The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 10)
1. NH 94 Legislation
Doris Hohensee
2. NH 94 politics - information only
Karen Peterson
3. HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Richard Wasserman / anne of chicago
4. HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Karl Pearson
5.Illinois situation
David L. Hanson
6.Reply to Strategy -Reply (fwd)
Karen Peterson fwd'ing msg. from Scott Somerville
7.HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
jackie willard
8.Liberty and Law (fwd)
Karen Peterson fwd'ing msg. from Scott Somerville
9.NH legislative update
Doris Hohensee
10. NH legislative update
Doris Hohensee
11.NH legislative update
Steve Rogers
12.NH legislative update
Karen Peterson fwd'ing msg from Doris Hohensee
13.NH legislative update
Doris Hohensee
14.NH legislative update
David L. Hanson
15.NH legislative update
Doris Hohensee
16.NH legislative update
Judy
17. HSLDA Relations
Paul Saletan
18.note from dave to scott
Craig Peterson
19.NH legislative update
Doris Hohensee
20.HSLDA Relation
Steve Rogers)
21.NH legislative update -Reply
Scott Somerville
22.Agreement on NH NIPE legislation -Reply
Sen. Dave Wheeler (hs'ing father) fwd'ing msg. from Scott Somerville
23.NH legislative update -Reply (fwd)
Craig Peterson
Message 1
ubject:
Re: NH 94 Legislation
Date:
Fri, 19 Nov 1993 08:30:20 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott:
Thanks for contacting Sen. Wheeler and committing HSLDA's support for
our N.H. bill last night. I'll e-mail the text of the bill you
requested.
Doris
Message 2
Subject:
NH 94 politics - information only
Date:
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 08:01:02 -0500
From:
Karen Peterson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This is a post from Scott at HSLDA to karen peterson concerning our
94 legislation which scott said he would support. To keep all
of the list aware as to the progress that we are making in the
coalition building process and the status of our legislation.
I hope you find this information interesting and informing.
karen
karen@mainstream.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott:
I was pleased that you took the time to answer me. You are welcome.
We also have discussed our bill in depth with Sen. Wheeler. He never
mentioned anything about seeking federal funding for our bill. Janet
and Richard Kohn, of Goffstown, are good people. They have supported
our legislation in the past. Janet was particularly well-spoken at the
Parental Rights amendment hearing in 1991. There are some problems
with your analysis of our bill which is explained below. I discussed
this with both Doris and Senator Wheeler over the phone and this is
a unified compelation. We are sincerely trying to work on building
a coalition this time.
> Karen, thanks so much for the bill. I have already talked to
> Sen. Wheeler by phone, and have already recruited one very able
> supporter for the bill. This is Richard Kohn, who has been
> engaged in a battle with his school district for the last year
> over special needs services.
However, all of our efforts are based on principle. Your suggestion
to attach federal funding to our bill will reduce us to just another
special interest group. We are seeking state recognition of our right to
educate our children *unfettered by regulatory strings.* As private
educators, we should be required to meet only the same statutory
requirements that private schools in this state meet. But, we are
*not* schools. We are *not* institutions. We are Non-Institutional
Private Educators, or NIPEs.
I have received current information on private schools in this state.
There are 126 private schools in N.H.:
77 are approved for attendance only
31 are awaiting curriculum approval
18 are approved for attendance & curriculum
It is interesting to note that 31 schools are *still* waiting approval
since 1990, that's nearly four years. There are actually 108 private
schools in this state that are approved *for attendance only.* We are
seeking the *same* for NIPEs.
The state would be hard pressed to justify burdensome regulations on
us, and not private schools. This would violate our civil rights,
equal protection under the law. We are on defensible ground. We
don't want the regulatory strings that are inevitable with federal
money. This is the same problem that you had re: vouchers. Control.
> ***Suggested NIPE Strategy***
> My basic battle plan for this bill is to rally 193A home
> schoolers behind the new bill, not because it will help them, but
> because it will open doors for home schoolers who have children
> with special needs.
Scott, we're afraid that your analysis of this situation is incorrect.
Our bill does not propose to ask for and will not qualify parents for
federal funding for children with special needs.
> I think everyone can envision what it would
> be like to have a child who suddenly becomes a quadriplegic (this
> almost happened to my little brother). Communications devices,
> motorized wheelchairs, and so forth are prohibitively expensive.
> We have to make sure that home schoolers are not utterly shut out
> of special needs services.
> As you probably know, NH has decided that home schoolers are not
> eligible for special needs services, because they are neither
> "public" nor "private" schools. (Federal law requires special
> needs services for public and private schools.) The vast
> majority of home schoolers are THRILLED to be out from under the
> special needs laws, but there are some (like Mr. Kohn) for whom
> it is a real hardship.
Our suggestion is that you have Richard Kohn draft legislation that
specifically addresses the problems of special needs children. Please
don't cloud our issue. If you are interested in having a bill
introduced, contact Sen. Baldizar or Sen. Pignatelli. They would be
more willing to support such a bill, than Sen. Wheeler. Federal
funding is a misnomer for blackmail. We don't need to be blackmailed
any further with our own money.
1. A NIPE (non-institutional private educator) is neither a public or
a private school. Therefore, by your own standard, a NIPE would *not*
qualify for federal funding. If the bill were changed to include such
funding, *state regulatory control* would be inescapable. This will
gain you nothing, while damaging us severely.
2. To suggest such a change of intent would initiate massive
opposition from the special education lobby. Why would they allow a
diversion of their *limited* revenue to *untrained* parents? This
would sink our current effort and taint us *permanently* before the
legislature. We will no longer be seen as principled parents seeking
to be left alone. Rather, we will become just another special interest
group looking for a handout.
3. You seem unwilling to support *our* right to home educate our
children without state interference. If our bill is untenable to you,
then you should not pretend to support it.
4. The only way to support our measure is to acknowledge the
*problems* with the current home education law. It's the only way to
"clear the air."
> ***Clearing the Air***
> There have been some misunderstandings about HSLDA's stance on
> the Non-Institutional Private Educator (NIPE) bill. At least
> some of this has been the result of some possibly false and
> certainly malicious gossip. To clarify: I personally have
> supported the NIPE bill since I first heard of it. I also
> opposed the effort to repeal 193A, since the vast majority of
> HSLDA members are happy with it. When folks put the two
> initiatives together in one bill (implement NIPE and scrap 193A),
> I opposed it, and suggested separating them.
> Last spring, I thought that there was an agreement to drop the
> effort to repeal 193A, and so advised those HSLDA members who had
> contacted me that the NIPE initiative was a good idea. Something
> happened during the coalition-building process to derail this. I
> wasn't there; I have no idea who did what to whom. With all due
> respect, although I honestly think Doris is an amazing person,
> she has not mastered the art of coalition building -- yet. I
> remain hopeful that home schoolers in NH can all come together to
> expand our liberties.
I am concerned as to what the misunderstandings could be.
It is absolutely necessary for us to explain in our testimony the
shortcomings of 193-A, so we can *build a case* for an additional law.
We aren't asking to repeal 193-A by speaking out against it. If the
other homeschoolers perceive that we are misrepresenting 193-A,
perhaps it's *their perception* which is the problem.
