrite to the 1006.15 statutes:

Homeschooler

First and foremost, “Homeschooler” is not a term you will find in statute. 

Homeschooler and homeschooling are not legally recognized terms, and there is no access given to homeschoolers, or fees assessed to homeschoolers, etc. in this bill. Using the term “homeschool” creates confusion because it is becoming more and more prevalent that anything that is not public school or private school is called “homeschooling” as a default catch-all, even when the students are in fact enrolled in a private school, or are enrolled in a personalized education program with the scholarship funding organization, or any other various options. 

Since there’s actually no such thing as a “homeschooler” in statute, it’s important to use the terms in statute to speak clearly. Hopefully this will make sense as you see later that it matters how the money flows. 

Funding

The way in which extracurricular activities are funded in public schools differs based on the activity itself. Some activities are funded in a lump sum that’s distributed from the district, while others are funded based on a per-student attendance report from the school for that activity. This makes things complicated when determining how to assess fees outside of that system, because not every activity has put together that calculation. That calculation is needed. 

Taxes and Stakeholders

We are tax payers. Home Education Families are taxpayers. You are not a guest or an outsider when it comes to public schools or school board meetings. You are entering a publicly funded piece of land, and a publicly funded program set aside for children of a certain age who by law are required to be in attendance or are exempt from attendance, but are no less a stakeholder in that system. Special treatment is not required, but equal opportunity is. This should not be forgotten as one reads the statutes that govern access and participation in these taxpayer (you) funded initiatives.

Now let’s dive into this rewrite…

The concept behind the rewrite: 

1006.15 was said to be long, and full of exceptions and nuances. There was an interest in cleaning it up so that it was more uniform and so that the students would all be treated with equality in opportunities. While we at the Home Education Foundation agree with the need to treat all students in such a way that access to opportunities are equal, we also know the history of how home education families are treated all over the state, and while school choice trends tend upward, and over the last 40 years progress has been made, we’re still a long way from being universally accepted and our freedoms being understood and appreciated. So, we wanted to watch these changes to be sure home education rights are not trampled in the genuine pursuit of good changes. 

The specific changes:

Lines 114-174

There was some reorganization of the statute and a section for DEFINITIONS was created. In this, eligible student is defined and is used to take the place of all of the instances where the statute might refer to public school student, private school student, home education student, PEP student, charter school student, etc. It gives one unifying term, the student is eligible, or the student is not eligible and all students are lumped together. 

Eligible to participate is then outlined for which activities count as “participating.” These are pulled from existing statute, but reorganized here and include: tryouts, off-season conditioning, summer workouts, preseason conditioning, in-season practice, contests. It also clarifies that “participating” does not guarantee placement on a team. 

Then they define extracurricular activity. This means any school-authorized or education-related activity occurring during or outside the regular instructional school day. (Nothing new or exciting here.) 

Governing Organization, however, is a new term that will be used in places where it previously referenced only the FHSAA… and this has an impact that now places both regulations and responsibilities on all governing organizations when this term is used. 

Lines 175-196

Then the bill goes on to address eligibility. This is perhaps one of the most important parts of the rewrite, as the task here was to create a uniform set of criteria. This is also where we saw a big problem. The criteria here are the same criteria as previously used for students enrolled in public school, private school, charter school, etc., but now will specifically and explicitly include home education students. 

They also had removed the language from the original statute that once required district schools to assess home education students in accordance with their home education program in 1002.41. In the original text of 1006.15(3)(c)1.b. it read: 

“b. During the period of participation at a school, the home education student must demonstrate educational progress as required in paragraph (b) in all subjects taken in the home education program by a method of evaluation agreed upon by the parent and the school principal which may include: review of the student’s work by a certified teacher chosen by the parent; grades earned through correspondence; grades earned in courses taken at a Florida College System institution, university, or trade school; standardized test scores above the 35th percentile; or any other method designated in s. 1002.41.”

This language required the district schools to agree upon a method with the parent. This is critical, because without stating that they need to agree, the principal can simply say, “Here’s the criteria. Match it or you can’t play. No exceptions.” This original language protected the parent’s involvement in the process and further ensured that a home education student would be evaluated in methods keeping with the home education program statutes as listed in 1002.41 shown above.

Under the original language, even if the principal wanted to make it difficult, and they picked the method of certified teacher review, the parent would get to select the teacher. This is likely someone that the parent has already worked with before, and the terms of such evaluations in 1002.41 state that it be “progress commensurate with their level.” This allows students of all varying stages of their educational progress or those with disabilities to be assessed in accordance with what’s legally in keeping with their home education program. The rest of the options can be anything in that list or what's also already in 1002.41. The school district is required to work with the parent to come to an agreement. The parent has a say and can disagree—they are empowered to push back. And the standards must align with the existing statute for 1002.41 home education.

