I’ve only skimmed this, so no comment for now. Feel free to start without me.

Update: I’ve thought long and hard about this, and my official statement is…who cares?

I just can’t get worked up about it. HSLDA is not going to build a Christian Army and take over the country. We are not returning to a world where all women are subservient to their husbands and non-believers are regularly burned at the stake.

In fact, I’ll be surprised if they can even keep a Republican in the White House in 2008. If the Democrats will nominate somebody just slightly to the right of raving moonbat, whose last name is not Rodham Clinton, they should take the White House back. The country has gotten a good look at one party Republican rule and it looks surprisingly like one party Democratic rule.

I’m looking forward to gridlock again.

http://www.goarmy.com/hslda/

As far as the US Army is concerned, HSLDA and homeschooling are the same thing.

NC Homeschool Legislative Issues has a whole lot more to say on the cozy relationship between HSLDA and the US Army.

From: Jim_Inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov

September 29, 2005

Dear (private):

Thank you for contacting me about S.1691, the Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act (HoNDA). As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your ideas and opinions.

My views on education in America come from a somewhat unique perspective in that my wife, Kay, was a teacher at Edison High School for many years, and now both of my daughters are teachers. I can assure you that I am one of the strongest supporters of education and homeschooling. Like you, I feel that the family has the primary responsibility for and interest in the child.

There are currently more than two million students that are homeschooled in the United States. While these students have proven to excel in both academics and extracurricular activities, existing legislation has tended to overlook this growing population.

The Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act (A.K.A.,HoNDA and S. 1691), which I have co-sponsored, serves to remedy this oversight and encourage the government at all levels to recognize the homeschooling movement as a viable force in education. S. 1691 acknowledges the right of parents to direct the education of their children under the Constitution, which also prohibits federal control of homeschooling. I believe that the role of the federal government should be limited in order to create an environment in which all Americans have the opportunity to better themselves and achieve success. HoNDA encourages these opportunities through greater eligibility for financial aid for higher education and policy to ensure the treatment of homeschool graduates as Tier I recruits into the U.S. Military.

The National Center for Home Education supports HoNDA because it would end discrimination by allowing home educators to take advantage of Education Savings Accounts and granting protection under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for all homeschool students’ records. Additionally, HoNDA would permit homeschool students to work during traditional school hours to maintain flexibility and protect students from forced Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act evaluations.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Your input helps me to serve Oklahomans better. Please do not hesitate to contact in the future with any comments or concerns.

He doesn’t get it. The Federal Government overlooking home education is A VERY GOOD THING. I’ve got a long list of stuff I wish they’d overlook.

I haven’t heard back from my representative yet. She is a co-sponsor in the House.

(a) Home-Schooled Students- Chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 503 the following new section:

`Sec. 503a. Recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students
`(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment- The Secretary concerned shall prescribe a policy for the recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the polices prescribed under this section apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the armed forces

Chris asks, ?Why do we need special recruitment policies just for homeschoolers? is this all part of Farris’ Christian Army fantasy? If homeschoolers are just like everybody else, shouldn’t the normal recruitment policies of the Armed Forces be sufficient??

Under current law, homeschool graduates fall into ?Tier II,? which mostly consists of people who couldn?t complete high school and got a GED instead. The Pentagon has learned that people who can?t handle high school aren?t all that likely to do well in the military. Not only are there far fewer slots for Tier II recruits, they also have significantly less options available to them. To the best of my knowledge, the only sure way a homeschooler can avoid Tier II status is to get 15 hours of college credits.

HSLDA negotiated with the Pentagon to get a pilot project enacted in 2000 to measure the actual attrition rates of homeschool graduates. To the best of my knowledge, the initial class in the project included 65 homeschoolers in the Marines, 300 in the Air Force, 400 in the Army, and 1,300 in the Navy. Unfortunately, approximately 300 of these ?homeschool? recruits from the Chicago area had all the characteristics of real dropouts who claimed to be homeschooled. (I call these ?homefoolers? to distinguish them from ?homeschoolers.?) The Pentagon then followed this initial class all the way through the five year pilot project, and (again, to the best of my knowledge) all the reported data on attrition rates comes solely from this group of recruits.

As a number of HSLDA?s critics have been quick to point out, the attrition rates from this group were not better than those of public high school graduates. If almost 15% of the initial group really were dropouts, however, this should hardly come as a surprise.

Homeschoolers are remarkably diverse, and our diversity makes it hard for the Pentagon to know how to treat us. Some parents spend years raising children to question authority and march to the beat of a different drummer. Such homeschoolers are unlikely to be all that interested in a military career. Other parents spend years raising children to pray for their country and obey their parents. These homeschoolers tend to be quite eager to enlist.

HSLDA has a non-negotiable commitment to enabling homeschool graduates to serve in the military. We are unwilling to accept a permanent Tier II status, nor are we willing to tell our members that they have to get 15 hours of college credits to achieve Tier I. We recognize, however, that explicit homeschool legislation is not the only way to achieve our goal.

We are open to any constructive alternatives that others could suggest for enabling homeschoolers to serve alongside of traditional high school graduates.

Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The Secretary shall extend the hours and periods of permissible employment applicable to employees between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age who are privately educated at a home school (whether the home school is treated as a home school or a private school under State law) beyond such hours and periods applicable to employees between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age who are educated in traditional public schools.?