In our opinion, most home educators, who are in compliance with 193-A,
will switch once NIPE is an alternative. They will take the path that
offers them the most security for their families. NIPE would do just
that. They would no longer have to be concerned about *termination.*
There is a difference between coalition building and selling out on
our principles, which is what you are suggesting. We don't see how
you intend to "expand our liberties" by asking for federal funds and
denying our right to home educate our children without state
interference.
> Love covers a multitude of wrongs. In dealing with Doris, I
> manage to resist the urge to lash out at her. I honestly believe
> she wants the best for NH home schoolers. She and I agree on so
> much, and disagree on so little. I just have learn to be more
> thick-skinned and tender-hearted.
It is true that love does cover a multitude of wrongs. We sincerely
want to work on building a coalition between CHENH, HSLDA and NHHC (NH
Homeschool Coalition). However, we will not compromise our principles
nor our unwavering belief in our God-given rights. We must be free.
We must be allowed to raise and educate our children under God's law,
which respects *parental rights,* not under the current statutory
rhethoric of the educational establishment which has been instituted
as law, with HSLDA's help.
Sitting on differences is bound to get us in trouble, if only because
both of us won't know exactly where the other stands. Neither of us
can predict what the other is going to do if we don't understand the
reasons behind what we do.
The reason we posted this debate on the net is to keep the entire
thing above-board. Nobody, but *nobody* is going to accuse us of
operating covertly this time. *Everybody* is going see *exactly* what
goes down.
> ***Conclusion***
> I still have to read through the NIPE bill again, and talk it
> over with Sen. Wheeler. I expect to send out a letter to all
> HSLDA members as we get closer to the legislative action. PLEASE
> stay in touch -- bad communication has done us in before!
Are you attempting to take over our legislative effort? We sincerely
hope that this is not the case. Sen. Wheeler should be contacted *in
advance* as to any change in the intent of *his* bill, out of respect.
(Sen. Wheeler can be reached at: dave@mainstream.com.) To overlook him
is breach of legislative protocal. News travels fast in a small
state. Even contacting *one parent* can start rumors flying. Can the
damage be undone at this point?
Your support is of no help if you try to undermine our efforts by
taking control of the legislation from out of state again.
Establishing a group of supporters for your ideas of what the bill
should accomplish, without even discussing it with us or Sen. Wheeler
will certainly do more damage than good, IOHO. :)
If we seem touchy about this, remember, we have the most at stake
here. It's our bill and *our* kids on the line. We've written the
bill, asked Sen. Wheeler to introduce it and continue to keep him
updated on the subject. Let N.H. parents handle it.
Coalitions work well when both sides understand the issues at hand.
We appreciate your input but would prefer that you discuss with us any
stratagies before you "rally the troops." We want to assure that
*everyone* understands the issue. It is important that the N.H
parents make the decisions. We have to live with the results. We
need to agree on the solution.
We appreciate your willingness to help. We are trying to come to an
understanding of each others tasks. While we may appear as "Protective
Mother Bears" we are only trying to get the VERY best for our children.
Your help is greatly appreciated, so long as it does not undermine
the initial purpose of the introduced legislation.
Parents who are satisified with the current law do not need to contact
the legislature in any way regarding this bill. However, you need to
seek out who was responsible for the "possibly false and certainly
malicious" gossip that was brought to your attention previously. If
it was engaged in it innocently, it can be corrected. If knowingly,
then our problems are more serious indeed.
We would appreciate that HSLDA informs their members in N.H. that we
are *concerned* home educators. We are not seeking to undermine
anyone. This bill won't effect on them, unless they so *choose*.
Our major concern is that HSLDA does *not to oppose us* one more time.
If HSLDA wishes to *support* our effort, HSLDA *must* acknowledge the
problems with our current law.
Those problems constitute the entire justification for our bill. If
you don't, the legislature will correctly conclude that there's no
need for it, and won't pass it. The obvious problem of this
requirement is that CHENH will consider any criticism of current law
as an attack on that law and oppose the bill, *even though this bill
doesn't touch current law*. That appears to be what happened last
session. How do you suggest we circumvent this problem?
We will keep in touch - BUT, please, do not lose sight of our *goal* by
adding distractions.
Thank you for your input.
Karen Peterson
Doris Hohensee
Message 3
Subject:
HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Date:
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 20:35:52 -0500
From:
Richard Wasserman <70673.3010@CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I mainly lurk on this list, but do read it with great interest and even
save some of the gems
I put together the HEAR, formerly HEWR. It started as an idea two years
ago at the National Homeschool Assoc. conference. The idea is to put out
news and resources over the electronic highway (see I know buzzwords too
)
Anyway, the idea was to make it non-sectarian, take no sides and just
present any news that others in the homeschool movement might find
interesting or useful. I get news from here, various BBSes, and
newsletters such as Allpie.
I read of the HSLDA fax and legal alert line here on home-ed-politics. I
had never heard of it and, like some of you asked, wanted to know if their
legal information could be put in the HEAR.
The answer was no. Reasons? I am not sure. I spoke to Inge Cannon. She
said that the information was sent to leaders and newsletter editors of
state-wide organizations. Since I do both, on paper for Illinois and the
HEAR, I thought I qualified. Ms. Cannon said no. I said why. It seemed to
boil down to the fact that they would have no control over the information
once it was sent out over the bulletin boards and Internet. She was
especially adament against Internet. Ms. Cannon also said that, while she
personally didn't mind my getting the news, various state organizations
want to restrict the legal news to those people they want to see it.
To sum it up, Ms. Cannon gave me the distinct impression that legal news
from the hotline was restricted. And there the matter sits.
And since she wants it restricted, I thought that the best thanks I could
give them for their time was to air their viewpoint. Which I don't agree
with and which is why I started the HEAR. Information should NOT be
restricted. Information should be available to all regardless of faith,
schooling method or anything else. Divisness (sp?) will not help anyone.
anne in chicago
Message 4
Subject:
Re: HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:26:54 -0500
From:
Karl Pearson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Unfortunately, some of those who believe themselves to be the most
Christian show tendencies which are the least Christ-like.
I wonder if the story of the Good Samaritan has a message for them.
Shouldn't sharing what we know be similar to sharing what we have?
Please! Christians Unite! If there are many roads to Rome, aren't there
many sects that are Christian? Can we not overlook our differences and
embrace our similarities? Is our pride so great that the differences grow
to impassable chasms? Is this pride that same pride which preceedeth the
fall?
-=> Karl L. Pearson, President, Utah Home Education Association
-=> No Success Can Compensate For Failure In The Home - David O. MacKay
-=> The Greatest Work We Will Ever Do
-=> Will Be Within The Walls Of Our Own Home - Harold B. Lee
Message 5
Subject:
Illinois situation
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 10:50:03 -0500
From:
"David L. Hanson"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Thanks to a little reminder from Mr. Hohensee that I should check into what
is going on in the Illinois legislature, I called State Senator Petka yesterday
to discuss the PTA proposed legislation (they want the state to control
homeschooling) and homeschooling in general. I knew about the Illinois PTA
proposed legislation since last spring but I never followed up on it before.
Senator Petka told me that there was absolutely no chance of homeschooling
laws getting through the Illinois State Senate. The Senate is controlled by
fairly conservative Republicans who will not let a homeschool law pass. He
also told me that the Senate President, Pate Phillips, would not allow a
homeschooling law to come to the floor of the Senate.