Not having this language would have allowed the district schools to require all home education families to adhere to the other listed criteria, and ignore the requirements of the home education statutes. 

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. So, in fact, to have a set of criteria and NOT include home education standards in that list, or NOT include the requirement for parents to be involved and the school districts to agree with them, would REQUIRE home education standards to be excluded, and REQUIRE the parent to be excluded.

The purpose of including the original language into the new bill was to protect home education standards from being erased and replaced by the public school standards. This is one of the areas where home education students needed help. This is not special treatment or exceptions—because without that, home education students would be asked to be evaluated by standards foreign to the practices and legal options in home education in 1002.41. Many home education families do not even agree with the efficacy of the public school standards, and it would force them to comply with those public school standards and wrap their education program around those standards. The effect of this would ultimately result in the change of the function and form of home education by allowing a third party governing organization to restrict and change the standards of home education for any students who want to be involved in the sports or activities that they govern. 

Keeping this language in there was a critical protection. We are so thankful they heard our concerns and collaborated with us to keep these protections and parental authority here intact. 

Lines 197-231

Now we come to the next critical part of the rewrite: how students will approach participating in extracurricular activities within 1006.15 moving forward. This is a complete overhaul, and their goals were to remove it from the open enrollment system and allow for one fluid process that can be uniform, universal, and equal for all students. So instead of referencing schools the student is zoned for, private schools or public schools, etc., this is now called a “school in which the student is enrolled.”

So, all students are eligible to participate in extracurricular activities at a school they are enrolled in. Pretty straightforward. 

Home Education and PEP students are not enrolled in a school. So, they will move to the next step, as they would be considered a student who wants to participate in extracurricular activities at a school they are not enrolled in. Participating in extracurricular activities at a school they are not enrolled in is possible for any students, not just home education or PEP students, if:

1. The school they are enrolled in does not offer the activity. 

2. The school they’re seeking to play at is within the district in which the student resides. 

3. There are no schools in the district which offer the activity that the student wishes to participate in. Then they can participate in a school outside of the district, if the district is adjacent to the district in which they reside. 

4. If all options are exhausted, the student may petition the governing organization’s executive director to further explore options for participation. 

5. Finally, there’s a one-time clause for participation in private schools, which maintains private school authority over creating agreements with students who wish to participate in sports with their school, or denying participation if an agreement can’t be reached. 

Lines 495-515

The next critical topic is the subject of fees able to be assessed by the schools for participation in extracurricular activities. 

Before we dive into this section, there’s something that needs to be discussed about the funding which is NOT widely understood. However, this is very critical to understand. 

When a public school student or a home education student (1002.41) participates in a class, course, extracurricular course, or extracurricular activity, they are registered with the county, and the school can include the student in the calculation to obtain money from the district for those activities. That funding is handled in two ways: For some of the activities, participation is accessed and recorded with each individual student and reported in order to draw down those specific funds. In other extracurricular activities, the school is given a lump sum of money for the program as a whole (regardless of the number of participating students). Examples of this second activity type are football, basketball, baseball, etc.—while students participate individually, the activity is funded in a lump sum. This means that there’s no need for the school to keep a record of a per-student calculation ratio, nor did they need to previously. 

The impact in the original language in this bill was that it blurred the line between the two ways in which extracurricular activities are funded. On one hand, there is a calculation per student that the school draws down when an activity has a specific enrollment record for the course or activity. On the other hand, other extracurricular programs are funded as a total sum, and the per-student calculation is missing. 

This is where the question is begged as to what is fair to charge for a student. First and foremost, it is our position that it is not fair to charge 1002.41 home education families anything they are not also charging public school students. Both are enrolled with the county and register to participate at the school. A taxpaying home education family that is bearing the total cost burden of educating their own child, as well as carrying the tax burden of children NOT theirs in public schools, should not be paying even more when they show up to participate in extracurricular activities their taxes go to fund. That is in essence double taxing. 

The county/district has access to the funds that have been appropriated to their district through the legislature’s budgeting process, and they are in receipt of the funds that are available through the taxation process. If it’s not enough, it would be fair to assess fees in so much as they also assess those fees to the public school students. However, most of the excess needs are accommodated by volunteer fundraising, ticket sales, drives, car washes, etc. Home Education students are very involved in these events. 

However, when it comes to Personalized Education Program students, the state legislature has decided to offer tax incentives to taxpayers to voluntarily contribute to this program and expand educational opportunities for children of families that have limited financial resources. The students are then enrolled with the Scholarship Funding Organization, not the school district. The SFO oversees the handling of funds for parents who wish to enroll their children in this option. This is why it is appropriate for the legislature to place in statute language that allows school districts to be able to assess fees to those families who have enrolled with the SFO. Those students are not registered with the county, and the county has not been allotted any funds from that student, nor can they draw down funds for that PEP student when they participate in a program. So, giving the districts permission to assess that fee, while also drawing a line of protection for home education students (1002.41), is an important distinction to keep. 

