The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 4)
1. NH Home Education Law
Doris Hohensee
2. NH Home Education Law
David L. Hanson
3. NH Home Education Law
Gene Kleppinger
4. NH Home Education Law
Doris Hohensee
5. CHENH's Opinion of NH Law
Doris Hohensee
6. NH Home Education Law
Gene Kleppinger
Message 1
Subject:
NH Home Education Law
Date:
Sat, 16 Oct 1993 17:00:24 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
New Hampshire's Home Education Law with Commentary by Doris Hohensee
I. Summary of objections:
1) Mere compliance with N.H.'s home education law results in a loss of
parental rights.
Although courts have upheld the primary right and obligation of
parents to raise and educate their children, New Hampshire law
recognizes only "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." Parents' right to
educate their children has now been reduced to a choice of
State-approved State-regulated educational alternatives and then only
"as prescribed by law."
2) N.H.'s law requires parental 'application' not 'notification' to
the State.
The law requires very close reading to discern that it deliberately
and very deceptively uses the term 'notification' to mean 'application.'
The commissioner of education has power to approve or reject your
curriculum using the terms 'acknowledgement' and 'withhold
acknowledgement.' Thus parents can have their `notification' denied.
3) Home educators are unequally accountable to the State: we already
have Outcome Based Education (OBE).
Have you ever heard of public school children who did not meet or
exceed the 40th percentile on a standardized test being held back for
remedial instruction? In one school district in N.H. the entire town
tested below the 15th percentile with no negative results. Neither the
children nor their instructors were placed on probation for a year.
The children were not threatened with transfer to another school. Nor
were they even held back a grade level.
Yet, one evaluation option offered to home eduators specifies that
a child must exceed the 40th percentile or be placed on probation for
a year. If the child does not improve in one year's time, the child is
removed from the home education program. The program can be terminated.
This is really "OBE." What's more, it's inequitable. Why should home
educators be more accountable than the public schools? Why should the
State set our standard higher than theirs? Why should they be able to
threaten removal of our children from our homes while suffering no
penalty for their failures?
N.H. home education law is untenable: parents can not comply in good
conscience.
II. Brief history:
In the fall of 1989 an attempt was made by the Dept. of Education to
rewrite home education regulations in N.H. The proposed regulations
were very stringent and restrictive. They were tabled.
HSLDA advised born-again Christians in N.H. to form a group to
represent Christians at the state level. These new CHENH 'leaders'
purported to represent the views of all home educators at the state
level. Actually they represented only one narrow view of home
education, as represented by the law that CHENH and HSLDA negotiated.
When the current law was being introduced in the spring of 1990, HSLDA
was heavily involved. Mike Smith, from HSLDA, came to the legislative
hearing and testified that the proposed legislation was "model
legislation." CHENH `leaders' say that N.H. has one of the "best home
education laws in the nation." How do they know? HSLDA told them so.
Does HSLDA have an absolute standard for "model legislation?" By
HSLDA's own admission in their own book, Home Schooling and the Law,
by Michael P. Farris, N.H.'s home education law is far from the best.
Using this book, there are 25 states with less restrictive laws than
N.H., 12 states have laws roughly equivalent to N.H. and only 12 state
have laws more restrictive than N.H. It can not be the "best."
Had homeschoolers not allowed these `experts' to compromise our
rights, we would still have the old regulations, which were not
litigable. How do we know? Because Sen. Disnard, the prime sponsor of
the home education bill, said so. The old regulations were nearly
impossible to litigate successfully since "manifest hardship" was
difficult to disprove. He explained that with this new law the State
could finally "litigate and win" against homeschoolers. We now have a
law which hands over our right to educate our children to the State.
In 1990, the Department of Education estimated the number of
"underground" home educated children in NH to be roughly equivalent to
the number of children in compliance with the law. These estimates may
even be conservative. Why should the majority of home educators
tolerate an untenable law?
III. New Hampshire's Home Education Law:
279:1 Compulsory Attendance. RSA 193:1 is repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
193:1 Duty of Parent; Compulsory Attendance by Pupil. I. A parent of
any child at least 6 years of age and under 16 years of age shall
cause such child to attend the public school to which the child is
assigned in his resident district. Such child shall attend full time
when school is in session unless: (a) The child is attending a public
school outside the district to which he is assigned or an approved
private school for the same time; (b) The child is receiving home
education; or (c) The relevant school district superintendent has
excused a child from attendance because the child is physically or
mentally unable to attend school, or has been temporarily excused upon
the request of his parent for purposes agreed upon by the school
authorities and the parent. Such excused absences shall not be
permitted if they cause a serious adverse effect upon the student's
educational progress. Students excused for such temporary absences may
be claimed as full-time pupils for purposes of calculating state aid
under RSA 186-C:18 and RSA 198:27-33.
II. A child who reaches his sixth birthday after September 30 shall
not be required to attend school under the provisions of this section
until the following school year.
III. In this section: (a) "Parent" means a parent, guardian, or person
having legal custody of a child. (b) "Resident district" means the
school district in which the child resides.
279:2 Statement of Purpose. The general court recognizes, in the
enactment of RSA 193-A as inserted by section 3 of this act, 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. The general
court further recognizes that home education is more individualized
than instruction normally provided in the classroom setting.
