September 19, 2005
Scott Somerville Defisks: HoNDA Sect. 1
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005′.
Chris has been gracious enough to allow me (Scott Somerville) an opportunity to make the case for HoNDA 2005. I'm taking it on in bite-sized chunks. If you want to know more, keep clicking...
Chris calls this “The HSLDA Full Employment Act of 2005,” arguing that if it passes, HSLDA will have “plenty of work helping non-enlightened homeschoolers get their share of the federal kitty.”
Chris makes this claim without offering any evidence to support it. This charge may sound reasonable to people who are already certain that HSLDA is “just in it for the money,” but I would like to hear a HoNDA critic explain how this legislation would increase the number of dues-paying HSLDA members.
If Chris wants a cutesy name for HoNDA, he could call it “The HSLDA Stress Relief Act of 2005,” arguing that if it passes, HSLDA attorneys will get to work on more important issues instead of spending so much time helping HSLDA members deal with military recruitment, special ed evaluations, college admissions, and work permit issues.
A more appropriate name might be “PANDA,” the “Privacy and Non-Discrimination Act,” since two of the most provisions are “leave-us-alone laws,” such as Section 5 (Special Education Evaluations) and Section 7 (Privacy of Educational Records). I would take Chris’s critique more seriously if he were to admit the value of these two items.
Permalink | TrackBackComments
Scott, my jab was not aimed at the idea that HoNDA will be a recruitment bonanza for HSLDA. However, defining new rules, whether pro or con homeschooling, will lead to misunderstandings and conflict.
An attorney's core business (in a civil sense) is conflict resolution. More rules = more conflict = more business for lawyers.
Regarding "PANDA", my concern is that HoNDA dictates better privacy and work rules for us than the PS kids have. Not that I don't appreciate the potential increased freedom, but I fear the price will be a big fat target painted on homeschoolers when our opponents understand we now have better "benefits" than they do. I understand that they aren't really benefits - but our opponents won't.
Posted by: COD at September 19, 2005 03:39 PMChris, with all due respect, I'm up to my eyeballs in existing "misunderstandings and conflict" over the issues that HoNDA is trying to address.
You say "more rules = more conflict." That's not always true. Have you ever been stuck at an intersection when the lights are out?
Every day, I try to help families find their way through HUGE areas of federal law like special education, educational privacy, and financial aid for higher education. I find that public officials make up their own rules each time they face a homeschooler, and the rule they come up with usually is "just say no."
Your point about "better benefits" is more to the point. I'll address that when we get to Section 7 (privacy rights) and Section 9 (Child Labor).
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 19, 2005 04:15 PMI would like to hear a HoNDA critic explain how this legislation would increase the number of dues-paying HSLDA members.
Piece of cake.
"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."
You could only verify members, no?
Posted by: Daryl at September 19, 2005 04:15 PMYou might hav enoticed, Scott, that the vast majority of list-servs and bloggers have come out strongly against this. Did HSLDA ever stop to consider that perhaps they might want to work WITH the bloggers and statewides before springing federal legislation? This is the 2nd time this bill has just appeared out of nowhere. If Farris is serious about getting it passed (the 3rd time around), a change of tactics might be in order.
Posted by: Daryl at September 19, 2005 04:20 PMDaryl, under the existing law HSLDA routinely helps homeschoolers with the kind of letter you suggest we might write. I've got three college entrance matters pending right now. I just wrote a letter for a homeschool grad who's trying to get into the military last Friday. Why would a new law boost membership if that's what we're doing already?
As for the vast majority of list-servs and bloggers: I genuinely respect their opinion and am willing to respond to their concerns to the best of my ability here, if Chris continues to let me make the case for it.
With all due respect for all these opponents, it takes more than "vast" numbers to persuade me that this opposition is all it's cracked up to be. If Chris REALLY thinks Congress has no authority to enact legislation to ensure equal protection, then I respectfully submit that he is out to lunch and need not be taken seriously.