We just need to work to keep senators in office. (I already thought that
Senator Petka was a "good guy" since about three weeks ago he wrote a letter
to the editor of the Naperville Sun complaining that public school textbooks
have been censored such that our country's Christian foundations are ignored.)
Note: in Illinois, a homeschool is the same as any other private school, we
have minimal requirements with no enforcement mechanism AND the Department
of Child and Family Services is prohibited by law from involvment in truancy.
The minimal requirements include teaching in the "branches of education" for
so many days per year in the English language; but no testing, no reporting of
any kind (other than voluntary), no oversight by the State or local district
of any kind.
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
(correction to above: to keep these good senators in office.)
Message 6
Subject:
Reply to Strategy -Reply (fwd)
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 12:04:07 -0500 (EST)
From:
Karen Peterson
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Tue Nov 23 11:31:53 1993
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 11:10 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: KAREN PETERSON
Cc: Other Users <+d+lREMS/WHEELER/INTERNET/"david+amainstream+pcom"+r%HSLDA@mcimail.com>
Subject: Reply to Strategy -Reply
Message-Id: <80931123161008/0006047481ND1EM@mcimail.com>
Just a quick note in response to your long message - I have
hearings today and tomorrow, and then Thanksgiving comes.
Sorry for any confusion about the "federal funding" issue: it is
essential, first, to get a "private school" version of a home
school before one can then try to qualify an individual private
school for federally funded special ed. services. If you want
NIPEs to not be eligible, I applaud you, but this does
necessitate dropping the entire strategy I had suggested.
This puts us back to your strategy, which is to show how 193A is
failing. Unfortunately, that is hard to build a coalition with.
A lot of families would be able to testify that 193A is working
just fine for THEM. Can we identify a very specific group of
people for whom 193A is NOT working? (I imagine you have been
doing this for the last three years, but please be patient with
me.)
I can see you are concerned about me contacting Sen. Wheeler
without you being involved. I don't know what to do about this
problem. I don't know what information he has about my motives,
so I would be much more comfortable dealing directly with Sen.
Wheeler. If this is a problem, please suggest a better method.
Perhaps we could conduct discussions by E-mail, with a CC to each
interested party.
I reiterate: "love covers a multitude of wrongs." Let's keep
overcoming our misunderstandings and difficulties. I'm sure we
could both list a lot of offenses we have each taken over the
last few years, but "love keeps no account of wrongs." Let's
work together for the good of home schoolers.
From: Karen Peterson
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 14:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Tue Nov 30 10:15:56 1993
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 09:46 EST
From: Scott Somerville >
To: KAREN PETERSON
Cc: Other Users
Subject: NH NIPE Bill
Message-Id: <71931130144617/0006047481ND3EM@mcimail.com>
Dear Karen,
I am encouraged by our small steps of progress. This progress
isn't just limited to our dispute in New Hampshire. I don't know
if you are aware of some of the bigger rifts in the home
schooling community, but I got a chance to spend most of
Thanksgiving Day with Dr. Raymond Moore, and peace seems to be
breaking out all over.
This is going to seem pretty dumb, but I really do need you to
explain the basic problem you are having with 193A. When I first
suggested the idea of private school oversight, as a citizen
patriot on the Department of Education Home School Rules Revision
Subcommittee in 1988, I knew that there was a gap. I knew that
there was no private school, at that time, that would
whole-heartedly accept unschoolers. In my naivete and optimism
(and because there didn't seem to be any other port in that
particular storm), I argued that we could easily organize a
private school run by and for unschoolers.
ASSUME that we organize an umbrella school for unschoolers.
ASSUME that this school would accept a sincere commitment to the
general Holt philosophy as evidence of a "planned and supervised
instructional and related educational activities, including a
curriculum and instruction in science, mathematics, language,
government, history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the
history of the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United
States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and music."
ASSUME that the parents and this school mutually agree to an
annual "valid measurement tool" which is well suited to an
unschooling philosophy.
Please explain the problems that would still exist for
unschoolers after such a school came into being.
Please explain separately the problems that now exist for other
families (not unschoolers) who can't comply with 193A, and point
out how the NIPE bill will help them.
(I know I sound really dumb, here. This is not intended to be
demeaning or patronizing. I really need to know this stuff, even
though I'm sure that you have been explaining it, over and over,
until your patience is worn out. Jesus said to forgive your
brother seventy times seven times. I suppose I am approaching
that. Please forgive me one more time, and help me understand
here.)
Message 7
Subject:
HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Date:
Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:25:41 -0500
From:
j.willard4@genie.geis.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
anne,
> I put together the HEAR, formerly HEWR. It started as an idea two years
> ago at the National Homeschool Assoc. conference. The idea is to put out
> news and resources over the electronic highway (see I know buzzwords too
> )
anne, I thought I would point out that although the concept for HEAR (nee
HEWR) was conceived at the NHA conference, HEAR is not allifidated with NHA.
Correct?
> Anyway, the idea was to make it non-sectarian, take no sides and just
> present any news that others in the homeschool movement might find
> interesting or useful. I get news from here, various BBSes, and
> newsletters such as Allpie.
But anne some people just don't want to be involved (yoked) with folks who
do not share their own sectarian beliefs. This is their right and their
loss.
> I read of the HSLDA fax and legal alert line here on home-ed-politics. I
> had never heard of it and, like some of you asked, wanted to know if
> their legal information could be put in the HEAR.
Sounds reasonable.
> The answer was no. Reasons? I am not sure. I spoke to Inge Cannon. She
> said that the information was sent to leaders and newsletter editors of
> state-wide organizations. Since I do both, on paper for Illinois and the
> HEAR, I thought I qualified. Ms. Cannon said no. I said why. It seemed
> to boil down to the fact that they would have no control over the
> information once it was sent out over the bulletin boards and Internet.
> She was especially adament against Internet. Ms. Cannon also said that,
> while she personally didn't mind my getting the news, various state
> organizations want to restrict the legal news to those people they want
> to see it.
hmmmmmm ... a control issue ... interesting! Restrict the legal news. Well,
they can restrict dissemination of _their_ version of the legal news. But
they can't restrict the news. As I suggested on the phone the other night,
why not get state contacts who will report the legal news to HEAR.
> To sum it up, Ms. Cannon gave me the distinct impression that legal news
> from the hotline was restricted. And there the matter sits.
It is afterall HCHE's (a ministry of HSLDA) hotline. They can restrict
access of their hotline to whomever they want. BUT they don't own the news
or the truth.
> And since she wants it restricted, I thought that the best thanks I
> could give them for their time was to air their viewpoint. Which I
> don't agree with and which is why I started the HEAR. Information
> should NOT be restricted. Information should be available to all
> regardless of faith, schooling method or anything else. Divisness (sp?)
> will not help anyone.
Makes one wonder where Inge Cannon (Director of Public Relations for NCHE)
learned about PR, doesn't it?
After we talked the other night I was reading something written by Micheal
Farris in the July/August issue of "The Home School Court Report".
The essence of the Communistic philosophy can be reduced to a
single thought: Centralized planners do what they think is best
for the masses. The philosophy of freedom can be stated with
equal simplicity: Each person and family should decide what is
best for themselves consistent with the moral laws of God.
Witholding or restricting information regarding homeschool legal issues to a
select group (aka centralized planners) who in turn decided what is best for
the homeschool masses to know sure doesn't sound like they trust us to
decide what is best for ourselves and families.