279:3 New Chapter; Home Education. Amend RSA by inserting after
chapter 193 the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 193-A HOME EDUCATION
193-A:1 Definitions. In this chapter:
I. "Child" means child or children at least 6 years of age and under
16 years of age who is a resident of New Hampshire.
II. "Nonpublic school" means a nonpublic school approved pursuant to
rules adopted by the state board of education and administered by the
department of education and which has agreed to administer the
relevant provisions of this chapter.
III. "Parent" means a parent, guardian, or person having legal custody
of a child.
IV. "Resident district" means the school district in which the child
resides.
193-A:2 Program Established. There is established the home education
program to be administered by the department of education.
193-A:3 Rulemaking. The state board of education shall adopt rules
pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to administering the home education
program.
193-A:4 Home Education; Defined; *CURRICULUM REQUIRED*.
I. Instruction shall be deemed home education if it consists 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, and the history of the Constitutions of New Hampshire and
the United States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and
music. Home Education shall be provided by a parent for his own child,
unless the provider is otherwise agreed upon by the appropriate
parties named in paragraph II.
II. The department of education, resident district
superintendent, or a nonpublic school shall work with parents upon
request in meeting the requirements of this section.
193-A:5
Notification and Other Procedural Requirements. A Parent may provide
home education to a child or children at home, subject to the
following requirements:
I. The parent shall *NOTIFY*, by August 1 of each year, the commissioner
of education, resident district superintendent, or principal of a
non-public school of his intention to provide home education. Said
superintendent or principal shall provide notification of such
intention to the department of education. Any parent desiring to
provide home education who moves into a school district after August 1
shall immediately notify the commissioner of education of his intent
to educate a child at home and shall comply with the requirements of
this section within 30 days of such notice. Subject to the provisions
of RSA 193-A:7, I, the commissioner of education shall *ACKNOWLEDGE* in
writing that the parent shall be permitted to initiate a home
education program for a child enrolled in a public or nonpublic school
if the program meets the minimum definitional and educational
requirements as provided in RSA 193-A:4, I and II of this section.
II. Notification made by the parent pursuant to paragraph I shall
include a list of the names, addresses and birthdates of all children
who are participating in the home education program and a list of the
subjects to be taught each child in accordance with RSA 193-A:4, I. A
description of such subjects shall also be provided which shall
include: (a) The name of an established correspondence school used, if
any; (b) The name of an established commercial curriculum provider
used, if any; (c) A table of contents or other material which outlines
the scope of and instructional sequence for each subject, or both; and
(d) A list of textbooks or other instructional materials used.
III. Written notice of termination of a home education program shall
be filed by the parent with the commissioner of education, and, in
addition, the resident district superintendent or nonpublic school
principal within 15 days of said termination.
IV. Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:7, I, the commissioner of
education, resident district superintendent, or nonpublic school
principal shall acknowledge receipt of notification within 21 days of
such receipt.
193-A:6 Records; Evaluation.
I. The parent shall maintain a portfolio of records and materials
relative to the home education program. The portfolio shall consist
of a log which designates by title the reading materials used, and
also samples of writings, worksheets, workbooks, or creative materials
used or developed by the child. Such portfolio shall be preserved by
the parent for 2 years from the date of the ending of the instruction.
II. The parent shall provide for an annual educational evaluation in
which is documented the child's demonstration of educational progress
at a level commensurate with the child's age and ability. The child
shall be deemed to have successfully completed his annual evaluation
upon meeting the requirements of any one of the following: (a) A
certified teacher or a teacher currently teaching in a nonpublic
school who is selected by the parent shall evaluate the child's
educational progress upon review of the portfolio and discussion with
the parent or child. The teacher shall submit a written evaluation to
the commissioner of education, resident district, superintendent, or
nonpublic school principal; (b) The child shall take any national
student achievement test, administered by a person who meets the
qualifications established by the provider or publisher of the test.
Composite results at or above the fortieth percentile on such tests
shall be deemed reasonable academic proficiency. Such test results
shall be reported to the commissioner of education, resident district
superintendent, or nonpublic school principal; (c) The child shall
take a state student assessment test used by the resident district.
Composite results at or above the fortieth percentile on such state
test shall be deemed reasonable academic proficiency. Such test
results shall be reported the commissioner of education, the resident
district superintendent, or nonpublic school principal; or (d) The
child shall be evaluated using any other valid measurement tool
mutually agreed upon by the parent and the commissioner of education,
resident district superintendent, or nonpublic school principal. The
results shall be reported by the parent or the testing agency to such
appropriate official.
III. The commissioner of education, resident district superintendent,
or nonpublic school principal shall review the results of the annual
educational evaluation of the child in a home education program as
provided in paragraph II. If the child does not demonstrate
educational progress for age and ability at a level commensurate with
his ability, the commissioner, superintendent, or principal shall
notify the parent, in writing, that such progress had not been
achieved. The parent shall have one year from the date of receipt of
the written notification to provide remedial instruction to the child.
