September 21, 2005
Scott Defisks HoNDA Sect. 2(6)
(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.
Chris says, “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?” Let me offer an analogy...
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Suppose we came across a statute that said, “Federally-funded fire departments must provide fire protection to churches and synagogues and may not discriminate against them.” Can a fire chief in 2005 stand by and let a mosque burn to the ground?
Chris says, by this analogy, “All those laws protecting churches and synagogues are just fine. We don’t need to amend them to protect our rights!” I’d recommend he talk to some Muslim homeschoolers before he gets too far out on that limb. They can fill him in on some of the active, overt, and ongoing discrimination they have experienced.
Permalink | TrackBackComments
So, what happens when the Mormons, Catholics, and Wiccans want to know why the Muslins and Jews have special protections that they don't?
Are we going to pass special laws for everybody?
Everybody is special just means that nobody is - Dash Incredible.
And does the new law actually make Muslins safer in their place of worship - or just make them feel safer?
Posted by: COD at September 21, 2005 04:49 PMExcellent points, which I actually addressed in my first draft of this answer but then cut because it was getting too long.
The RIGHT answer is to cut out all references to "churches and synagogues" and replace it with "private structures for religious gatherings." To the best of my knowledge, HSLDA's starting point in all proposed federal legislation is to replace the phrase "all children in public and private schools" with "all children who are receiving an education in compliance with the compulsory attendance laws of their state." This eliminates any concern about introducing the term "homeschool" into federal law.
We've had limited success in persuading the congressional drafters to adopt this language. If HSLDA is the 800 pound gorilla in the homeschool world, the NEA is King Kong when it comes to educational policy.
Are there any HoNDA critics who would modify their position if we replaced the "public, private, and homeschool" approach with the "all children in compliance with compulsory attendance laws" approach?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 21, 2005 05:05 PMME! In an aborted comment on the FERPA thread, I had written basically the same thing. Phrase it along the lines that FERPA protections are accorded all students.
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 07:02 PMBTW, that doesn't mean I'd be in favor of the whole bill. Here's basically my position--
1) No special favors for HEKs. That'd pretty much kill the work rules and the military sections.
2) No discrimination against HEKs because of our choices. So, although I think Byrd Scholarships are much ado about very little and Coverdell even less than that, if you word the bill such that the word "homeschool" isn't used, I could be persuaded.
3) No ominbus bills. Way too easy for Congress-critters (and bureaucrats) to misinterpret.You want to address FERPA? Write a clean bill that does that. But first get input/feedback/brickbats from the statewide INCLUSIVES.*
*You might notice that I keep pounding on this. You already have the HSLDA-affiliates. The inclusives are the ones you have to "recruit." If you don't, they'll automatically come out against you. And I'm guessing you probably don't want to be defending HONDA of 2007 here.
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 07:14 PMI'm not convinved we need a federal law at all, so the change in language would not persuade me to support it. However, if it were phrased to apply to all children, etc. I'd care a lot less and probably would not spend any time actively working against it.
Posted by: COD at September 21, 2005 07:43 PMTo change the subject completely for a minute, the Big Unit has a no hitter through 4.
Now back to our regularly scheduled fisking.
Posted by: Daryl at September 21, 2005 08:15 PMNow would be a good time to delete my first comment ever ;)
Posted by: COD at September 21, 2005 08:46 PM*Waves hand from the back row*
I have a problem with the language "all children in compliance with compulsory attendance laws."
In my state of California, one can be officially acknowledged as a private school, in compliance with compulsory attendance laws, if one files a private school affidavit with the state. However, some Christian homeschoolers, believing that their children are given to them by God, not the state, do not comply with this requirement when they homeschool. My understanding was that HSLDA would defend its members, even if they did not file affidavits, if they are homeschooling for religious reasons, with a first amendment defense.
*If* the language you propose becomes part of federal law, what then for that defense? Would the affidavit be considered part of compulsory attendance laws, or just the "competent to teach" and 180 days attendance, etc.?
Thanks for taking time to answer these questions.
Carmon
Posted by: Carmon Friedrich at September 21, 2005 10:27 PM8 innings and 1 run for Johnson. And the Yanks and Cleveland are red hot. Boston has played .500 ball for a while. Only 2 of these teams will make the playoffs. But Boston has the best schedule over the next 11 games. It's going to be a terrific pennant race!
Posted by: Daryl at September 22, 2005 05:44 AMTerriffic schedule or not - The Red Sox are not playing like a playoff team. You jusyt can't give up 5 tuns to the Devil Rays in the 8th inning in late Sept. You just can't.
