Parents who educate their children at home have criticised proposed legislation which they claim treats them as "potential criminals".
The parents concerned have formed a lobby group - Home Education Network - which says the "inalienable constitutional right" of parents to educate children at home must be upheld.
The group, which held its first annual conference in Waterford at the weekend, has strongly criticised the Education (Welfare) Bill, which proposes that the capacity of parents to provide minimum standards of education at home should be monitored by the State.
Parents choosing not to send their children to school would have to allow inspectors to observe the instruction being given and to assess the ability of the educator.
The lobby group said the Bill failed to vindicate the constitutional right and duty of parents to provide their children's education "according to their means". The manner in which such education was given was "entirely for parents to determine", it added in a statement.
A member of the organisation, Mr Joseph Dunne from Tallaght, Dublin, said the Bill appeared to treat home educating persons as potential criminals. He said the Minister for Education and Science, Mr Martin, had adopted the view implicit in the School Attendance Act "that education in the home is related to problems of school attendance".
"I would suggest that education in the home, rather than being lumped into a bill dealing with problems regarding school attendance, should be given its rightful place as the preferred first educational choice of the founders of our State by an amendment to the Education Act 1998," he said.
The group says there are about 200 home-educating families in the State. About 70 parents registered for the weekend conference which was held at Newtown School in Waterford city. The speakers included Ms Maire Mullarney, the author of Anything School Can Do, You Can Do Better.
In May, the Supreme Court reserved judgment in an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who argued that parents who chose to educate their parents at home were obliged to satisfy the State that they were providing "suitable elementary education".
The High Court had earlier found that a district judge should be very slow to find a parent guilty of an offence under the School Attendance Act, 1926. Mr Justice Geoghegan said in the absence of a statutory definition by the State of what constituted a suitable elementary education, it would be wrong for the district judge to go into the fine details of the teaching methods.
His judgment related to a case involving Ms Christine Best, who was prosecuted in Listowel District Court under the 1926 Act after she withdrew two of her children from Dromclough National School. Ms Best submitted that she a constitutional right to educate her children at home.