At the end of the one-year probationary period, the child shall be
reevaluated in a manner as provided in this section. Continuation in
a home education program shall be contingent upon the child
demonstrating at the end of the probationary period educational
progress commensurate with his age and ability. The parent of a child
who fails to demonstrate such progress at the end of the probationary
period shall be notified by the commissioner that the parent is
entitled to a hearing a provided in RSA 193-A:7, III and IV and that
the program will be terminated absent a finding for continuation
pursuant to such hearing. Upon a finding that the program should be
terminated, the child shall be reported by the commissioner or
nonpublic school principal to the appropriate resident district
superintendent, who shall, if necessary, take appropriate action to
ensure that compulsory attendance requirements are met.
193-A:7 Hearing; Notice and Procedure.
I. Prior to the acknowledgment of notification as provided in RSA
193-A:5, I, if the commissioner has written and substantiated
information which strongly implies that a home education program will
not meet the requirements of RSA 193-A:4, I and RSA 193-A:5, II and
that, based on such information, the commissioner decides to *WITHHOLD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT*, he shall immediately schedule a due process hearing
as provided in paragraph III. In order to be granted acknowledgment of
notification by the commissioner, the parent at such hearing shall
establish, and the hearing officer shall so find, that both the parent
and the home education program will comply with RSA 193-A:4, I and RSA
193-A:5, II.
II. After acknowledgment of notification as provided in RSA 193-A:5,
I, if the commissioner has written and substantiated information which
would justify an order of termination pursuant to paragraph IV, and
based upon said information he intends to seek termination of such
program, he shall request a hearing as provided in paragraph III.
III. A parent shall be entitled to a due process hearing pursuant to
paragraphs I and II which shall be conducted by an impartial hearing
officer appointed by the commissioner of education. Notice of such
hearing shall be provided within 10 days of the request for such
hearing, shall include a brief summary of the material facts, and
shall be sent to each parent and each instructor of the child known to
the commissioner. The hearing shall occur within 30 days of the date
of such notice. Upon request, the hearing officer shall conduct the
hearing at a location near the site of the home education program.
IV. In order to terminate a program, the hearing officer shall find at
the hearing at least on one of the following: (a) The parent has
failed to comply with the requirements of this chapter; or (b) The
parent or the home education program has substantially failed to or
cannot provide child with the minimum course of study as required by
RSA 193-A:4, I.
193-A:8 Order; Appeals.
I. Subsequent to a hearing conducted in accordance with RSA 193-A:7, I
or II, the hearing officer shall enter an order within 10 working days
which shall order either the continuance or termination of the home
education program under scrutiny. Such order shall take effect
immediately. A copy shall be given to the appropriate superintendent
of schools, who shall, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure
that compulsory attendance requirements are met.
II. Following such order, the parent or the commissioner may appeal
the decision of the hearing officer to a court of competent
jurisdiction. Said notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days of
such decision by the hearing officer. Pending appeal, the home
education program shall continue.
193-A:9 Liability Limited. The resident school district, the board of
such district, and any employees of the resident school district
associated with a child who is receiving home education in accordance
with this chapter, are not liable in damages in a civil action for any
injury, death or loss to person or property allegedly sustained by
that child, this parent, or any other person as a result of the
child's receipt of home education, including but not limited to, any
liability allegedly based on the failure of the child to receive a
free appropriate or adequate public education.
193-A:10 Home Education Advisory Council.
I. There is established the home education advisory council comprising
12 members. Members of the council shall be appointed by the
commissioner of education from persons named as follows: (a) Six
members nominated by home education associations organized within New
Hampshire. (b) Two members nominated by the department of education.
(c) One member nominated by the New Hampshire School Administrators
Association. (d) One member nominated by the New Hampshire School
Boards Association. (e) One member nominated by the New Hampshire
School Principals Association. (f) One member nominated by the
nonpublic school advisory council established by the board of
education pursuant to RSA 21-N:9, II(f).
II.The duties of the council and the terms of office of its members
shall be prescribed in accordance with rules proposed by the
commissioner of education and adopted by the state board of education
pursuant to RSA 541-A.
III.The chair of the council shall be elected by the council members
from the home education membership on the council. All vacancies on
the council shall be filled in the same manner as that of the original
appointment.
279:4 Council Administration; First Meeting; Election of Chair. The
commissioner of education shall call the first meeting of the home
education advisory council established pursuant to RSA 193-A:10 as
inserted by section 3 of this act within 60 days of the effective date
of this act. The council shall elect a chair as prescribed in RSA
193-A:10, III at such first meeting.
279:5 Repeal. RSA 193:2, relative to duty of custodian, is repealed.
279:6 Effective Date.
I.Sections 1 and 4 and RSA 193-A:10 as inserted by section 3 of this
act shall take effect July 1, 1990.
II.The remainder of this act shall take effect July 1, 1991.
(Signed by the governor on April 28, 1990)
Message 2
Subject:
RE: NH Home Education Law
Date:
Sat, 16 Oct 1993 19:23:21 -0400
From:
David L. Hanson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
The NH Home Education Law as presented is NOT a "model" law. I disagree
with anyone who supports this type of law. The State has no right to
interfere with a child's education and training.
A "model" law to me would be a constitutional amendment saying that they
(that is the) State shall make no laws abridging the rights of parents to
educate their children, nor shall the State create any instituutions or
organizations concerning the education of children.
Illinois doesn't have a "model" constitutional amendment like this. But at
least there are essentially no enforcement mechanisms for the legal requirements that exists (educate in the "branches" of education which are listed for so
many days per year so many hours per day). That law is thanks to the lobbying
efforts of the private schools in Illinois.
