September 22, 2005

Scott Defisks HoNDA Sect. 4: College Eligibility

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’.

Chris says, “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.”

I’m going to break out the two pieces of legalese separately, and will just respond to Chris’s overall take on federal involvement in education in this thread.

I agree completely with Chris’s definition of “the real problem here.” The real problem really is that the federal government is involved at all in education at any level. I’d love to provide the real solution to that real problem, starting with abolishing the Department of Education, moving on to repealing all so-called “Spending Clause” bills, and ending up by recognizing education as a First Amendment activity over which Congress has no jurisdiction of any kind. I hope my grandchildren live to see that day!

Today, though, I have three children in college and two already graduated. If I’m ever going to see any grandchildren, my kids are going to need jobs. One daughter is a Senior at Patrick Henry College, which accepts no federal funds. My oldest son graduated from Hillsdale, which also prizes its liberty more than federal loot. But the other three chose federally funded institutions.

I routinely get calls from member families who want to send a child to a certain college, but that college says, “If you want to come here, you have to get a GED.” None of my children ever got a GED, so I know that it is possible to get into a federally funded college without one. That means I’m stuck with trying to talk a reluctant bureaucrat into changing college policy in order to let one member family get one child into one more obscure little college on the backside of nowhere.

So the real problem may be the federal involvement in education, but the real problem my member family is facing is one child who can’t get into one school today.

Permalink | TrackBack

Comments

You used the same example of a member family unable to get into their chosen college in your response to me in the previous comments regarding this language: "All children in compliance with compulsory attendance laws."

Scott, I think you missed my point about my concerns (and I may be missing yours here), but I'm worried that, as Judy has pointed out, trying to spell this out at the federal level with such language is going to come back to bite us later on (particularly those homeschoolers who may not technically be in compliance).

I have been a big fan of HSLDA (unlike some others here, I surmise), and I am not a libertarian (though I'm going to sound like one). I appreciate the gains HSLDA has made in defending and securing the freedoms we have to direct our children's education. But I see the trend in this country (charter schools, etc.) going toward more government control over education in sneakier ways. Perhaps you think this bill helps protect homeschoolers from this control, but it does seem to be more like killing flies with bazookas.

You said the following, which has me concerned:

I’d love to provide the real solution to that real problem, starting with abolishing the Department of Education, moving on to repealing all so-called “Spending Clause” bills, and ending up by recognizing education as a First Amendment activity over which Congress has no jurisdiction of any kind. I hope my grandchildren live to see that day!

You sound a bit like the "conservative" Republicans today who say "that would be nice" when reminded of constitutional principles, patting one on the head and instead proffering a short-term pragmatic solution. I'm sorry some are having trouble getting into the colleges of their choice, but we have lots of legitimate choices which are not federally funded, including not going to college at all. I'm surprised HSLDA is spending so much time trying to help people get into government-funded institutions, considering their strong stand on private home education. Such efforts would seem to strengthen the federal hold on higher education, rather than dismantling it. As you know, and HSLDA has frequently pointed out, with the money comes control. It would seem the same principle would apply to federal statutes which purport to give home schoolers access to the same goodies as everyone else.

Carmon

Posted by: Carmon Friedrich at September 22, 2005 04:38 PM

This is a purely technical change, since you are not changing any of the wording of 484(d)(3) except the heading, and making 101(a)(1) refer to it. There is, however, an opportunity to do some good. In section 484 we could merge and change (d)(1) and (d)(2) to give the call to the school rather than to the secretary or the state. Then (d)(3) becomes irrelevant, and can be dropped entirely. Section 101 could then be reworded to require that the school be accredited and only accept students who have proven capable of doing work at the level the school is teaching. Harvard would set Harvard's standards, Utah Valley State College would set their standards. And the standard would be based on whether the student could do the work, not on whether a public high school in the bottom third of the nation had courtesy promoted him and issued a diploma that he can't even read.

This not only accomplishes our goal of getting non-traditionally educated, but competent, students accepted by the schools, but by letting the individual institutions set their own admission standards, the secretary isn't setting national curriculum by choosing the "acceptable" admissions test.

Posted by: Tad at September 22, 2005 06:53 PM

"The real problem really is that the federal government is involved at all in education at any level. I’d love to provide the real solution to that real problem, starting with abolishing the Department of Education, moving on to repealing all so-called 'Spending Clause' bills, and ending up by recognizing education as a First Amendment activity over which Congress has no jurisdiction of any kind. I hope my grandchildren live to see that day!"

The problem with this "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude is that it makes it that much harder for your grandchildren. It may be a 50 foot deep hole, from which you're only taking 5-10 more shovelfuls of dirt, but you're still digging it a little deeper. That hole got dug one shovelful at a time.

If you have an ideal, FIGHT FOR THAT! There may be a time to compromise, but this is not one of them. Do not give them the message that homeschoolers want the federal government involved in the education that takes place in the privacy of our homes. We don't: not even a little, and not even if they try to pay us for the privilege.

Posted by: Ulrike at September 23, 2005 12:34 AM

Ulrike, I have the greatest respect for what you are saying and, in my capacity as a private homeschool activist, would tend to agree with you. My kids have got what they need, and I'd rather spend my PERSONAL efforts fighting for my grandchildren now.

But in my capacity as an attorney who is working for dues-paying HSLDA members, I don't have that luxury. The folks who join HSLDA are asking me to help them get their kids into college today. I'm obligated to zealously represent their interests to the best of my ability.

I don't see a real conflict between fighting for what my members need today and working towards what I want for my grandchildren tomorrow. You view this provision as digging a few more shovelfuls out of a 50-foot hole. I honestly don't think that's what is happening here.