Jacki
Message 8
Subject:
Liberty and Law (fwd)
Date:
Sat, 4 Dec 1993 07:51:00 -0500 (EST)
From:
Karen Peterson
To:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Fri Dec 3 20:54:17 1993
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 16:54 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: KAREN PETERSON
Cc: Other Users
Subject: Liberty and Law
Message-Id: <91931203215419/0006047481ND4EM@mcimail.com>
Dear Karen,
Thank you for your patience, and your response to my (pretty
primitive) questions.
(1) ON FREEDOM: I think that we are dealing with the kind of
argument that splits pro-lifers up. Some pro-life people have
the practical goal of saving as many unborn lives as possible;
others are committed to protecting the principle of life
absolutely. This causes problems when you don't have the votes
to do both. A bill which bans all abortions EXCEPT for those
involving rape or incest will save 99% of the babies, but it
compromises the sanctity of life 100%. (Why should you be killed
just because your father was a rapist?)
Given your principles, I would imagine that you would oppose the
99% bill, and I respect that. Given my principles, I would vote
for the 99% bill, and then picket the one remaining abortion
clinic in the state. I don't ask for your respect, but I would
like to know if you understand the thought processes that lead me
to act this way.
(2) ON UMBRELLA SCHOOLS: because 193-A requires a "curriculum,"
you argue either that (a) any "school" which purports to satisfy
193-A is irredeemably tainted by the Prussian system of
indoctrination; or (b) any person who PRETENDS to be using a
curriculum is immoral, dishonest, and a wimp.
I suffer from the occupational hazard of lawyers, which is to
make words mean whatever will work best under the circumstances.
Before 193-A was passed, we used to make "manifest educational
hardship" mean just about anything. You and Doris have noted
that the old law was unenforceable, for this reason. Personally,
I think that "planned and supervised instruction" is even more
flexible than "manifest educational hardship," but I won't push
my views on you.
Have you ever asked for a show of hands among unschoolers to see
if any of them would be interested in starting such a school? I
know that it wouldn't help you, but it might help others. Any
reason not to ask?
(3) ON SOVEREIGNTY: I don't know if you follow the debate on the
two classes of citizens (Article IV citizens v. XIV Amendment
citizens). If you do, then you should realize that all the US
Supreme Court cases which home schoolers cite are XIVth Amendment
cases. You can't claim both Article IV citizenship and XIVth
Amendment rights.
The US legal system has a Catch-22. If you reject XIVth
Amendment citizenship, you have absolute RIGHTS against the
State, but nobody to defend you against the State's illegally
exercised MIGHT; If you accept XIVth Amendment citizenship, you
have the US Supreme Court and Federal Government to protect you
from the State, but you just gave away your sovereignty to get
there. Effective sovereignty necessarily combines might AND
right.
IN CONCLUSION: (1) Can a 100% person work together with a 99%
person? (2) Are there any unschoolers who would be interested in
starting an umbrella school? (3) Do you understand my comments
on sovereignty? (4) Are you willing to keep a dialogue going?
Sincerely trying to serve home schoolers,
Scott Somerville
Message 9
Subject:
NH legislative update
Date:
Sun, 5 Dec 1993 21:01:30 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This information concerns our N.H. legislative effort. Despite all
efforts to maintain a truce, I think things are starting to heat up
again. :-(
There seems to be no real progress on supporting this year's
legislative effort. Scott's extraneous strategies and searches for
ways to compromise principle, while evading the core issue of
sovereignity, border on the absurd. His non-comprehension is hard to
believe considering that he, not I, is supposed to be the legal
expert.
In the spirit of continued openness, I have decided to post the recent
e-mail discussions.
Doris Hohensee
Message 10
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 10:34:38 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
More correspondence:
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 09:46 EST
> From: Scott Somerville >
> To: KAREN PETERSON
> Subject: NH NIPE Bill
> Dear Scott:
> I am encouraged by our small steps of progress. This progress
> isn't just limited to our dispute in New Hampshire. I don't know
> if you are aware of some of the bigger rifts in the home
> schooling community, but I got a chance to spend most of
> Thanksgiving Day with Dr. Raymond Moore, and peace seems to be
> breaking out all over.
I am also encourged albeit still a bit mystified as to the reason you
can't seem to understand problems in New Hampshire. These are not
just problems. They are a complete disregard for the freedoms
established under God's hand for this country. These "problems" are a
slap in the face to what our forefathers gave their lives for. It is
*freedom.*
I spent the weekend before last with John Taylor Gatto. We had a very
interesting conversation. We spent the afternoon discussing the
problems in New Hampshire and how these problems are the same ones
that are rearing their ugly heads all around the country. John has
been the keynote speaker at 87 home schooling conferences in the past
2 years. He has also spoken in 48 states in that same period of time.
He knows from which he speaks.
> This is going to seem pretty dumb, but I really do need you to
> explain the basic problem you are having with 193A.
Well, let's start at the very beginning - a very good place to start!
*If I comply I give up my inherent right to raise and educate my
children.*
I don't give up my rights easily. These rights were re-affirmed by
the Supreme Court. They said "it is the primary right and
responsibility of the parent to raise and educate their children."
RSA 193-A's statement of purpose:
...it is the primary right and obligation of a parent to
*choose* the appropriate educational alternative for a child
under his care and supervision *as provided by law.*
By complying with RSA 193-A I give up my inherent right to raise and
educate my children to the state. Now I can only *choose* the
appropriate educational alternative that the state has approved and
has provided by statute?
I give up my rights for the *privilege* of complying with a law, which
by its very statement of purpose violates what the Supreme Court
understands the rights of a parent to be?
Once a right is given up or is failed to be recognized it is *gone!*
You can never lay claim on that right again. If it did not mean
enough to you to fight for it initally then why should it mean enough
for you to want it back.
I believe it was Martian Luther King who said, "A right delayed is a
right denied." It is true. You must fight to keep all the rights
that our forefathers guaranteed for us. They were inspired by God.
Our current leadership is not so inspired, or if they are it is not
from the same source.
Why would I want to give up an inherent right? Why would anyone?
> When I first
> suggested the idea of private school oversight, as a citizen
> patriot on the Department of Education Home School Rules Revision
> Subcommittee in 1988, I knew that there was a gap. I knew that
> there was no private school, at that time, that would
> whole-heartedly accept unschoolers. In my naivete and optimism
> (and because there didn't seem to be any other port in that
> particular storm), I argued that we could easily organize a
> private school run by and for unschoolers.
> ASSUME that we organize an umbrella school for unschoolers.
> ASSUME that this school would accept a sincere commitment to the
> general Holt philosophy as evidence of a "planned and supervised
> instructional and related educational activities, including a
> curriculum and instruction in science, mathematics, language,
> government, history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the
> history of the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United
> States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and music."
> ASSUME that the parents and this school mutually agree to an
> annual "valid measurement tool" which is well suited to an
> unschooling philosophy.
> Please explain the problems that would still exist for
> unschoolers after such a school came into being.
The problem is that schools were never designed to educate. They are
modeled after Prussian education. This system was designed so that
the top 1/2% would be educated to think and to see the whole picture.
They would become the ruling class. They need to know how to think.
The next 5.5% would educated to think but not as well as the ruling
class. These would be the ones who would serve the ruling class.
These will become the doctors and lawyers, etc. The rest of the
people or the 94% will be educated in the common schools where they
are taught the art of compliance. Where they are taught that they
must obey, listen, and do what the ruling class requires of them.
