September 17, 2005
HoNDA (HR3753 and S1691), a fisking
Somebody had to do it....
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005′.
aka The HSLDA Full Employment Act of 2005. If it passes, they will have plenty of work helping non-enlightened homeschoolers get their share of the federal kitty.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) The right of parents to direct the education of their children is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.
The words parent, education, and school do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. I would take that to mean Congress has no business discussing the issue at all.
(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents.
ROFLMAO.
(3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills.
Those Congress Critters sure do have their paws on the pulse of homeschooling. I know I stay awake at night worrying about standardized test scores and valuable socialization skills. Could they have picked any two less important issues issues to highlight in their "defense" of homeschooling?
(4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.
Which is pretty damn amazing since we are apparently so discriminated against that we need a federal law written just to protect us.
(5) The rise of private home education has contributed positively to the education of young people in the United States.
The irony that we do so well without their help seem to be lost on them though.
(6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of private home education, are in need of clarification as to their treatment of students who are privately educated at home pursuant to State law.
So, if the Constitution already affirms our right to home educate (see #1 above), exactly why do we need more laws to clarify what is apparently already crystal clear?
(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling.
So we are going to create new laws that use the police power of the federal government to dictate to the states exactly how the federal government is not going to control home education. Yeah, that'll help.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that–
(1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to the United States; and
And we can't allow positive contributions by individual citizens. If the sheep get the idea that they can educate their children without government help, who knows what other things they may try without government help.
(2) parents who choose this alternative education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution.
Is this the same Constitution that does not allow federal control of homeschooling? I'm totally confused because you keep referring to this document that forbids you from exerting any control of home education in the very bill that exerts federal control over home education.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL AND STUDENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.
(a) Clarification of Institutional Eligibility- Section 101(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by inserting `meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3) or’ after `only persons’.
(b) Clarification of Student Eligibility- Section 484(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(d)) is amended by striking the heading and inserting `Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards’.
This appears to be a purely semantic change related to eligibility for government tuition assistance. The title "Non High School Graduates" will be replaced by "Satisfaction of Secondary Education Requirements." Don't you feel better about yourself now? The real problem here is that the federal government is involved at all in education at any level.
SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF ABSENCE OF CONSENT FOR INITIAL EVALUATION UNDER THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii)(I) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(I)) is amended to read as follows:
`(I) FOR INITIAL EVALUATION- A local educational agency may pursue the initial evaluation of a child by utilizing the procedures described in section 615, except to the extent inconsistent with State law relating to parental consent for an initial evaluation under clause (i)(I), only if the child is enrolled in public school or is seeking to be enrolled in public school.’.
This change is due to a couple of highly publicized cased (in home school circles) of local power mad bureaucrats believing that the law required them to evaluate all disabled children, even those not receiving services from the public school system. As a general rule, amending federal law to address the outliers like this is a bad idea. It usually leads to even more federal laws.
SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF THE COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW.
(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:
`(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR HOME SCHOOLS- For purposes of clauses (i) and (iii) of subparagraph (A), the terms `public, private, or religious school’ and `school’ shall include any home school which provides elementary or secondary education if such school is treated as a home school or private school under State law.’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Anytime the federal law includes the phrase "Special Rule for Home Schools" your spidey senses should start to tingle. It allows homeschoolers to use the Coverdell account for non college expenses as defined by...
Primary, secondary, and postsecondary education expenses, including tuition, fees, tutoring, books, supplies, related equipment, room and board, uniforms, transportation and computers.
I'm not sure how valuable that really is, and I'm not sure it's worth the open invitation to the IRS to pay you a visit to discuss whether or not that scuba diving trip to the Keys was really an education expense as defined by the above paragraph. It does seem to provide an avenue for the IRS to see a need to define a list of acceptable homeschool related expenses. Then, Congress will be outraged that homeschool parents are taking the kids scuba diving in Oct when they were supposed to be chained in the basement doing math, and all hell will break loose and Congressional hearings will be convened.
Although, that can never happen as Congress has assured us in the opening paragraphs of this bill that the federal government can not exert any control of homeschooling.
Are you starting to see the folly in getting the Feds involved in assuring a few minor benefits that 99% of homeschoolers never have any issue with in the first place?
SEC. 7. CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 444 OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT AS TO PUBLICLY HELD RECORDS OF STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW.
To save space, I'm not copying the whereifs and therefores associated with this section. It all relates to this though.
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):
Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.
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? If state law requires us to provide certain information to the schools, that information should be held accountable to the exact same privacy laws as the information related to kids actually in the public school system. If we are going to work to strengthen student privacy, let's do it for all kids, not just homeschool kids.
SEC. 8. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW FOR THE ROBERT C. BYRD HONORS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
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’.
Eligibility requirements are detailed here. Ignoring for a moment the issue of just where in the Constitution the Feds find the authority to dole out taxpayer funded scholarships, 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? The law already provides an out for homeschoolers, the GED. Is it really worth the effort over a measly $750 scholarship? That'll barely buy books at most schools. Again, the better solution is to get the Feds totally out of the scholarship business, not to write laws and procedures that get HS'ers on the gravy train.
SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS APPLIED TO STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW.
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.’
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.
SEC. 10. RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(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
Why do we need special recruitment policies just for homeschoolers? is this all part of Faris' Christian Army fantasy? If homeschoolers are just like everybody else, shouldn't the normal recruitment policies of the Armed Forces be sufficient?
`(b) Elements- The policy prescribed by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a) shall include the following:
`(1) Identification of qualified graduates of home schooling for purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the armed forces that is in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c).
`(2) Provision for the treatment, within the Department of Defense classification system of educational credentials for recruitment purposes, of graduates of home schooling within the same tier status as regular high school graduates, with no practical limit with regard to enlistment.
`(3) Exemption of graduates of home schooling from any requirement for a secondary school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) certificate of high school equivalency as a precondition for enlistment in the armed forces.
The military, being a top heavy bureaucratic organization, needs a quick way to eliminate the wheat from the chaff. That shortcut has traditionally been a high school diploma. HEK's present a problem in that we like to consider ourselves the wheat, but we don't have the magic piece of paper. It's a problem, but the cure presented below seems to be much worse than the problem.
`(c) Qualified Home-School Graduates- In identifying a graduate of home schooling for purposes of subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the graduate meets each of the following requirements:
`(1) The graduate has taken the Armed Forces Qualification Test and scored at the 50th percentile or above.
Done. Stop here. This is the answer. Everybody has to take the test anyway, so it should be the Sorting Hat. How you got to that point is not material. Either you can cut it (on paper anyway), or not.
`(2) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with–
`(A) a signed home-school notice of intent form that conforms with the State law of the State where the graduate resided when the graduate was in home school; or
And if you live in Texas where intents are not required...?
`(B) a home-school certificate or diploma from the parent or guardian of the graduate or a national curriculum provider.
So we are replacing the worthless piece of paper from a government school with an equally worthless piece of paper from Mom? That helps how?
`(3) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with a copy of the graduate’s transcript for all secondary school grades completed which–
`(A) includes the enrollment date, graduation date, and type of curriculum; and
`(B) reflects successful completion of the last full academic year of schooling from the home-school national curriculum provider, parent, or guardian issuing the home-school certificate or diploma or home-school notice of intent form.
`(4) The home-school curriculum used by the graduate involved parental instruction and supervision and closely patterned the normal credit hours per subject as used in a traditional secondary school.
Meaningless paperwork, all of it. I thought the whole point was that success can't be measured by all those silly ass requirements in the public schools? What do we gain by requiring homeschools to provide reasonable facsimiles of all those silly ass requirements?
`(5) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the graduate’s home-school status by the Home School Legal Defense Association or a State or county home-school association or organization.’.
I'm starting a new company, Homeschool Accreditation and Documentation, Inc. Our advertising tag line will be You've been HAD. Just insert your VISA number onto my website and I'll third party verify pretty much anything you want. And I won't require a $120 a year membership and a statement of faith either.
My feelings about this bill should be fairly clear. It's bad for homeschoolers, including those homeschoolers that are members of HSLDA.
Comments
Touche'. I just now wrote my Rep. (a Democrat, believe it or not) and asked him to oppose this bill. Since Musgrave is about as far right as you can get, I doubt he'll have a problem with that.
Posted by: Daryl at September 17, 2005 12:56 PMMy compliments Chris. I wasn't sure if I was reading a stand up comedy act or serious critique of Federal legislation. But then most laws passed by Congress are a joke so whose to know the difference. I say you give up blogging and run for Congress. They need more jokers on Capitol Hill. And then atleast we can be sure the jokes won't be passed on homeschoolers.
Posted by: Spunky at September 17, 2005 09:11 PMGood one...
"I know I stay awake at night worrying about standardized test scores and valuable socialization skills. Could they have picked any two less important issues issues to highlight in their "defense" of homeschooling?"
and
"The irony that we do so well without their help seem to be lost on them though."
I didn't have to read the whole thing to see that this is a cover for something else. If I could, I'd vote for you.
Posted by: Ron at September 17, 2005 11:39 PMThe short version:
Since the federal goverment has been unConstitutionally regulating & funding public education for years, we want some o' dat, too. What, we're not good enough for NCLB? Huh, huh? Just hatin' on the homeschoolers, that's what it is. Obviously, Bush hates homeschoolers!
And, this: "(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents.
"ROFLMAO," made me snort out loud.
Posted by: Ulrike at September 18, 2005 01:42 AMI really enjoyed your breakdown on HONDA. I'll post a link on our blog.
Posted by: Kara at September 18, 2005 12:36 PMChris, I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but respectfully disagree this time around. Your fisk doesn't allow me to address this bill line by line, but I'd be glad to provide an honest response to each sincere concern.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 19, 2005 11:21 AMChris has graciously offered to let me post an honest substantive response to this fisk, and I've been authorized to put up the "official" HSLDA point by point response. May I suggest we break it into sections?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 19, 2005 12:16 PMIf the comment entry box is gone it's because comments are closed for this entry. Please feel free to use the "contact" link above to get in touch.