Could you spell out your concerns a little more specifically for me? Throwing around general terms like "federal involvement in education" doesn't help me understand WHICH shovelfuls of dirt I'm digging deeper.

Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 23, 2005 12:59 PM

Right now, as far as I know, there is no precedent for homeschooling laws on the federal level. Homeschooling is not and has never been protected or restricted by the federal government. There was a time when the same was true for government run schools. Look at them now. Look at the chaos that has been created by NCLB, for example. I don't want to see a No Homeschooled Child Left Behind Act 20 or 50 years from now, because HSLDA gave congress a foothold with the passing of HoNDA.

On another thread, you said, "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!)"

I ask again, "Look 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?" Further, can you honestly say that you think that legislation on the FEDERAL LEVEL is the best way to deal with a situation that is already being successfully corrected by homeschoolers and homeschooling organizations (like HSLDA)?

Posted by: Ulrike at September 23, 2005 04:19 PM

Yes, Ulrika, I honestly can say that federal legislation is the best way to deal with this. The reason we have been able to clean up so many of the college problems is that HSLDA successfully wrote "home school" into the definition of an "eligible student" back in 1998. Here's what went in:

(b) Home-Schooled Students.-Section 484(d) is amended-
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking "either"; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"(3) The student has completed a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under State law.".

H.R. CONF. REP. 105-750, *161, 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 404

Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 23, 2005 05:09 PM

and what - pray tell - is the federal definition of "home school"? (hint: there is none yet and it can and will be challenged in a federal court someday with a judge deciding what home school means for ALL states and ALL people)

Scott.. you being the 10th amendment purist that you say you are .. can you explain exactly how a federal law regarding homeschooling is constitutional? (hint: it is not)

The only thing you accomplished by writing "home school" into federal statute is to create unconstitutional laws and open us up to federal regulation (especially if we accept federal money at some point), as well as usurp state's rights regarding home schoolers.

If so many HSLDA members (you never specified numbers.. are we talking 10, 100 , 1000?)are having trouble getting into colleges (which I seriously doubt) then the problem need not be fixed by federal legislation.. that explanation is so bogus, and is meant to be the red herring of "protecting homeschool rights". HSLDA is just setting the stage for themselves to become the new federal department of Homeschooling. Furthermore federal passage of HONDA will not help those poor souls who you claim are in such dire needs today. But they WILL effect our grandchildren and their ability to homeschool free of federal government interference.

Scott - In all the years of our back and forth on boards, and on the phone, you have NEVER quantified how many people are suffering and will be relieved if this type of legislation is passed.. most likely because the numbers in relation to ALL homeschoolers across the nation is quite small.

It is truly evident that HSLDA is risking all of our rights for a handful of people who have many other solutions at their disposal to deal with the issues HONDA is supposed to fix.

Posted by: Judy Aron at September 25, 2005 05:36 PM

Judy, you know Deborah Stevenson personally. Perhaps you could ask her whether any NHELD members have encountered problems getting into the college of their choice. I would think that homeschoolers who have NOT contacted their school district in any way would be among the most likely to run into difficulty getting into community colleges in Connecticut. I know that we have been running into that problem all over Massachusetts.

Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 26, 2005 03:54 PM

No there haven't been any problems cited by NHELD members across the nation. Many people have asked about the procedures to getting into college aka "How do I apply", but we don't know a single family that has had a problem getting into the college of their choice. In fact many kids here do dual enrollment programs for free at local colleges (I know kids who went to Trinity College, University of Hartford and St Joseph College while homeschooling high school, and took courses and got credits for free). Additionally the Community Colleges in CT happen to be very homeschool friendly - as all that may is usually required is a placement exam to quantify past educational experience.. and most of them have had little to no contact with their local school district. So I have no idea where you got the impression that you stated above.

We have had homeschoolers with no GED and a homegrown highschool diploma be admitted to UCONN (surprisingly, because most state schools are very credential conscious).
So to answer your question.. nope we haven't heard or seen any problem like what you say is huge. As for Massachusetts - well, MA folks need to read their state law and stop relying on court interpretation of law .. and if the statutes are not clear then toss out "Charles" and make their legislators spell out what the law clearly means if they don't like how things sit now. but that's another blog...

Would you please answer the other questions that I posed above? How many people are you talking about ? Has there been 10? 100? 1000? who have contacted you citing problems getting into college, which would require federal legislation to fix? I don't believe this is a huge problem - we have seen no evidence of it at all.

Posted by: Judy Aron at September 27, 2005 02:50 PM

Judy, your comments on Massachusetts law would drive my unschooling friends in MA straight up the wall. Do you ever get a chance to confer with them about strategy? (Let me recommend Advocates for Home Education in Massachusetts, at www.ahem.info.)

As for the numbers: prior to 2001, college questions were too complex for anybody to handle in this office except for Chris Klicka, our Senior Counsel and my immediate boss. Chris was dealing a bad definition of "eligible student" that was written right into the Higher Education Act," which he got fixed in 1998. Then he was dealing with a bad interpretation of the law: Clinton's Department of Education claimed that even though homeschoolers were explicitly "eligible students," any college that admitted them was still in danger of becoming an "ineligible institution."

It wasn't until Bush took over that we were able to get the Dept. of Ed. to change its position and expressly admit that a college could accept a homeschooler without losing its eligibility for funding. (This is the "Dear Colleague" letter that you may have seen.) After that breakthrough, college issues ceased to be the legal equivalent of brain surgery, and HSLDA's other lawyers (including me) began to handle the "clean up" operations of persuading colleges, one by one, to undo their outdated admissions and/or financial aid policies.

Nowadays I handle about eight interesting college issues a year. I'm not sure how many the other attorneys deal with; I suspect that Chris Klicka still handles a LOT of them.

Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 27, 2005 03:28 PM

If 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.