So Scott, now that I have given you a brief history lesson on the
American schools origination maybe you can begin to understand the
problem.
In 1851 95% of Americans were literate. However, there were
5% who were not. As an excuse or possibly as justification for
redeeming this 5% the United States adopted the the Prussian
school model. It was implemented, it was a social engineering
experiment. If they could pull it off they would be able to
control the thought processes of an entire country. So, In 1852
on Cape Cod, children were taken from their parents at gun point by
an armed militia to these *schools.* Parents were that opposed to
that it took an armed militia to take their children. It will take
at least that for me as well. Children were taught in these schools
to comply. To listen and to do *exactly* as they were told. It
was the beginning, a social engineering project that would revolutionize
the world. However, the people were so against this "compulsory"
schooling that it took 25 years before another state even implemented
this plan. In fact some states went so far as to place in their
constitutions *protections* for parents from this type of tyrannical
activity by the government.
The tenth plank of the Karl Marx's Manifesto for destroying our kind
of civilization advocates the establishment of 'free education for
all children in public schools'. There were several reasons why Marx
wanted the government to run the schools. Dr. A.A. Hodge pointed out
one of them when he said: "It is capable of exact demonstration that
if every party in the state has the right of excluding from public
schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes
most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that
believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing,
no matter in how small a minority the atheists or agnostics may be.
It is self evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and
persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States
system of National Popular Education will be the most efficent and
widespread instrument for the propogation of atheism which the world
has ever seen!"
Since that time the literacy rate of the United States has declined
and has never been above 95%. It is because that was never their
goal. Their goal was to have a compliant society.
Our schools today were never meant to educate but they were meant to
reshape or destroy the the values which parents want to instill in
their children. The values that God desires them to have. The
attributes of Godliness. The schools have their own religion - the
humanist religion. The curriculum requirements, the books, the
programs, the evaluations are all based on a flawed model. One which
is designed to destroy individuality and foster compliance and create
unthinking "workers" who will do what the government instructs. They
will vote the way the government wants them to vote. They will say
what the government wants them to say. They will be incapable of
original thought.
Since 193-A is based on a defined *curriculum* for its program, it's
based on this false model also.
I do not intend to *pretend* to follow the law, or to circumvent the
law by false pretenses. It is intolerable that I should have to give
up my rights to the state for my children whom God has given *me*
reponsibility. The state is not responsible to God if the children
are destroyed, I am. I take this responsibility very seriously.
We must stand our ground and fight. If we roll over and play dead or
circumvent the system to "go along to get along," we do ourselves and our
children a great disservice. They need to know that you should fight
for what you believe. This is war without guns. It is not pretty.
It is tough, but it is worth every bit of time and energy. These are
my children and they will not ever be government drones. They will know
how to think, how to evaluate, they will understand that there is black
and white and not just grey. They will know and understand that life
is not perfect and that they will be required to fight for what they
believe in and for God and the fulfillment of his purposes.
> Please explain separately the problems that now exist for other
> families (not unschoolers) who can't comply with 193A, and point
> out how the NIPE bill will help them.
I have explained the problems with 193-A and they really have nothing
to do with unschooling per se. It really just boils down to the issue
of ***sovereignity.*** It does not matter whether you are religious or
not. What matters is knowing that as a parent you have the right
to raise and educate your children without state interference.
In New Hampshire the Constitution states in Article 83 that the state
can only *encourage* education they can not *mandate* it. The state
legislature have come to use this Prussian model for their compulsory
attendance law. However, where the Supreme Court of the United States
has upheld that the states have the legal power, under the
Constitution to regulate the education of children, it has done so on
this ground alone, that the people have a right to protect themselves
against the danger that uneducated children might grow up so ignorant
as to be unemployable and a burden to the state. The Constitutional
right of parents to control the education of their children is much
broader than the Constitutionally permissible power of states to
control that education. It would be impossible for any state to
determine that a child is so uneducated and ignorant that they are a
burden to the state before the child reaches majority. You see the
model is flawed.
The NIPE bill would allow us to comply with the law (redeeming us from
"outlaw" status without compromising our freedom.) We would not have
to manufacture a false curriculum in order to comply. We would not
have termination hanging over our head. We simply would keep an
attendance roster, teach in English, teach history by the beginning of
the eighth grade, and display a flag of the United States for our
children to see. Nothing more than this is statutorily required of
*any* private school in New Hampshire.
True and just laws are derived from the God-given rights of individuals
not from an arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. As NIPE's we
could teach our children that just laws are meant to be obeyed. I
believe that if you explained this principle as an issue of sovereignity,
that all people are responsible to God for their actions not to the state.
They must not be un-equally yoked to a burdensome law which violates their
God-given rights. The option of NIPE needs to be addressed to them in a
way that they understand. As NIPE's they would no longer have to fear
termination as they do under 193-A. If explained this way, I am positive
that you would find more than ample support.
In the meeting that we had last year at Senator Wheeler's home, many
people told us just to fill out the paperwork listing curriculum, etc.
with anything, be it truth or not. In reality they were encouraging
us to LIE, just like they were, in order to comply. This advice came
from leaders of home schooling organizations in this state. It's a
problem for them, even if they won't admit it. They are living a lie
to comply with the current law. My sense of honor won't allow me to
lie like this. If I am going to comply with a law I will do it in
good conscience. If I don't I set a very bad example for my children.
193-A home-educators need an out. NIPE provides this.
Compliance with a flawed model gives false security. It is apparent
that in Nashua 193-A home-educators are being hassled by "the letter
of the law". They felt they were safe because they were in compliance
but they were not. To me, it really just boils down to one thing.
You either want to be free and have that instinct that
demands it or you want to be a slave.
I have never played the slave role well and it goes against my grain
to try. My ancestors gave their lives for our freedom and I owe it to
them to continue this fight to insure it. In 1624 my ancestors came to
America in search of Religious freedom. I am a patriot and the blood
runs deep. I will not give up my freedom nor my children's. I must
continue the fight.
> (I know I sound really dumb, here. This is not intended to be
> demeaning or patronizing. I really need to know this stuff, even
> though I'm sure that you have been explaining it, over and over,
> until your patience is worn out. Jesus said to forgive your
> brother seventy times seven times. I suppose I am approaching
> that. Please forgive me one more time, and help me understand
> here.)
I see that you are trying to understand what I'm saying. Often
things like this are very hard to explain, especially in writing.
I appreciate that you are willing to try. It is encouraging. It would
be great if you had that desire for freedom that I have, perhaps the
love of freedom has to run deep in order to fully comprehend the
importance we place on our freedoms. Hopefully I have helped you
to understand more clearly amidst all these ramblings. If not, I
would be glad to try and explain myself again using a different tact.
Having a just law that we can comply with is important to me and to
my children. They should not have to live in fear of the government.
It is hard enough these days to establish and foster any kind of
patriotism under the current political leadership. A just law
for the education of our children would be a major step in the
right direction.
In your desire to understand, you appear to be making great progress :).
I hope that we can continue to build upon this progress so that all
of New Hampshire can reclaim their inherent God-given rights.