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
Message 3
Subject:
Re: NH Home Education Law
Date:
Sat, 16 Oct 1993 23:51:37 -0400
From:
PHIKLEPP@ACS.EKU.EDU
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I'm losing track of the point of this thread, except that Doris Hohensee
seems determined to show us some intertwining (a different word!) among
various homeschooling organizations and publications. I wish to comment
on a single aspect of the discussion: WORDS which are now--absolutely
appropriately--appearing in quotation marks. What is most remarkable is
that Ms. Hohensee continues to draw our attention to a careful political
distinction between "notification" and "application," while paying no
heed to her critics' suggestion that the word "affiliated" carries
hefty political connotations (such as the expectation that "affiliates"
have some participation in each other's hierarchy, as is the case with
Free-Nets and the National Public Telecomputing Network, and also with
local television stations and the national networks). If we are to
"enjoy" further portions of this discussion, might I suggest that at
least the word "waltz" also deserves to be placed inside quotation marks
when it seems to refer to the activities of an organization? (What does
such a dance actually look like?)
It's becoming clear that Ms. Hohensee's points are more closely related
to her judgment of the CHENH leadership than to HSLDA itself. (For
example, it is now CHENH that is "affiliated" with The Teaching Home and
with HSLDA, and it was CHENH that purported to represent all NH
homeschoolers.) One VERY important question--IMHO--is whether (1) the
(former?) CHENH leaders represented themselves as having the best
interests of all homeschoolers at heart, or whether (2) they represented
their particular interests (i. e., their Christianity) as the standpoint
of all homeschoolers. Clearly there is no way for ANY persons to
fulfill the first role, though it is part of the legislative process
that every witness or lobbyist pretend to do so. On the other hand, no
morally responsible person would play the second part under oath,
although it is (probably) an acute awareness of deeply-held personal
interests that occasions the testimony. The short message I want to
leave is this: claiming to stand for the best interests of a group
(choice 1 above) does not mean that every individual in the group will
be fairly represented, only that the majority will be well-served. For
the rest of us in the minority (in this case, the unschoolers) there is
the much more difficult task to show our own legislators (whose
participation in the NH case has not yet been explored!!!) that the
minority's opinion must also be considered.
It would also be nice to know whether CHENH (or HSLDA) really deserves
blame/praise for the enacted legislation. In my own state (KY) two
statewide homeschoolers' associations met in 1992 with state education
department officials and developed a joint understanding of what
Kentucky laws provide regarding home schooling (including, BTW, a
"notification" process that Ms. Hohensee would endorse). When it comes
to future legislation--we hope, never--I'm sure both homeschooling
groups will be involved, but I don't expect either one or both to have
the amount of political leverage suggested for the NH case.
-Gene Kleppinger --> phiklepp@acs.eku.edu
Message 4
Subject:
Re: NH Home Education Law
Date:
Sun, 17 Oct 1993 10:08:25 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Kleppinger: I'm losing track of the point of this thread, except that
> Doris Hohensee seems determined to show us some intertwining (a differ
> ent word!) among various homeschooling organizations and publications.
Hohensee: I am merely trying to give "credit" to HSLDA and its affiliates,
like CHENH, for the work they do.
> Kleppinger: I wish to comment on a single aspect of the discussion:
> WORDS which are now--absolutely appropriately--appearing in quotation
> marks. What is most remarkable is that Ms. Hohensee continues to draw
> our attention to a careful political distinction between
> "notification" and "application," while paying no heed to her critics'
> suggestion that the word "affiliated" carries hefty political
> connotations (such as the expectation that "affiliates" have some
> participation in each other's hierarchy, as is the case with Free-Nets
> and the National Public Telecomputing Network, and also with local
> television stations and the national networks). If we are to "enjoy"
> further portions of this discussion, might I suggest that at least the
> word "waltz" also deserves to be placed inside quotation marks when it
> seems to refer to the activities of an organization? (What does such
> a dance actually look like?)
Hohensee: Yes, you are correct. I should have placed quotation marks
around the word "waltz." I will try to be more careful in the future.
As to hierarchy, why are you and Mr. Anderson (previous post) so
concerned about joint officiers? Is that the only test of affiliation?
I thought I posted the Webster's definition of "affiliated" to be
"closely associated with another typically in a dependent or
subordinate position."
But now that you mention it, Scott Somerville (who is awfully silent
lately) was the first "Christian" home educator involved in New Hampshire
politics and HSLDA. He and one other self-appointed spokesman for
home educators were negotiating rules and regulations with the N.H.
department of education in 1989. The experience was so "moving" that
he later went to law school and now is a member of HSLDA's legal staff.
I am sorry if some of my words are a bit testy, but I do not appreciate
what HSLDA did to N.H., nor do I appreciate their continued role in
preventing us from fixing the current situation.
It is interesting to note your (Gene Kleppinger) home state: Kentucky,
where home education is *completely free.* The same is true of Dave
Hanson's home state: Illinois. And Claude Anderson's home state:
Indiana. (I will gladly post a brief synopsis of their home education
laws if it is necessary.) Is this just co-incidence that my loudest
critics, who have no first hand experience or understanding of
oppressive home education laws, take it upon themselves to criticize?
Obviously they have had no bad experiences with HSLDA themselves and
thus nothing to "grumble" about.