If the "vast majority" of bloggers dismiss any serious consideration of HoNDA by saying HSLDA is just in it for the money (when I know that to be false), it's their loss. If this site provides an opportunity for minds to meet and minds to change (including mine!) then it's everybody's gain.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 19, 2005 04:35 PMWell, let me just jump in here. Every time HSLDA jumps into the fray and Illinois is concerned it cost me money. Last time was a shell bill. I spent a lot of time writing letters and calling intersted parties. I also made a trip to Chicago over it.
I believe HONDA would be extremely harmful to Illinois homeschoolers. As it stands now, we have great educational and homeschool freedom. Now that Ricca Slone is gone, it seems like the entity taking up the most of my time fighting for homeschool freedom is HSLDA. Homeschoolers from other states write to Susan and I and ask us how they can be as free as we are. If Illinois homeschoolers get sucked out of the private school definition we will have bigger problems than we already have. I think HONDA could lead to that. Unfortunately, the fear factor would lead to more homeschoolers joining HSLDA if we lost our private school status. We already are harrassed in some areas of the state and HONDA does not address the issues leading to that harassment and would not help us. We are protected by a court case and just need to stand our ground when school officials overstep their boundaries. I for one, won't be joining HSLDA.
Anyway, this is a state issue and the feds need to stay out of it.
*Why would a new law boost membership if that's what we're doing already?*
Because you only write those letters for members? Come on, Scott, you're a smart guy. Farris wrote HSLDA in as a de facto accreditation agency. Don't you see how some of us might have just a bit of a problem with that?
*f the "vast majority" of bloggers dismiss any serious consideration of HoNDA by saying HSLDA is just in it for the money (when I know that to be false), it's their loss.*
I never suggested that HSLDA was only in it for the money. Nor have I seen a serious suggestion that that was your motivation. I have no doubt that the vast majority of attorneys who work there are honorable people who are doing what they feel is right. Farris, OTOH, I don't trust for a second.
Finally, I think I'm beginning to understand HSLDA's motivations. You wrote-- "he could call it 'The HSLDA Stress Relief Act of 2005'." I'm sure it would make your lives easier if there were one set of uniform laws that you had to deal with. So pass a federal law and prempt the states having 51 (counting DC) different sets of rules and regs. So your stress level goes down and 2 million home educating parents stress levels go up. A fair trade, I guess.
Posted by: Daryl at September 19, 2005 05:42 PMHi Scott --
I wonder how this part would work --
"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 not a member of HSLDA, or a State or county hs org or association. Unless someone wants to consider the 5 other Moms I meet at the beach sometimes to be an "organization." :)
If I wanted to encourage my children to enlist, would this "verification letter" be the only way to prove we have hsed all these years? (I am remembering this section as part of the military recruitment section. Hope I got that right. If not, please let us know.) Or is there some other proof that the military accepts -- like my word?
Nance
Daryl, perhaps HSLDA agrees with the illustrious Tom Harkin, who once wrote to one of his constituents (paraphrased), "It's not my job to represent you; it's to educate you so that you agree with me."
Posted by: Ulrike at September 19, 2005 07:06 PMHow many times is the same old bill going to reappear out of the ashes. The only change in this bill is to make it worse with the addition of the military section.
It was wrong then, it is wrong now and dividing it up into a dozen parts so that one has to spend hours trying to figure out exactly what Scott is saying this time is ridiculous.
For those that want to know all the problems, save your scrolling and clicking time, just go read the NHEN forums where it was discussed and dissected to death! Go to militaryfamilies.com to read what is wrong with the military section.
Is this like the flu? Do we all need a vaccine to protect us since it seems to keep coming back each year?
Folks, HSLDA is quite serious about trying to solve some problems that are difficult if not impossible to solve under current law. If you dismiss our efforts by saying, "They aren't really problems," don't blame us for ignoring you and plugging ahead on our own.
Daryl comes the closest to seriously understanding why we keep pushing this issue. He's at least making an effort to understand what "itch" is making us "scratch." It isn't quite as simple as he suggests, though.
