September 20, 2005
Who Does HSLDA Represent?
A number of HoNDA opponents say: "HSLDA doesn't represent me!"
I've spent many of my years here at HSLDA trying to make sure we clearly communicate who we DO represent and who we DON'T represent...
It's been a while since we've had a major flare-up over this issue, which could mean that HSLDA has done an adequate job of consistently saying, "We represent HSLDA members."
In our effort to represent HSLDA members, we are now trying to enact federal legislation that will meet specific needs of HSLDA members. We are convinced that HoNDA really will make things work better for the 80,000 families we are trying to serve.
We don't claim to represent non-members, but we are genuinely trying to serve their interests, nonetheless. I honestly believe HoNDA will improve matters for the homeschoolers I know. Here, however, I recognize the limits of my own experience: I am most familiar with Evangelical homeschoolers plus the non-Evangelicals who have no objection to joining HSLDA.
Conversations like this one here help me learn the perspectives of people who AREN'T like me and who DON'T like HSLDA. If you can show me specifics as to how HoNDA will really harm homeschoolers, I'll do my best to bring that information to the attention of the decision-makers at HSLDA. I can't guarantee that I can fix the problem, but I guarantee I'll try. I make that promise because I want to SERVE the interests of all homeschoolers, even if I only represent dues-paying HSLDA members.
Permalink | TrackBackComments
Well, the military section irks me to no end. Why should HEKs get a break? The 5-year-study (that HSLDA pushed for) showed that for all retention levels, HEKs on average did not do as well as g-school grads. Perhaps it our libertarian streak. Maybe it's because our kids never learned to stand in line and march from place to place. Whatever- the data are there. But Farris wants it and Musgrave is willing to oblige. It apparently doesn't matter that it costs the government (i.e., taxpayers) extra money. So, we piss off the military by pushing this and obligate ourselves to a far-Right-wing politician. And once again the half-country that didn't vote for GWB sees homeschooling = VRWC. But your members might not care about that, right?
And, to top off the hubris, HSLDA now thinks it's ok for our kids to be required to "prove" their home educating status by requiring they obtain a letter from HSLDA or some state or local organization.
Scott, the BIG problem with HSLDA is that you're all lawyers. Seriously. By that I mean you all think like lawyers who have a responsibility to fight for your "clients" to the best of your ability. Except your members are not necessarily representative of the entire home education community. And HSLDA's actions affect ALL of us. So when Farris (who is always listed as being affiliated with HSLDA) makes some pronouncement on some non-homeschooling related bill, it ties the entire community to you.
Y'all are the 800-pound gorilla. You have a (moral if not legal) responsibility to work in a Hippocratic manner-- First, Do No Harm. And part of that responsibility is working with the statewide INCLUSIVES to make sure that your 800 pound feet aren't going to squash a bunch of us along the way.
Posted by: Daryl at September 20, 2005 03:21 PMDaryl, I completely respect your position here. And I particularly recognize that the military issue raises a bunch of new and significant issues that don't fit neatly within last year's HoNDA package.
I'm going to defer most of the military policy issues to Section 10, but it's appropriate to address the "differing constituency" issues in this thread.
Homeschoolers aren't the only people who struggle with this kind of stuff. There are feminists who are pacifists who want to abolish combat, not open it up to women. There are other feminists who dislike war in general but dislike gender-based discrimination even more. There are other feminists who are all in favor of armed combat and are eager to be the most lethal warriors ever. All are feminists, but not all are pacifists.
I haven't been following the "women in combat" issue all that much, but I assume the National Organization for Women has taken some positions that anger other feminists. I don't know how the feminist community is sorting out their issues, but I'm committed to do what I can to work through our variations on that theme.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 20, 2005 03:51 PMI don't see the connection at all! There are no state regulations determining who can and cannot be feminists. There are no laws stating what rules a person must follow in order to legally remain a feminist. And, if NOW were to work toward a Feminist Non-Discrimination Act ("FeNDA") it would be doing a disservice to all feminists, including its members.