Sincerely,
Karen
Message 11
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 11:37:18 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Mon Dec 6 09:37:20 1993
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 10:33:01 -0500
> Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Originator: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Sender: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: Doris Hohensee
> To: srogers@mcc.com
> Subject: Re: NH legislative update
>
> More correspondence:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 09:46 EST
> > From: Scott Somerville
> > To: KAREN PETERSON
>
> > Subject: NH NIPE Bill
>
> > Dear Scott:
. . . .
> Sincerely,
>
> Karen
>
I got this message that's signed by Karen, and sounds like it was written
by Karen, but It has Doris' account as the originator . . . ? This was
from Karen, wasn't it?
Steve R
Message 12
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 12:27:04 -0500
From:
Karen Peterson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
The latest postings on NH legislative efforts are my postings that were
sent privately to scott somerville at HSLDA. However, at this point it
is necessary to post them to the net so that you can be aware of the way
things are NOT progressing.
Doris and I are working together on this years legislation and I am
trying hard to keep compose an answer to scott's latest email (BTW
he is lurking :)) that will be appropriate.
karen
>
> > From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Mon Dec 6 09:37:20 1993
> > Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 10:33:01 -0500
> > Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> > Originator: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> > Sender: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> > From: Doris Hohensee
> > To: srogers@mcc.com
> > Subject: Re: NH legislative update
> >
> > More correspondence:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 09:46 EST
> > > From: Scott Somerville
> > > To: KAREN PETERSON
> >
> > > Subject: NH NIPE Bill
> >
> > > Dear Scott:
>
> . . . .
>
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Karen
> >
>
> I got this message that's signed by Karen, and sounds like it was written
> by Karen, but It has Doris' account as the originator . . . ? This was
> from Karen, wasn't it?
>
> Steve R
>
Message 13
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 15:16:11 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This one's from me, Scott.
Scott, you sure do ask for a lot of patience. And your *lack of
understanding,* considering the amount of explaining that has been
going on, does seem to be a bit excessive. Perhaps it's even a bit
contrived?
Doris Hohensee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 16:54 EST
> From: Scott Somerville
> To: KAREN PETERSON
> Subject: Liberty and Law
> Dear Karen,
> Thank you for your patience, and your response to my (pretty
> primitive) questions.
> (1) ON FREEDOM: I think that we are dealing with the kind of argument
> that splits pro-lifers up.
No, it's absolutely not the same type of disagreement.
If it were such a trivial difference of opinion between our two
positions, you would've been free to tell the truth to N.H. families
long ago. You would've been able to tell them that with our bill they
would finally be free from all worries about "termination" of their
home education program. That's *every* parent's concern. That's why
parents are willing to pay HSLDA $100 per year to *protect* their
family from State termination of their program.
No, you can't tell the truth. The truth would undermine your
credibility due to previous support of 193-A as one of the "best" in
the country. It would undermine HSLDA's future revenue stream in
New Hampshire.
The problem is that your income and influence and my liberty are
on a collision course.
> Some pro-life people have the practical
> goal of saving as many unborn lives as possible; others are committed
> to protecting the principle of life absolutely. This causes problems
> when you don't have the votes to do both. A bill which bans all
> abortions EXCEPT for those involving rape or incest will save 99% of
> the babies, but it compromises the sanctity of life 100%. (Why should
> you be killed just because your father was a rapist?)
We are hardly "100%" no-compromise types. Our bill *recognizes* the
power of the state to compel *attendance* and certain (minimal)
*categories* of instruction. What it *doesn't* do is define or
subject to state approval just *how* or *what* is taught. If we
*were* the doctrinaire "purists" you implicitly make us out to be,
we'd be out tilting at windmills with a bill to repeal the compulsory
attendance law.
> Given your principles, I would imagine that you would oppose the 99%
> bill, and I respect that. Given my principles, I would vote for the
> 99% bill, and then picket the one remaining abortion clinic in the
> state. I don't ask for your respect, but I would like to know if yo
u
> understand the thought processes that lead me to act this way.
I do understand your need to feel good about what you are doing.
But don't expect me to help you rationalize your immoral position to
yourself. You are still unwilling to tell parents the truth about how
to avoid all "termination" problems.
> (2) ON UMBRELLA SCHOOLS: because 193-A requires a "curriculum," you
> argue either that (a) any "school" which purports to satisfy 193-A is
> irredeemably tainted by the Prussian system of indoctrination; or (b
)
> any person who PRETENDS to be using a curriculum is immoral,
> dishonest, and a wimp.
> I suffer from the occupational hazard of lawyers, which is to make
> words mean whatever will work best under the circumstances. Before
> 193-A was passed, we used to make "manifest educational hardship" mean
> just about anything.
Incorrect again. You were still at Harvard at the time. You couldn't
have helped to make "manifest educational hardship" mean anything for
anyone. By the time you graduated, "manifest educational hardship"
was passe. N.H. had passed its HSLDA-endorsed home education law.
> You and Doris have noted that the old law was
> unenforceable, for this reason. Personally, I think that "planned and
> supervised instruction" is even more flexible than "manifest
> educational hardship," but I won't push my views on you.
Yes, the provisions for "termination" are now much more flexible for
the State.
> Have you ever asked for a show of hands among unschoolers to see if
> any of them would be interested in starting such a school? I know
> that it wouldn't help you, but it might help others. Any reason not
> to ask?
And how am I supposed to do that, Scott? We *are* talking about civil
disobedience, with consequences a lot more serious than a night in
jail.
I'm getting pretty tired of your continued insinuation that we're a
"fringe" element. It wouldn't matter a jot if there were only *one*
of us.
State sovereignity is *the* problem in RSA 193-A.
Any parent who voluntarily complies with the current law terminates
all of his constitutionally guaranteed parental rights. The "intent"
of your law is very clear in its statement of purpose:
"The general court recognizes ... that it is the primary right
and obligation of a parent to *CHOOSE* the appropriate
educational alternative for a child under his care and
supervision, *as provided by law.* One such alternative allows
a parent to elect to educate a child at home as an alternative
to attendance at a public or private school, in accordance
with RSA 193-A."
Your broad right to raise and educate your child is reduced to
multiple choice among State-defined alternatives. Everyone who's
complied with the current law has *no recourse* from the State's
authority. Remember: Any powers not granted to the legislature remain
with the people. With this statement of purpose, those residual
powers have been *eliminated entirely.*
Without that statement of purpose the State would have no authority to
enforce RSA 193-A. Your law deceptively traps parents who comply with
it by giving over their authority to the State. Compliance grants
*voluntary consent* to State regulation. No court or fancy lawyers
can save your rights then. They're *gone.*
Language such as this is written into *every* law whose drafters know
they're writing something unenforceable without the consent of their
targets. E.g., the language in the child abuse laws requiring a
parent's signature on an informed consent order "acknowledging" what
the State can do to them if a "finding of abuse" is entered. What
such a signature *really* constitutes is *consent by the parent* to
such action. The authorities *know* that without such consent, they
haven't a legal leg to stand on.
This is *exactly* what's wrong with RSA 193-A. Have I finally made
myself understandable?
Your offer to compromise with insignificant details like curriculum is
silly. Removing curriculum requirements is wishful thinking. They're
*defined and required* by your law. Read it again.
I get the distinct impression you are *still* trying to cut a deal,
compromise my rights, and save face. That's totally out. Just forget
it.
> (3) ON SOVEREIGNTY: I don't know if you follow the debate on the two
> classes of citizens (Article IV citizens v. XIV Amendment citizens).