BTW, Kentucky has a "model" constitutional amendment, according to
David Hanson's definition. Herewith: "No man shall be compelled to
send his child to any school to which he MAY be conscientiously
opposed." The word "may" requires the state to bear the burden of
proof. HSLDA and CHENH did not support our effort to amend the N.H.
constitution with effectively identical wording. They opposed us
(behind the scenes: they could hardly do so openly).
> Kleppinger: It's becoming clear that Ms. Hohensee's points are more
> closely related to her judgment of the CHENH leadership than to HSLDA
> itself.
Hohensee: Wrong. They are both heavily involved in N.H.'s politics.
> (For example, it is now CHENH that is "affiliated" with The Teaching
> Home and with HSLDA, and it was CHENH that purported to represent all
> NH homeschoolers.) One VERY important question--IMHO--is whether (1)
> the (former?) CHENH leaders represented themselves as having the best
> interests of all homeschoolers at heart, or whether (2) they
> represented their particular interests (i. e., their Christianity) as
> the standpoint of all homeschoolers. Clearly there is no way for ANY
> persons to fulfill the first role, though it is part of the
> legislative process that every witness or lobbyist pretend to do so.
> On the other hand, no morally responsible person would play the second
> part under oath, although it is (probably) an acute awareness of
> deeply-held personal interests that occasions the testimony. The
> short message I want to leave is this: claiming to stand for the best
> interests of a group (choice 1 above) does not mean that every
> individual in the group will be fairly represented, only that the
> majority will be well-served. For the rest of us in the minority (in
> this case, the unschoolers) there is the much more difficult task to
> show our own legislators (whose participation in the NH case has not
> yet been explored!!!) that the minority's opinion must also be
> considered.
Hohensee: I do not believe in majority rule. Constitutional republics
are designed to protect the rights of minorities. Parlimentary democracies,
like Great Britain, aren't. We used to have the former.
We have tried to put forward our opinions, the "minority" opinion as
you put it. First, I don't believe that we are truly the "minority"
position. We have become the "outlaws." We have become the
"underground" home eduators, who do not comply with the laws of the
state. We have been put in a very vulnerable position, thanks to CHENH
and HSLDA. The law states that if your children are truant, they are
by definition children in need of services (CHINS), thus vulnerable to
snatching by the child abuse police. Beginning to see why we're so
irritated?
Second, every time that we have tried to put forward our alterative
position, even when it will have NO impact on the other home
educators, the "majority," as you put it, HSLDA and CHENH have opposed
our legislation.
> It would also be nice to know whether CHENH (or HSLDA) really deserves
> blame/praise for the enacted legislation. In my own state (KY) two
> state wide homeschoolers' associations met in 1992 with state education
> department officials and developed a joint understanding of what
> Kentucky laws provide regarding home schooling (including, BTW, a
> "notification" process that Ms. Hohensee would endorse). When it comes
> to future legislation--we hope, never--I'm sure both homeschooling
> groups will be involved, but I don't expect either one or both to have
> the amount of political leverage suggested for the NH case.
Hohensee: "The amount of political leverage suggested." You believe I
exaggerate? I'll give you a few facts about N.H.'s situation.
In 1989 N.H. still had "rules" or "guidelines" for home educators
without any specific home education statute. One home education family
got involved in lengthy litigation with the local school board in
Litchfield, N.H. They are a nice religious family. They decide to
move to a neighboring town that is more receptive to their *same* home
education program rather than fight endlessly, which is expensive and
time consuming. Problem solved? Not quite.
In late 1989 - early 1990 Sen. George Disnard (Democrat from
Claremont) sponsors a bill with Rep. Ellen-Ann Robinson (Republican
from Litchfield) calling for state-wide control of home education.
This will be "uniform and fair" for all home educators they both
promise. Meanwhile I overhear Sen. Disnard telling other legislators
to support his bill because with it we can finally "litigate and win"
against home educators. It will fix the problem with home eduators
once and for all.
Now, understanding the sentiment of our elected officials, do you see
why HSLDA and CHENH would have such a large impact? It was just what
the legislature wanted to hear: Home educators that wanted to
compromise. Home educators that did not fight for parental rights.
Home educators that would accept curriculum approval in the disguise
of a "notification" process. Home educators that could tolerate annual
evaluations, possible probation and even termination under certain
circumstances. The bill passed nearly unanimously out of both the
House and the Senate Education committees. There was no give and take
on both sides. HSLDA and CHENH helped to give them everything!
Why would they need to listen to the other side, the "unschoolers?"
They could honestly say that they were doing what many home educators
wanted. That was good enough. Remember, they weren't trying to be
"fair." The education committees, packed by the education lobby, only
wanted to get state-wide control.
I know CHENH and HSLDA have considerable leverage, I have been on the
receiving end.
> David Hanson: The NH Home Education Law as presented is NOT a "model" law.
> I disagree with anyone who supports this type of law. The State has no
> right to interfere with a child's education and training.
> A "model" law to me would be a constitutional amendment saying that they
> (that is the) State shall make no laws abridging the rights of parents to
> educate their children, nor shall the State create any institutions or
> organizations concerning the education of children.
> Illinois doesn't have a "model" constitutional amendment like this.