"We want the federal goverment involved in homeschooling regulation," is not the message I want sent to Congress, period!
Posted by: Ulrike at September 20, 2005 04:45 PMSo under what circumstances does a feminist have to go to NOW to "prove" their feminist status to the government?
Posted by: Michelle Kretzschmar at September 20, 2005 04:49 PMMichelle, this is getting pretty far off-topic... but I recall that Chief-Justice-in-waiting John Roberts is married to Jane Roberts, who served for some time as Executive Vice President of "Feminists for Life." I assume that she's had her differences with N.O.W., and I'll bet there are feminists who refuse to accept her as a fellow feminist solely because of her position on abortion. (Whatever that may be!)
With all due respect for the sincerity and strength of your opinions, I think HSLDA has treated other homeschoolers better than N.O.W. has treated pro-life feminists. If you can give me specific instances where that is not the case, I'll respond to them.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 20, 2005 05:09 PMOBJECTION!
Irrelevant.
My son and I just worked through Lesson 4 in The Fallacy Detective. We were told to shout RED HERRING at the top of our lungs. Nice try, Scott.
Posted by: Daryl at September 20, 2005 05:40 PMYou picked the example and you did not answer the question. Is that a lawyer thing?
Posted by: Michelle Kretzschmar at September 20, 2005 06:02 PMMichelle, I actually thought I DID answer the question about when a feminist has to go to the government to prove her/his credentials, but, as I noted, it felt pretty off-topic at the time. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Want to try again?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 20, 2005 06:43 PMHow bout we not insult anyone else's intelligence by pretending that you don't know that was a rhetorical question, Mr. Somerville.
The issue at hand is the burden of proof your organization is pushing via legislation onto approximately 1,920,000 homeschoolers (for those of you who believe the 2 million stat) who aren't--either by their choice or yours-- HSLDA members.
Posted by: Natalie at September 21, 2005 02:03 AMScott,
Let me put it in the form of simple yes/no questions--
Do you believe that HSLDA has an obligation to the entire community to do no harm?
Do you believe that, in seeking to do no harm, the opinions of activists across the country might be relevant?
Do you believe that it might be prudent to seek out those opinions prior to the introduction of federal legislation?
Looking forward to your response.
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 03:21 AMDaryl asked, "Do you believe that it might be prudent to seek out those opinions prior to the introduction of federal legislation?"
Well, if they are being consistent with how they behave regarding local and state issues, the answer is obviously no.
The up-side of this terrible proposed legislation is that I'm hearing an awful lot of folks who were on the fence about HSLDA now expressing understanding about their MO and bewilderment about what their true purpose must be. The "I-see-what-you-mean" emails are flying, in light of legislation that so transparently attempts to promote HSLDA without regard to the negative effects on homeschoolers.
The tiger is showing its stripes in a national forum.
Posted by: Jeanne at September 21, 2005 08:59 AMJeanne,
I feel exactly the opposite. HSLDA has done SO much harm in more areas than I can count, and I'd never think of being a member... but here, at least, they seem to have stumbled across a very decent piece of legislation. Perhaps because the HSLDA is composed of lawyers, perhaps they realize that as long as home school families close their eyes and pretend that the law doesn't exist, they will continue to be a marginalized group.
I notice that many home school parents actually prefer to be a marginalized group. For a good number, it appears to be for similar reasons that some people always like rooting for the underdog at sporting events. Others are just uncomfortable being on the same side as the government in anything, whether it's for political or psychological reasons.
Nevertheless, there are very real consequences in this legislation for very real home school families. Most importantly, I think, it means that some families that could not afford to send their kids to college may now be able to do so. If these benefits don't matter to your family, then it's easy to take the comfortable or exciting position of being the underdog. As more families start considering home school as an educational option, though, it *is* the obligation of society to treat them fairly and well, even at the cost of pushing people out of their emotional comfort zone.