Posted by: COD at September 22, 2005 08:03 AMCarmon, I see that hand!
You make a great point. I'm trying to help a LOT of kids in Massachusetts, home of one of America's two remaining "mandatory approval in advance" laws. Compulsory attendance ends at 16, but I have community colleges all over the Commonwealth demanding that students provide "approval" letters all the way through to the year they graduate. It's an INCREDIBLE pain to deal with, especially because there's an attorney who is advising all the community colleges to take the same outrageous position.
I do not believe that homeschool graduates should be punished for their parents' choices. I think it is wrong for a college to reject a good student just because they got an "illegal education."
The best I have been able to do for students like this (when they encounter real opposition), has been to sneak them into some other college for a year or knuckle under and take the GED. I hate that, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.
If I understand the hardcore HoNDA critics aright, they say that EVERY homeschool graduate who runs into college trouble should be willing to put up with a GED or a year of credits elsewhere. I'm not willing to accept that answer.
Is there some other answer?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 22, 2005 09:58 AMIf a college doesn't like the fact that a child has been homeschooled then you go elsewhere for an education. You vote with your feet. There are plenty of homeschool friendly colleges out there. You might not be happy with that as a solution for now, but you know what?.. there was a time when certain folks couldn't join certain golf clubs either and when they established other means of acheiving their goals it became a very moot issue.
This problem does not justify to me the insertion of the term homeschooling in federal statute where it does not belong. This will invariably cause more long term damage than good because Scott, what does a federal definition of homeschooling mean? are you ready for a federal judge to decide that definition for ALL states? Are you ready to have state's rights usurped over a federal definition of homeschooling? I am not. And I am certainly not willing to have federal agencies like the IRS decide who/what can apply for homeschooling tax credits and what are acceptable homeschooling deducations .. Jeez Louise I can hardly see what kind of IRS tax code nightmare that will create for us.
Don't you get it though .. Federal statutes regarding homeschooling are UNCONSITUTIONAL!
To hell with the NEA .. let them fight their own stupid battles in Washington fighting over federal money.. let's not get ourselves tangled up in that mess just because we want to prove we are just as powerful as they are or some other darned ego thing. Homeschoolers do not belong in Washington to fight for rights.. we already have them on a federal level because they do not have juristiction over us. And for those who reside in states where you have lost homeschooling freedoms then you should be fighting in your own state capitols to regain them. It isn't easy but freedom never is/was free.
If HSLDA wants to do us a favor then they ought to be working to eliminate the term homeschooling from the 12 federal statutes that they had them inserted in.
Judy, I've said this in another comment on a different thread, but I'll repeat myself here.
Two of my own children have attended colleges that refuse all federal funding, which means I have paid a lot more in tuition and haven't been able to claim the new federal tax credit for the tuition I paid. My other three children got into colleges despite their lack of anything like a GED. As for me and my house, we will fight tooth and nail against any federal control of higher education.
But... the people who join HSLDA are paying me to advocate THEIR interests, not mine. These are homeschooling families who have just as much of a right to pursue their dream as you or I do.
You might interpret this to be a money-grubbing lawyer serving a self-interested homeschool sell-out. You are welcome to view it any way you wish, but that's not how I see it. When I fight to get their child into a college that is afraid of losing federal funding (and I DO fight, and they ARE afraid) I think I am advancing the interests of dozens of hundreds of other families who haven't joined HSLDA who may be applying to that same college next year.
If you look around the country, there aren't that many colleges any more that "just say no" to homeschoolers. When I got to HSLDA in 1992, we used to keep a list of "colleges that have accepted homeschoolers." By the late 1990s, we changed it to a list of "colleges that have not accepted homeschoolers." (We didn't publicize that list!)
Today, we're still discovering colleges with outdated policies and are still fighting to get them changed one by one. I'm engaged in a major fight with San Juan Community College in New Mexico, which still insists on making homeschoolers get a GED.
You're going to have trouble hearing this, Judy, but we don't do this for the money. It took me two full years to change Kent State's policy, including a flight to Akron and a rally for educational freedom. Believe me, Kent State cost HSLDA a lot more than the money that one member family paid us in dues. Now that Kent State accepts homeschoolers, nobody has to join HSLDA in order to go there.
If we pass HoNDA Section 4, the need for HSLDA will go down. LESS families will turn to HSLDA to get help solving college problems. That's OK with me, because I have better things to do with two years than fight obnoxious financial aid officers.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 23, 2005 01:50 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.