> But at least there are essentially no enforcement mechanisms for the
> legal requirements that exists (educate in the "branches" of education
> which are listed for so many days per year so many hours per day).
> That law is thanks to the lobbying efforts of the private schools in
> Illinois.
David, so it's NOT a "model" law! What about "one of the best home
education statutes in the nation" and "nothing short of a miracle" as
HSLDA and CHENH proclaim? They would lead you to believe it's almost
"radiant" just like Wilbur, Charlotte's pig.
How far are we to allow the State to intrude upon the family, let
alone God's domain? I'm sure Hillary means well and probably believes
what she says. Good intentions, even Hillary's, do not justify bad
end results.
Perhaps CHENH and HSLDA could let God be the final arbitor and judge
of home education? The State does not need to do God's work. Perhaps
they could let "unschoolers" educate their children according to their
own conscience? Why do they persist in opposing our freedom even when
it does not impact their own as they just did this past year? Because
they wish the State to control and judge all families as they see fit?
Is theirs not the sin of overwhelming pride? Is this dispute
philosophically or politically irreconcileable?
Message 5
Subject:
CHENH's Opinion of NH Law
Date:
Sun, 17 Oct 1993 16:51:43 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Here is CHENH's version of the story as written by Deene Stephenson,
president of CHENH at the time. It was published and distributed at their
May 18, 1991 home education convention. I've taken the liberty of adding
some editorial comments.
Doris Hohensee
The New Hampshire Home Education Law
Senate Bill 373
Chapter 279 of the N.H. Education Law
by Deene Stephenson
I. Introduction
On April 28th, 1990, Governor Judd Gregg signed Senate Bill 373 into
law, making home education a legal alternative to public and private
education for New Hampshire citizens. The new law has been hailed by
the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) as "nothing short of
a miracle" and as being one of the best home education statutes in the
nation.
How did the new law come about, and what does it mean to home
educators in New Hampshire? Following is a brief history of the bill
and an overview of the major features of the law.
II. A Brief History
A Bill is Introduced
In October of 1989, Senator George Disnard, of Claremont, and
Representative Ellen-Ann Robinson, of Litchfield, introduced SB373
concerning home education. Disnard, a former superintendent of schools
in the Claremont area and the chairman of the Senate education
committee, was asked to sponsor the bill on behalf of the New
Hampshire School Boards and School Administrators Associations.
SB 373 called for the establishment of a home education program to be
administered by the Department of Education (D.O.E.). The bill would
have placed responsibility for overseeing home education directly on
the D.O.E., required pre-approval of all home education programs, and
imposed qualifications for parents to be approved.
[Editor: We didn't escape the above described onerous proposal.
Deceptive language was used to conceal any objections. Home
education is now administered by the Commissioner of Education,
he runs the D.O.E.; pre-approval is required via a "notification"
process to be initiated by August 1st and "acknowledged" by the
Commissioner; curriculum requirements must be met for approval. Only
parent qualifications were removed. It was politically impossible to
disqualify nearly all parents and then seek their support.]
Immediate Opposition Mounts
A member family of HSLDA contacted Michael Smith, HSLDA's Hew
Hampshire counsel, to express their concerns about the legislation.
Smith immediately contacted the bill's sponsor and flew up from
Virginia to meet with Disnard, Robinson, representatives from the
Department of Education, and the lobbyist for the N.H. School Boards
and School Administrators Associations.
Smith challenged the major premises of the bill and submitted an
alternative proposal with a notification procedure instead of an
approval process. When Disnard realized that neither home educators
nor the D.O.E. supported the bill, he became annoyed and retorted,
"Then, give me a bill!" On returning to Virginia, Smith contacted Dan
Gable, president of the Christian Home Educators of NEw Hampshire
(CHENH) to alert him to the situation.
An Alliance is Formed
On November 18th the leadership of four state-wide home education
organizations met in Bedford to develop a plan of action.
Representatives included Elaine Rapp, of the New Hampshire Home
Educators Association [Ed.: NHHEA never was a group of more than one
member]; Mary Faiella, of the New Hampshire Homeschooling Coalition
[Ed.: NHHC's reputation is questionable. In 1991 half the board of
representatives left in protest of Ms. Faiella's actions. Ms. Faiella
is an ex-public school teacher married to a current public school
teacher, who now oversees home education programs for an entire school
district. She appeared at the time of the legislation out of nowhere.
To my knowledge has still had no homeschooling experience.]; Dan Gable
and Deene Stephenson, of the Christian Home Educators of New
Hampshire; and Richard Merriam [Ed.: His family was involved in
lengthy litigation over home education previously.] and George
D'Orazio, of the Catholics United for Home Education.
Thus, an alliance was formed which would meet frequently over the next
few months. The first issue that had to be decided was whether home
educators should try to (1) kill the hostile bill and hope for the
best in another go-around with the rulemaking process, or to (2)
pursue the legislative route by developing an alternative bill. After
much deliberation, the legislative route was chosen. After all, there
was little to lose. The previous year's battle in the rulemaking
process almost resulted in significantly greater restrictions.
Precedents set in other states indicated that favorable laws can be
passed and that a law tends to carry more weight than rules. At the
very least, home education ought to be made a legal option.
[Ed.: N.H. had been allowing home education for nearly a decade at
this point. There was no real question of it being allowed to
continue.]