So, good job HSLDA! I don't like you, but I hope this legislation passes.
Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2005 01:16 PMChris,
You mean the Byrd scholaships? $1,500 per year is ok. But even if this passes, HEKs would probably only win ~1,000. That's nationwide counting renewals. So, we're talking maybe 200 - 250 students per year. Is that really worth passing federal legislation?
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 01:34 PMDaryl asked:
(1) "Do you believe that HSLDA has an obligation to the entire community to do no harm?"
My answer is, "Yes. Our duty to our members comes first, of course, but I believe we can serve HSLDA members best by communicating with homeschoolers as much as possible. We are stronger and more effective when we work together."
(2) "Do you believe that, in seeking to do no harm, the opinions of activists across the country might be relevant?"
Absolutely.
(3) "Do you believe that it might be prudent to seek out those opinions prior to the introduction of federal legislation?"
Yes, very much so! I'm very interested in any suggestions that homeschool activists have to offer -- as long as those suggestions provide some hope of solving the problems that got us here.
HSLDA has been struggling to help our members deal with some difficult issues for year. We have colleges that try to force homeschoolers to get a GED, and school districts that try to mandate special needs evaluations. These are problems that really affect our members, and we believe we need to take action of some kind.
To date, our most vocal critics don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that these are legitimate concerns. If our critics were CONSTRUCTIVE critics, who could suggest other ways of solving these problems, we'd have a lot less friction.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 21, 2005 03:02 PMScott,
I very much recognize that clueless college administrators and busybody local bureaucrats are a problem for many, even if I haven't personally had to deal with it.
However, I also totally believe that more laws and mandates from Washington will not solve the problem. I'm not sure there is an ultimate solution in the current educational environment. We are doing something many people find very odd. We should expect that it may cause the occasional problem.
You seem to be saying that HSLDA members want the benefits of an education free from government interference, and at the same time want those benefits of a government certified education that help smooth life when dealing with an establishment that expects everybody to do things the government way.
I don't think it's advisable for homeschoolers to use the police power of government to try to change the behavior of everybody else, even if we are trying to force them to follow existing law. If they ignore existing law, whether out of ignorance or malice, why would we expect more laws to change their behavior?
Scott,
If the answers truly are "yes" three times over, why has HSLDA sprung this bill on us (twice)? I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have gotten feedback before the bill was filed. Perhaps we might have found our way to a constructive solution. Instead, now the list-servs are all up in arms, convinced that HSLDA is just doing the "same old, same old." There are lots of smart folks in the community. I bet if HSLDA asked for opinions/help (before the bill is introduced for the 3rd time in 2007)you'd find the answers you're seeking.
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 04:48 PMForgot--
Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.
--Prov. 15:22
Chris, that's the second time you've referred to the "police power of government" in this discussion. That's a technical term with a specific meaning which I don't think applies here. Do you really mean "police power," or are you referring to the coercive nature of government in general?
If you mean the latter, I tend to agree. Most of the big problems we're trying to solve at the federal level stem from the so-called "Spending Clause." If a private actor were to extract money from my unwilling pocket and divvy it up among his cronies and accomplices, we'd scream bloody murder. If the government does it, we're supposed to be grateful for the privilege!
As for the "benefits of a government certified education," I'll save that for our discussion of Section 4. We could care less about the "government certified education." Our problem is that the so-called "free market" in higher education is so dominated by federal funding that we're having trouble getting into the college of our choice because of their fear of losing the federal money.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 21, 2005 04:55 PMScott, I was referring to the coercive power of government.
Posted by: COD at September 21, 2005 07:45 PMThat makes sense. I'll explain what "police power" means to a practicing attorney when I get to Section 2(7).