Chris says, ?Another case of attacking the symptom and not the cause. And of course, now we’ll need Federal interpretation of whether or not you are actually a bone fide homeschooler, or just a truant, so they can decide who is and isn’t violating federal labor laws. And again, it’s another special law for homeschoolers. If it’s a good idea for 14 year old HEK’s to be allowed to work at 2 PM, it’s a good idea for all 14 year olds to be allowed to work at 2 PM.?

Frankly, I agree with Chris on this one. I don?t mean that HoNDA Section 9 is a bad idea; just that it?s a good idea for all 14 year olds to be allowed to work at 2 pm.

We?re a long way from the bad old days when child labor was a degrading horror. The youth of today may need more labor in their lives, not less. Even the dropouts and habitual truants would arguably be better off if they were able to work instead of just hanging out around the street corner.

Having said that, I’d be happy to have somebody expand HoNDA Section 9 to make it work for all children. Until then, I’m going to work for homeschoolers.

Section 419F(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-36(a)) is amended by inserting `(or a home school, whether treated as a home school or a private school under State law)? after `public or private secondary school?.

Chris says, ?Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that will result from the states trying to come up with some equitable formula to dole out these scholarships to kids they know nothing about??

Let me see? about 98% of the high school graduates today attend public or traditional private schools. Congress has come up with some arguably equitable formula for doling out scholarships to that 98%. If we open the doors to the remaining 2% of America?s graduates, however, we will have bureaucratic nightmares.

Nope. I have tried to imaginge the bureaucratic nightmares, but I can’t even work up a bad dream. Help me out, here, Chris.

Chris says, ?HoNDA is attempting to establish higher privacy standards for homeschooler information that may be in the public school system. I’m all for privacy, but really, should we have special privacy privileges not afforded to the public school kids??

Under current law, the educational records of public school students are carefully protected by federal law. Homeschool records, by contrast, are legally treated as ?public records? in 46 states.

HoNDA Section 7 is a serious effort to correct a serious problem.

Back in the early 1970s, state and local governments had all sorts of educational records for children in public schools. Congress decided to protect the privacy of students who attend federally funded educational institutions, and enacted the Federal Educational Records and Privacy Act (FERPA), in 1974. This federal law effectively overrides any ?public records laws? to the contrary in all 50 states. As a result, public school records are extraordinarily well protected.

FERPA does not address the educational records of students in schools that do not receive federal funding, but this did not homeschoolers back when FERPA was first enacted. In the 1970s, no state or local school districts systematically collected educational records for homeschoolers.

When states began to enact homeschool statutes, however (starting with Arizona and Mississippi in 1982), homeschool paperwork began to accumulate. Although most school officials assumed FERPA protected those records, FERPA did not apply because homeschoolers do not ?attend? any federally-funded educational institution. In the absence of any federal law to the contrary, each state?s ?public records? law applied.

Not every state has a homeschool privacy problem. There is no need for homeschool privacy laws in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, or Texas, because homeschoolers in those states are under no significant pressure to register with school authorities. Families in states like Connecticut can educate an unregistered child at home without breaking any laws, but must resist pressure from the government if they wish to preserve their privacy. In the rest of the states, homeschool information in the government?s hands is technically ?public data,? no matter how sensitive or private that information may be.

Other states have significant privacy problems, however. Maine was the first to recognize the need, and, with the help of homeschooling legend Kathi Kearney, passed state legislation to protect homeschool privacy in the 1980s. Massachusetts has protected homeschool privacy by regulation. Minnesota enacted a homeschool privacy statute in 2003, and Nebraska legislated homeschool privacy in 2004.

There is considerable risk in drafting homeschool privacy laws at the state level. While legislators are almost unanimously in favor of privacy, they are not so unanimous in their support of homeschooling. Any attempt to amend the homeschool law raises the prospect of inviting hostile amendments. Homeschoolers in a few states have enough legislative clout to get a good change through without risk, but homeschoolers in other states have to choose between risking their homeschool liberty and risking their homeschool privacy.

HSLDA argues that a change to the federal privacy laws would enable us to protect privacy without risking liberty. HoNDA Section 8 attempts to achieve that goal. We are open to any constructive alternatives that other homeschoolers can suggest.

(a) In General- Paragraph (4) of section 530(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified elementary and secondary education expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Chris says, ?Anytime the federal law includes the phrase ?Special Rule for Home Schools? your spidey senses should start to tingle.?

Chris argues that this tax benefit will cause the IRS to write up a list of acceptable homeschool expenses, which will lead to abuses by scuba-diving homeschoolers, which will lead to congressional hearings, etc., etc.

His argument trails off at that point. I can?t tell whether the outcome is that people can no longer claim a scuba-diving trip as a legitimate Coverdell Account expense, or that Congress comes swooping in to shut down your homeschool.

I think the former is more likely: in Chris?s worst-case scenario, after all the shouting and fury is over, you won?t be able to go scuba-diving on a Coverdell Account. I, personally, can live with that prospect, since I can?t go scuba-diving on my Coverdell Account right now.

Homeschoolers can?t use Coverdell Accounts for anything, right now.
Chris can?t be arguing that we shouldn?t try to get Coverdell Accounts because there might be abuses that mean we won?t be able to use them for scuba diving. Could somebody help me understand what he is saying?