At the first meeting with Disnard and representatives from education
organizations in New Hampshire, the alliance submitted a proposed bill
which would be acceptable to home educators. Disnard accepted the
proposal and, setting aside the original bill, declared that he would
be using our proposal as the starting point for discussion!
Several meetings later, however, it seemed like much ground had been
lost. We were considering leaving everything to rulemaking and
lobbying to kill the original bill. Then the turning pooint came when
Patricia Busselle, the legislative liasion for the D.O.E., suddenly
seemed to do an about-face and volunteered to draft a formal amendment
with all of the provisions we wanted. The bill ttat resulted needed
more work, but she advised us to support its passage in the Senate and
plan to clean it up when it got to the House. Disnard agreed to
support our amendment, and the race was on!
On January 30th, 1990, about 125 home educators attended a public
hearing to support the amendment to the bill. Disnard was overwhelmed!
He noted that this was one of the largest crowds that had ever turned
out to support a bill he had sponsored! On February 8th, the Senate
voted *unanimously* in favor of the bill!
[Ed.: I had the honor of being the sole dissenter. Sen. Disnard had a
good laugh. What is it that P.T. Barnum said was born every minute?
I'm from Barnum's hometown, I know the answer to this one. They sure
packed 'em in.]
A Battle in the House
The bill's unexpected success in the Senate did not reduce concerns
about a second battle in the House of Representatives. How would we be
able to reach over 400 representatives and convince them to support
our bill?
Nevertheless, news of the bill's success in the Senate spread quickly
throughout the state, and home educators rallied to support it.
Anne-Marie Waechter, a homeschooler from North Hampton who had
attended a legislative breakfast in Connecticut, caught a vision for
the impact that a similar effort in New Hampshire could have. In a
very short time, eight legislative breakfasts and forums were
organized by local support groups, and legislators were invited to
attend.
The response was favorable. About ten percent of the legislators
attended and most of them came away with a positive impression of home
schooling.
Meanwhile, the alliance of home education leaders continued to meet
with state officials to "clean up" parts of the proposed legislation.
Provisions were added for a due process hearing procedure and the
establishment of a home education advisory council (HEAC) modeled
after the highly successful Non-Public School Advisory Council
(NPSAC).
[Ed.: Highly successful in keeping private schoolers in line: they are
the State's "overseers." NPSAC wrote rules giving the D.O.E.
regulatory control over private education which exceeds N.H. law.]
Indeed, it was this last provision that won the support of Patricia
Skinner, chairwoman of the House Education Committee. Momentum was
picking up, and we were getting affirmative responses from other
representatives.
[Ed.: No kidding. They were totally snowed.]
Homeschoolers Pack Public Hearing
The public hearing in the House was scheduled for March 15th in room
202 of the Legislative Offices Building. Efforts to have the hearing
moved to the Hall of Representatives because of the expected large
turnout seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Thursday, March 15th arrived. Homeschoolers converged on Concord like
a swarm of locusts on a hayfield. Excitement ran high as legislators
found it difficult to find their way through the dense crowd on the
steps and in the lobby of the Legislative Offices Building. Then the
news cam: The hearing was being moved to the Hall of Representatives
after all! A parade of exuberant families marched across the street
with expectancy, and over 300 home educators occuupied the very seats
from which their legislators debate and deliberate.
On hand to testify in support of the bill were Sam Peavey, a retired
professor of education from Kentucky, and Michael Smith, of HSLDA.
Judy Thayer, chairwoman of the State Board of Education, and CHarles
Marston, Commissioner of Education, also testified in support of the
bill. Spirits ran high as dozens of parents and children took the
stand - enthusiastic students of our government in action!
Victory at Last!
[Ed.: I had the further honor of being the only one objecting at this
point too. My only question is "whose victory was it?"]
Twelve days later, on March 27th, SB373 came before the full House for
consideration. A small delegation of home educators occupied the
balcony to witness the proceedings. A half hour of lively debate
ensued, and then the vote was taken: 301 to 27! A 92 percent majority!
[Ed.: Well, for what it's worth, I got my representative to be one of
the 27.]
Well, that's the story in a nutshell. It was an exciting and rewarding
venture and an education for everyone. Our system of government really
can - and does - work when we all work together. Thank to everyone who
took an active part in this remarkable effort. Few bills get
completely rewritten as did this one. Praise be to God!
III. Features of the Law
The home education law contains five key provisions that take effect
as follows:
Effective July 1, 1990:
1) Home education becomes a legal option.
2) The Home Education Advisory Council (HEAC) is established.
Effective July 1, 1991:
3) Parents choose one participating agency with whom they will
be in contact:
a) Local public school
b) Private school
c) Department of Education
4) Notification replaces approval.
5) Parents choose one of four options for annual evaluation:
a) Written evaluation by a teacher
b) Standardized test of the parent's choice
c) Standardized test administered by the local school
district
d) Any other means of evaluation agreed upon by the
parent and participating agency
1) Home education becomes a legal option.
[Ed.: It was never at risk.]
The new law makes home education a legal alternative to attendance at
a public or private school. This is clearly stated in the compulsory
attendance law (RSA 193:1), and replaces the old regulations that
permitted home education under what is called the "manifest
educational hardship" clause.
2) The Home Education Advisory Council (HEAC) is established.