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 22, 2005 10:22 AMDaryl,
Yes, I was referring to the Byrd scholarships. They are the most appealing benefit of this legislation to me. That's partly because I know a lot of home school families who are struggling to get by on a single-parent income, and for whom that scholarship really could help a lot. $1000 per year (if that's what it comes too... at least it's in the ballpark) is a HUGE chunk of the tuition at most minor state colleges and universities. It's mostly, though, because it makes no sense for home school families to settle for being left out of ANY opportunities at higher education because of their primary and secondary school choices.
The only argument I've seen against this legislation is that it might make some people want to pass bad legislation in the future. If so, home school families will fight against that bad legislation in the future! It's not as if future bad legislation will stop because we accept unfair treatment of home school families now. If anything, I think we'd look at the past and realize that the opposite is true.
In any case, I mainly posted to express that my reaction to this bill -- and to HSLDA in general -- is the opposite of what Jeanne is seeing.
Posted by: Chris at September 22, 2005 10:52 AMI've had trouble trying to figure out where to post this, because although fragmenting the conversation seems to be useful to others, it doesn't work well for me. Forest/Trees.
So, apply this to several places.
I find this kind of legislation to be like burning the house down because the bathroom needs cleaning.
If a certain state has bad laws or clueless (college/school) administrators, the folks there can work to fix the situation, as has been successfully done many times. Working on individual problems by communicating with people on an individual basis or creating specific legislation that resolves specific problems is not only acceptable but desirable. That's the alternative.
In the meantime, I've called and written to my congressman and also to HSLDA with my concerns about this legislation, and I hope that others who are concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation will also do the same. We can't be distracted by the conversation and lulled into in-action.
Folks should not be confused into thinking that the many people who are against the bill are against fair treatment for homeschoolers. We're against a method of addressing challenges will put our freedoms at risk.
Jeanne, by all means call your legislators early and often. If it's a choice between conducting this conversation and making your voice heard with your own legislator, call the legislator!
As for your "burning down the house because the bathroom needs cleaning" point, though, I don't think you understand the problem we're trying to solve quite yet. I'll address the college issue when I get to that section, but in light of your "forest/trees" point, I'll respond briefly here. It isn't STATE law that is causing us a problem with these colleges. It's the federal financial aid programs that have a separate rule for "non-high school graduates." There are a significant number of college financial aid officers who think a homeschoolers is not a "high school graduate."
If you can figure out how to solve the college problem at the state level, please let me know! I'm responsible for serving HSLDA members in eight states plus DC, and I don't get to wait until HoNDA passes to get results. I'm fighting tooth and nail with one college in New Mexico right now. Want to help me persuade them to get a clue?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 22, 2005 12:31 PM"(3) "Do you believe that it might be prudent to seek out those opinions prior to the introduction of federal legislation?"
Yes, very much so! I'm very interested in any suggestions that homeschool activists have to offer -- as long as those suggestions provide some hope of solving the problems that got us here. "
That's the same line we got last time. And HSLDA got PLENTY of 'suggestions' the last time they tried to float HONDA. They ignored every single one and even made it worse with the military stuff added in this time around.
HSLDA could not care less what homeschoolers think.
what a load of...lip service....
Mary
Posted by: Mary at September 22, 2005 12:58 PMScott you said, "There are a significant number of college financial aid officers who think a homeschoolers is not a "high school graduate."
Prove it.
I think that is BS.
Both my two sons applied to colleges (and were accpeted to all) and never had a problem, nor have their homeschooling friends. I am not talking about some third tier institutions I am talking Boston University, NYU, Brandeis, State Colleges and others. Homeschoolers are being courted and welcomed by some very competitive schools so I think that argument is baloney.
I have spoken to hundreds of College administrators in the past 5 years, who have no such bias as what you are stating. There may be a few boneheads out there in college administration land but for the most part they need to be educated - not legislated.