Daryl says, "I'm sure it would make your lives easier if there were one set of uniform laws that you had to deal with." Daryl, I pride myself on knowing the ins and outs of homeschool laws in ALMOST all 50 states, plus a lot of special education details and child abuse investigation rules. We have 5 full-time attorneys here who divide up the 50 states (and DC) and it is our job to KNOW the answers in each of the states we cover.
The problem we are trying to solve is the case where we KNOW the answer in a particular state and that answer is the WRONG answer. When Missouri says that homeschoolers can be forced to undergo special education evaluations against their will, that's the wrong answer.
If the special education problem in Missouri were the result of some Missouri law, we'd be dealing with the issue in Jefferson City. The problem is that the special education law all flows down from on high, and that means we have to tweak federal law to solve the problem.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 20, 2005 10:35 AM"[D]on't blame us for ignoring you and plugging ahead on our own."
That's exactly the problem. You jump in where you're neither wanted nor needed and plug ahead all on your own, often to the detriment of those who are actually homeschooling in a community.
For example, earlier this year, Mary Mascher, a representative in the Iowa House, tried to get a study bill introduced to see if there was enough supervision of homeschoolers. Local homeschoolers called or wrote to their own representatives. The representatives on the education committee, including the chair of that committee, all said that it was a rediculous bill, and that there was no way it would ever get out of committee.
THEN HSLDA sent out an alarmist e-mail warning all its members to call or e-mail their "Iowa state representative and Mary Mascher immediately." Great idea, except 1) Iowa homeschoolers had already been doing so and 2) the issue had already been resolved without HSLDA's input. Unfortunately, I doubt that will stop them from taking credit at next year's homeschooling conference in Des Moines.
Posted by: Ulrike at September 20, 2005 12:16 PMUlrike and others are bringing up some good points that deserve their own thread. I'm going to move the discussion of "Who Does HSLDA Represent" and "Should HSLDA Go It Alone" to new headings, and will try to address other major substantive issues in the same way.
I'll keep this thread open to discuss predictions of how this bill would affect HSLDA's workload and membership.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 20, 2005 01:01 PMScott, as long as you're starting a new thread, I have one other question. You said, "Folks, HSLDA is quite serious about trying to solve some problems that are difficult if not impossible to solve under current law." Could you give us some examples?
Posted by: Ulrike at September 20, 2005 02:07 PMgee, there's a new tactic for Scott/HSLDA: moving things to a different place to distract the conversation and change the subject. (NOT!) The issue remains HONDA and it's effects on individual homeschoolers. Stay on topic.
I've noticed that issues are NEVER discussed at HSLDA - does anyone really think they WANT to hear what homeschoolers actually think? Why does Scott, HSLDA's paid lobbyist for HONDA, have to use Other People's Blogs to lobby homeschoolers to support HONDA? While the homeschool community is busy doing the Honda Shuffle, HSLDA is over in DC lobbying this thing though.
Mary
I did invite him Mary. I'm busy this week, and Scott is keeping it interesting and creating ad impressions for my banner ads :)
Although I agree - HSLDA should be having this conversation on their own blog. It'll be funny in a week when I rank in the top 5 on Google for HSLDA ;)
Posted by: COD at September 20, 2005 04:11 PMI'm keenly aware of Chris's hospitality... and of the fun and interest a little controversy can generate for a hard-working blogger.
(Chris, I'll never tell about the secret contract signed in blood at midnight which stipulates that you bump Kos off the top of the charts in return for joining HSLDA.)
As for shuffling things around to throw HSLDA's critics off the trail... I wish it was that easy! Here's a link to the "Who Does HSLDA Represent" thread:
http://www.odonnellweb.com/mtarchives/001923.php
I think we have a long way to go to top DailyKos. Every homeschooler in the country would have to be clicking away over here. :-)
I for one appreciate Scott's willingness to take on all comers. And I'm glad it's over here as opposed to Scott's late blog; that black background was tough on these 40-something-year-old eyes.
Posted by: Daryl at September 20, 2005 06:22 PMDaryl! I'm hurt. I thought the starry sky thing was really cool.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 21, 2005 11:15 AMPlease take a look at some helpful info on prescription .
Posted by: order pet medication online reviews at October 4, 2005 05:21 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.