> If you do, then you should realize that all the US Supreme Court cases
> which home schoolers cite are XIVth Amendment cases. You can't claim
> both Article IV citizenship and XIVth Amendment rights.
> The US legal system has a Catch-22. If you reject XIVth
> Amendment citizenship, you have absolute RIGHTS against the
> State, but nobody to defend you against the State's illegally
> exercised MIGHT; If you accept XIVth Amendment citizenship, you
> have the US Supreme Court and Federal Government to protect you
> from the State, but you just gave away your sovereignty to get
> there. Effective sovereignty necessarily combines might AND
> right.
This is a red herring. This is totally irrelevant to our current
situation. We are proposing *state* legislation, not federal. The
feds have no constitutional jurisdiction over education.
> IN CONCLUSION: (1) Can a 100% person work together with a 99%
> person? (2) Are there any unschoolers who would be interested in
> starting an umbrella school? (3) Do you understand my comments on
> sovereignty? (4) Are you willing to keep a dialogue going?
Item (2) is impossible, because starting such a school consitutes
*compliance* with RSA 193-A. I think I've flogged *that* horse to
death already.
Items (1) and (3), yes and yes, but totally irrelevant. Item (4),
yes.
Is HSLDA going to leave us alone this session? This is *the* crucial
issue. You've been totally *silent* wrt to this issue. Are you
avoiding a straight answer, preferring to ignore the question and lead
discussion off on tangents?
> Sincerely trying to serve home schoolers,
Beware of *anyone* bearing gifts.
This business about "trying to serve" is starting to annoy me. We're
not interested in giving or selling anything, which is what the verb
"to serve" means. All *we're* interested in is defending ourselves
and our children, along with whoever wants to stand with us.
That's the question: Are you (and/or HSLDA) with us or against us?
> Scott Somerville
Doris Hohensee
Message 14
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 15:51:27 -0500
From:
"David L. Hanson"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Even though I agree with Doris' position, I think that it would be better
if these conversations were mostly kept private rather than aired here. The
tone of these notes is so harsh that rather than convincing people to work
together, won't they rather encourage the various parties to become less
cooperative and less likely to change their views? If HSLDA can't be convinced
in private, why would they be convinced after being berated publically?
Just my two cents.
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
Message 15
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Tue, 7 Dec 1993 13:31:37 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Even though I agree with Doris' position, I think that it would be
> better if these conversations were mostly kept private rather than
> aired here. The tone of these notes is so harsh that rather than
> convincing people to work together, won't they rather encourage the
> various parties to become less cooperative and less likely to change
> their views? If HSLDA can't be convinced in private, why would they be
> convinced after being berated publically?
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> David L. Hanson
> Naperville, IL
We *have* been doing this in private and all we've gotton is the
runaround. We have, as we've posted before, tried to get Scott to
discuss the real issue, but all he does is dodge it. We are forced
therefore to the conclusion that he's not seriously interested in the
subject at all. Rather, he is only interested in *appearing* to be
interested and, secondarily, in chewing up what little time and
resources we possess. The latter is a classic tactic which we
ourselves have been using against the authorities.
It's a fact that Scott has been much more conciliatory and
"reasonable" when these discussions are held in public, rather than in
private.
We no longer believe that either Scott or HSLDA is interested in
cooperation, though we had hopes of it at one time. We think he's
just playing for time. We have, therefore, nothing to lose and
everything to gain by keeping things public. If we cannot
successfully appeal to HSLDA in private, our only other alternative is
to pressure them publically. Standard operating procedure,
politically, especially since HSLDA's captive audience isn't going to
pay attention to anything we say anyway.
We try not to adopt an excessively harsh tone (you should have seen
the *first* draft ;-)). The problem with being "nice" is that you can
very easily be out-maneuvered. "Niceness" is the art of avoiding
calling a spade a spade directly, is it not? The classic tactic here
is to slightly misinterpret your opposition's position in such as way
as to channel discussion into a rathole, or to make it look like he
said something he actually didn't say. Scott is a master of this.
(Yes, that's a *compliment*, Scott. Didn't think we had it in us,
huh?) Unfortunately, the single sure way to avoid this is to take
unequivocable, and thus harsh-sounding, stands. We don't like it, but
there it is.
Look at the Gatto speech you posted a while back. He's sure not
pulling any punches, is he? *He* tried being nice too, and found out
that it simply doesn't work. So now he's still pretty polite, but I'd
say he sure is at least as harsh as we are.
Realistically, I am faced with the looming prospect of opposition from
HSLDA for the fifth year straight. HSLDA has used its influence and
financial clout to affect the outcome of N.H. politics since 1989.
I'm not writing to Scott because he and I go way back and are the best
of friends. Nor has it been a secret what I have tried to do to
restore my liberty over the past five years. HSLDA could have
contacted and still can contact me directly if they wish to work
together towards the same goal. But all I get is silence, red
herrings and straw men.
It's rather ironic that our freedoms are being snuffed out in the name
of God by men claiming to be His representatives. HSLDA relies upon
trusting Christians who believe that they, HSLDA, would never lead them
astray.
Aren't home educators from all states, not just N.H., responsible for
creating the monster that I now face? (Without the backing of
families across the country HSLDA wouldn't have the financial means to
oppose me.) It's this type of misinformed unity, working together and
cooperation that I'm up against. Sigh.
Doris Hohensee
Message 16
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Wed, 8 Dec 1993 14:25:18 -0500
From:
judy@piano.la.locus.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>A request for some history... What is the background of the disagreement
>with HSLDA that is noted in Doris's letters?
>
>Our Background: We are in Arkansas, and homeschooled in 1984-1986, and in
>the 1985 legislature worked to get a home school statute through the state
>legislature which would clearly allow home schooling. We were involved with
>the Ark. Christian Home Ed. Association (ACHEA). We had discussions with
>HSLDA and they were helpful (then), but we have been out of touch since.
>
>If an explanation of Arkansas' home schooling law is desired, please so post.
>
>
As a third party and fairly neutral observer, I would guess that Doris
would not approve of the Arkansas home schooling law any more than the
NH one since the appears to be that she does not want any law stating that
home schooling is permissible. The existance of such a law puts home schooling
in the domain of the government. I believe the logic she is following is
that since government leaves to the people that which is not itemized in
legislation, the passing of any home schooling legislation, regardless of
how innocuous it seems, moves home schooling from the domain of the citizens
and into the domain of the government.
I believe this is the crux of the problem. Am I correct?
Judy
Message 17
Subject:
HSLDA Relations
Date:
Wed, 8 Dec 1993 22:03:54 -0500
From:
Paul Saletan
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
On 11/6/93 David L. Hanson wrote concerning a message from Doris:
> Even though I agree with Doris' position, I think that it would be better
> if these conversations were mostly kept private rather than aired here. The
> tone of these notes is so harsh that rather than convincing people to work
> together, won't they rather encourage the various parties to become less
> cooperative and less likely to change their views? If HSLDA can't be
> convinced in private, why would they be convinced after being berated
> publically?
Allow me to disagree with trying to tone down this debate. It's vital
to those of us down here in Texas who are just beginning to awaken
politically, and need to know how HSLDA has operated in other states
where real battles have been going on.