The Byrd scholarship is no big deal - $1500 will buy you books - and my friend there are enough means to fund a college education that no one needs to be denied. This is not a reason to sell us to the federal government.. We do NOT need federal statute to help us or protect us especially where the federal government has no such given power to do so in the first place.
oh.. and exactly how much in scholarship money has HSLDA given to those poor families out there who are having such financial hardships regarding college? is that before or after you take their $100 membership fee and statement of faith?
Sorry my dear Scott.. I don't buy this one at all.
Scott, we truly do live in a parallel universe, don't we ?
Um, if there are financial aid officers who need to understand that homeschoolers are not drop-outs, I could work with you on a program to educate financial aid officers. (But I mean that personally; I could not do it under the auspices of HSLDA even if you guys would let me.)
What I can't go along with is ramming it down the throats of financial aid officers using federal legislation that requires my sons to use a third-party verifier to get into the military. I mean, HUH? This is what I mean by burning down the house because the bathroom needs cleaning. Clean the bathroom! Educate the administrators!
And I think maybe your people are hanging around the wrong people. The homeschoolers I know and many hundreds I have networked with get into the colleges of their choice complete with financial aid, with the usual academic exceptions (ACT or SAT not high enough, appropriate course material not covered, etc. -- no different than g-school kids).
You can email me off-blog about the college in New Mexico.
Jeanne
Posted by: Jeanne at September 22, 2005 06:10 PM
I regret that my "emoticons" did not show up in my last post. I had a couple of "grins" in there, but I put them in those arrow things and they did not show up in the comment.
Apologies. I included them meaning to project a gentle ribbing tone.
I really need to learn how to do the internet.
Posted by: Jeanne at September 22, 2005 06:59 PMI would suspect that its mostly smaller colleges that cause problems. I would think the big state schools have dealt with enough homeschoolers by now that they have procedures in place to deal with us.
Is that right Scott?
Posted by: COD at September 22, 2005 10:17 PMLook at how far we've come without federal legislation on this point (college admissions). Can you honestly say that you don't think that this problem will all but clear itself up over the next ten-twenty years?
Posted by: Ulrike at September 23, 2005 12:15 AMAlmost all of the college problems I have bumped into over the last three years have been third- or fourth-tier schools, especially community colleges. Massachusetts has been driving me crazy in a big way, but there are other states with the same situation.
Here's a classica case. Two weeks ago I got a call from an officer of MacIntosh College, a little-bitty school near my old home in New Hampshire. They had admitted a few NH homeschoolers over the years, but now they had an application from their first-ever Massachusetts homeschooler. They wanted an "official transcript" from the local school district. I told that was neither necessary nor possible, since the compulsory attendance age in Mass. is 16 and homeschoolers don't have to ask for "approval" once the student reaches that age.
The officer struggled with that alien concept for awhile, and then said she had to have the paperwork because they were regularly audited by the federal government, and would be shut down if they didn't have the proper paperwork. I assured her that she would NOT be shut down and told her to talk to senior management about letting this kid in. She said she would and I'm waiting for a call-back.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 23, 2005 02:00 PMThey'd be shut down by the feds for admitting an HEK? In what universe? It sounds like she's confusing admitting a home ed grad with admitting an underage HEK. That was a problem a couple of years ago, but the EdDept cleared it up in their regs.
Posted by: Daryl at September 24, 2005 02:52 PMDaryl, my life would be so much easier if the feds would actually TRY to shut down a college for admitting a homeschool kid. Then we could fight it out in court, win, and have a nice juicy precedent to cite next time we deal with a skittish financial aid officer.
If I understand things correctly, the Clinton Administration sent out a policy handbook that told financial aid officers that they COULD lose their funding if they let in a homeschooler. (I wasn't dealing with this issue before 2000, so I may be missing something here.) HSLDA revised the federal Higher Ed laws in 1998 to solve this problem, and then Bush got elected and made things a lot easier.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 27, 2005 02:58 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.