In essence, that’s exactly what this updated language does. The original language filed for this bill did not make this distinction clear, and sought to allow all “homeschoolers” to be assessed fees. That initial version blurred the line between Home Education Students and PEP students by collectively referring to them as “homeschool students” without making that financial or legal enrollment distinction clear. While “homeschooling” and “homeschool student” are very popular in everyday use, these terms do not exist in law and are not legally recognized by statute. So, relying on them begs the question, “What is a homeschooler?” and when there’s no answer in law, it creates confusion as to whom this pertains. The distinctions are critical. 

Home Education families are tax payers and their money has already gone to the county with which they are registered, whether the county has a per-student calculation or not. For a Personalized Education Program student, the money raised for the SFO to disburse is considered their available funding to spend how they see fit, and if they choose to spend it with the county they can, but are not required to. 

However, the county needed to do two things: 

1. Be permitted by Florida’s Statutes to assess the fees; and 

2. Get themselves set up as providers to be able to process those fees. Public schools are already valid expenses for students enrolled in FTC-PEP in the 1002.395(6)(d)4f statute. 

Lines 524-527

Finally with this bill, a student who participates in sports at one school is locked in to that school for their sports participation for that school year. There are exceptions to this for children of active duty military personnel, children in foster care who have been moved, court-ordered change in custody due to exigent family circumstances, or being granted an exception directly by the executive director of the governing organization. 

This change was proposed with the bill in order to address a problem where public school students were engaging in something regularly termed “school-hopping.” One version of school-hopping is where a public school student wanted to play at a school that they could not transfer to, so they would resign from public school and enroll with the county as a home education student. Once a home education student, they were immediately eligible to participate and try out for sports at any school in the district. The student would select to play at the school they were otherwise unable to transfer to. Once they had done this, they were ineligible by law to participate in that sport at another school (meaning their original school). Once they made the team, they would then send in a letter of termination and re-enroll in their public school, but they would still be locked into playing sports at the other school by law. 

The change above that strikes the language granting immediate eligibility also puts a stopper in this issue, as now students will need to seek immediate eligibility rather than automatically being granted it. 

The second version of school-hopping was that by statute, students were locked into playing a single sport at whatever school they had already started participating in. However, this did not stop them from transferring after that sport had completed. So, public school students would play baseball at one school, then transfer to another for basketball, and another for football, etc. It was argued that this interrupts the student’s academic focus and continuity by being jumped around all over the place, constantly stopping and restarting. However, if they’re a home education student, their home education program afforded them educational continuity…but since that right to home educate was often abused, it came under fire. 

The initial impulse of the legislators was to regulate and reduce choices and allow home education students to only choose the school they were zoned for, while making it hard for them to play at any other school of choice. We argued and fought for them not to place boundaries on this in a way that removed a home education student’s right to choose any school in the district. After all, home education families who are committed to being parent educators are not jumping in and out of home education to suit their extracurricular needs. So, we helped them take aim at immediate eligibility and agreed that playing sports at a school and being locked into sports at that school was acceptable for preserving the parent’s authority to make the choice of the school and program. This essentially creates a “school of record,” though it is not termed such. A student will apply to play sports, participate in tryouts, and once they participate in the sports at that school, they are locked in to all sports at that school for the remainder of that school year. 

Those are the big changes to Florida Statute 1006.15, the Craig Dickinson Act, with the total rewrite. 

Working with the Senate (Senator Simon) and the House (Representative Abbott) was a true and shining example of collaboration as the bill moved through stops and was improved at each turn. Cool heads prevailed in difficult discussions, and both chambers were able to pull together something that is uncanny in politics—true, beautiful collaboration.

You can find a full copy of the SB538 Bill text here:

SB538 Bill Text.pdf

Download PDF • 227KB

Moving forward, we hope to see this focus on sports and issues fizzle down for a while because there are greater issues coming that will be aimed at parental authority in education, and we will need the entire community to be ready to voice their stand for Home Education Freedoms and Rights. 

Stay tuned to our podcast for important updates as we move forward past this legislative session and into the next season of changes.

You can find it on all of the major podcast platforms: PODCAST HERE

If you’re looking for a community for faster answers to questions about Home Education rights in Florida, with help that can be sorted by County, or by scholarship (or not), please join our DISCORD HERE. 

If you value the work that we do in providing this information to our community, or the advocacy work we do, you can support the work of our 501c3 non-profit HEF CONNECT, INC. by going here.

If you’re interested in supporting the mission of the Home Education Foundation’s Lobbying efforts, please support that directly here.