Here in Austin the Texas Education Agency is up for review as the
state legislature rewrites the education code. We have been fortunate
to *not* be subject to state approval regarding the content of instruction
in the home. Here, home schools have been defined as equivalent to
private schools, and in the most recent court case (Arlington vs. Leeper)
an appeals judge ruled that so long as "school" was run 180 days a year
and certain core subjects were taught the school districts had no
more oversight over us than they would over any regular private school,
which is minimal.
There is no law (yet) mandating testing or a set curriculum. We hope
to keep it that way.
I have been concerned about HSLDA since reading an article (admittedly
biased) in Home Education Magazine concerning dissatisfaction with
compromises made by that organization in negotiations with other state
educational establishments. I am trying to maintain an open mind but
at the same time those of us who have been labeled as homeschooling
for "secular reasons" need all the information we can get about a
group whose activities could have a great impact on our freedom to
continue educating our children in our own ways.
I am interested in both sides, but I hope the argument won't be
suppressed out of concern about whether it will rankle HSLDA.
In Texas, an organization called the Texas Home School Coalition has
done virtually all of the lobbying concerning homeschooling matters,
and works closely with HSLDA. The rest of us want to work cooperatively
with THSC/HSLDA to preserve our rights, but we need to know at the start
where their philosophy, political and legal approaches might differ
from what we could support.
It is my hope that the debate on topics like this can be kept restrained
but open. There are 50 states, all with different policies. Sharing
information is the only way that homeschoolers can gain the political
knowledge to match the monetary and legal muscle of the state -- and
make sure that the "hired guns" are doing right by us.
- Paul Saletan
member of Austin Area Homeschoolers
and Texas Advocates For Freedom In Education (TAFFIE)
<
Message 18
Subject:
note from dave to scott
Date:
Wed, 8 Dec 1993 22:50:18 -0500
From:
Craig Peterson
To:
doris, karen
# mailx scott+amember%hslda@mcimail.com
Subject: Agreement on NH NIPE legislation
Just a quick note to see if we're still in agreement about your
public support of our NH Private Education Bill...
Senator Dave Wheeler
603-673-9077
Message 19
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update
Date:
Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:05:35 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I don't oppose *all* laws stating that home schooling is
"permissible." I assume you are contrasting states with home
education laws to states which define home schools as private
schools, as is currently the case in California, Illinois, Kentucky
and some others.
What I *do* oppose are laws under which compliance constitutes
acknowledgment of State sovereignity with respect to the *method and
content* of a child's education. I also oppose laws which are
unconstitutional on other grounds. New Hampshire's current
homeschooling law fails both of these tests. I have no idea whether
or not Arkansas' does. I am interested in reading the Arkansas law.
Actually, I'd also like to see a copy of their state constitution, but
that's probably too big to post.
We're submitting a bill that, in effect, *does* state that home
schooling is permissible. The only reason it doesn't use the phrase
"home-based private school," or some such, is because that wording has
been preempted by the current (unacceptable) law.
Our bill certainly does acknowledge the State's power to compel
attendance. But that's all it can compel. It can't regulate
curriculum. It can't require testing. It can't mandate teacher
certification. It can't set educational minimums under penalty of
termination. Parents will be "private" educators without burdensome
regulation.
My problem with HSLDA is not only that they are seemingly incapable of
distinguishing a constitutional from an unconstitutional law. They
have also actively opposed all of our efforts in N.H. over the last
four years to restore the rights of home educators.
Our current bill, which would remove the constant threat of State
termination for a family's education programs, should be an easy
concept to understand and support. Why then is HSLDA not supporting
it wholeheartedly?
Doris Hohensee
Message 20
Subject:
Re: HSLDA Relations
Date:
Thu, 9 Dec 1993 14:38:02 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: Paul Saletan
> On 11/6/93 David L. Hanson wrote concerning a message from Doris:
>
> > Even though I agree with Doris' position, I think that it would be better
> > if these conversations were mostly kept private rather than aired here. The
> > tone of these notes is so harsh that rather than convincing people to work
> > together, won't they rather encourage the various parties to become less
> > cooperative and less likely to change their views? If HSLDA can't be
> > convinced in private, why would they be convinced after being berated
> > publically?
>
> Allow me to disagree with trying to tone down this debate. It's vital
> to those of us down here in Texas who are just beginning to awaken
> politically, and need to know how HSLDA has operated in other states
> where real battles have been going on. . . . .
I agree. I don't think the objective of "berating" them in public is
to change their minds, so much as to get the truth out in the open.
SR
Message 21
Subject:
Re: NH legislative update -Reply
Date:
Fri, 10 Dec 93 12:28 EST
From:
Scott Somerville
To:
DORIS
I just mailed Dave Wheeler a confirmation that I do intend to
support the NIPE bill, but that it is very important to me that
193A remain available.
Scott.
PS: I note that home-ed-politics is run out of mainstream.com.
Could you encourage whoever runs the list to take me off? I keep
deleting stacks of unread mail.
Message 22
Subject:
Agreement on NH NIPE legislation -Reply (fwd)
Date:
Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:23:47 -0500 (EST)
From:
Dave Wheeler
To:
karen (Karen Peterson), doris (Doris Hohensee), paul.hohensee@east.sun.com
CC:
\
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Fri Dec 10 14:26:22 1993
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 12:13 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: DAVE WHEELER
Subject: Agreement on NH NIPE legislation -Reply
Message-Id: <63931210171336/0006047481ND1EM@mcimail.com>
Dave, thanks for checking on the NIPE situation. I am not
opposed to the bill, but I can't say that my conversations with
Doris and Karen have made me any more enthusiastic about it.
My biggest worry is that the bad guys will seize on the NIPE bill
and twist the enabling clause to give the Department of Education
regulatory power over NIPEs. I know the bill is drafted to only
permit regulation of attendance, but I don't trust bureaucrats or
judges.
My real nightmare is that some bozo will move to repeal 193A,
amend the NIPE bill to broaden the regulatory power, and put us
back at square one -- home schools governeed by wide-ranging
Department regulations. This is why I am very insistent on
leaving 193A intact. If the NIPE bill provides the kind of
freedom that we all hope it does, it will be great, and everyone
will abandon 193A over time. But I don't want to burn any
bridges!
Message 23
Subject:
NH legislative update -Reply (fwd)
Date:
Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:27:22 -0500
From:
Craig Peterson
He's supposed to represent home schoolers, he is supposed to be a
homeschooler, he is supposed to be sympathetic to our causes & keep an
ear close to the ground so he can know just what is going on.
Why doesn't he follow home-ed-politics, since it is the closest in
relation to the actual work he does?
This guy is a living contradiction.
Craig.
From: Doris Hohensee
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 15:39:30 -0500 (EST)
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Fri Dec 10 14:38:57 1993
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 12:28 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: DORIS
Subject: Re: NH legislative update -Reply
Message-Id: <61931210172816/0006047481ND2EM@mcimail.com>
I just mailed Dave Wheeler a confirmation that I do intend to
support the NIPE bill, but that it is very important to me that
193A remain available.
Scott.
PS: I note that home-ed-politics is run out of mainstream.com.
Could you encourage whoever runs the list to take me off? I keep
deleting stacks of unread mail.
[Editor's note: The NH NIPE bill was defeated. HSLDA made
no effort to support this bill to remove hs'ing regulations
unlike the situation in 1990 when HSLDA actively participated in
the dialogue and sent Mike Smith to personally lobby the NH Legislature
to give us hs'ing regulations. Is this surprising?]