This council is modeled after the highly successful Non-Public School
Advisory Council (NPSAC) that was established about fifteen years ago.
The council consists of twelve members: Six, including the
chairperson, represent home educators; and the others represent the
Department of Education and various educational associations.
[Ed.: The chairperson can't vote, so home educators have no majority
here. Besides which they can only advise the Commissioner, they have
no authority. As the Commissioner appoints all members, it's an
orchestrated farce.]
The council's purpose is to make recommendations to the State Board of
Education concerning regulations, inform the board of developments in
home schooling, and deal with home schoolers' grievances.
[Ed.: We now have State "overseers" for home education.]
3) Parents choose a participating agency with whom they will be in
contact.
Parents may now select a participationg agency to whom they will
notifiy and submit evaluation results about their home education
program. The participating agency may be a local school district, an
approved private school, or the Department of Education. Participation
by private schools is strictly voluntary, and they may charge a fee
for providing the service.
A survey taken during the legislative effort showed that 40% of home
educators prefer to work with a private school. However, nearly 50%
still prefer to continue working with their local school district.
Less than 2% indicated a desire to deal directly with the D.O.E.
[Ed.: A survey of whose membership? Of course, the Commissioner
retains ultimate authority regardless of who they choose to work
with.]
4) Notification replaces approval.
Parents are no longer required to seek approval to teach their
children at home. The new law reuires that an annual notification and
evaluation be submitted to the participating agency. Elimination of
approval focuses evaluation of a home eduation program on the outcome,
not on arbitrary judgments by a local district superintendent of its
likelihood to succeed.
The notification procedure requires the parent to provide basic
biographical information and a copy of an education plan to the chosen
participating agency. The education plan consists of a scope and
sequence of the subjects and topics that will be covered during the
school year. It must identify the curriculum being used and the name
of a correspondence or satellite school, if applicable.
Notification is normally made by August 1st to the participating
agency. It is then forwarded to the commissioner of education, who
must acknowledge receipt of the notification within 21 days.
[Ed.: In reality, he "may" acknowledge, a crucial difference.]
Parents may initiate a home education program during a school year as
long as they provide the required information within 30 days of
notifying the State of their intent.
5) Parents choose one of four options for annual evaluation.
The law directs the parent to maintain a portfolio of the child's
schoolwork. The portfolio may be used to assist in evaluation of the
child's progress and must be kept for two years.
At the end of each school year, the parent is required to have the
child's progress evaluated. Unlike the old regulations, however, the
new law provides four options from which the parent may choose. The
choices are as follows:
[Ed.: The old regulations didn't "require" any evaluations.]
(1) Written evaluation by a teacher
Any certified teacher or teacher currently teaching in a nonpublic
school may be chosen by the parent to evaluate the child and submit
the evaluation to the oversight party.
(2) Standardized test of the parent's choice or
(3) Standardized test administered by the local school district
Any nationally-normed test administered according to the provider's or
publisher's criteria is acceptable. A composite score at the fortieth
percentile will be deemed reasonable progress.
Some home educators object to the fortieth percentile cutoff. This
factor was reached as a compromise taking the following into
consideration:
a) The parent may choose an option other than standardized
testing.
b) Studies show that home-educated students attain an average
score in the 66th percentile,which is well above the national
average of 50 percent.
c) A score less than the 40th percentile may be deemed
acceptable progress if it reflects progress over previous
performance for a child with a learning disability.
[Ed.: No. That's not what the law states. The law can be interpreted
to mean that if you have a "gifted" child and his progress isn't good
enough for the evaluators, even the 40th percentile won't cut it. It
is very vague and ambiguous.]
d) If a due process hearing is called, the parent will be
allowed a one-year remediation period to make up for a
learning deficiency.
(4) Any other means of evaluation agreed upon by the parent and
overseer.
[Ed.: !!!]
You may propose an alternative mode of evaluation that is mutually
agreeable.
[Ed.: If you can't agree on an evaluation method or results, you have
no recourse but the 40th percentile and "progress comensurate with
the child's age and ability." Whatever that means!]
NOTE: Rules for the evaluation process have not yet been written and
may not be complete until early 1992.
Other Features
Other features of the law include the following:
* Curriculum requirements, beyond the basic subjects, are not
imposed.
[Ed.: In reality the curriculum requirements combined with evaluation
allow the Commissioner to dictate every detail of a curriculum, if he
so chooses.]
* Parental qualifications are not imposed.
* Homeschooling at the high school level is not restricted.
[Ed.: Neither parental qualifications nor high school were a problem
with the old regulations.]
* A one-year probationary period must be granted for
remediation in the case of unacceptable academic progress.
[Ed.: And then what? Public school, that's what.]
* A grievance procedure and due process hearing procedure
gives parents specific rights.
[Ed.: We had these rights before.]
Curriculum requirements, beyond the basic subjects, are not imposed.
Basic subjects include science, mathematics, language, government,
history, health, reading, writing, spelling, and exposure to art and
music. Parents are free to select curriculum of their choice, whether
it is secular or religious-based.
Parental qualifications are not imposed.
If a parent organizes an education program as required by the law,
they cannot be prevented from carrying it out based on their lack of a
hgih school diploma or college degree. Again, the focus is on the
results of the education program. The issue is, "Did it work?",
versus, "Will it work?".
Homeschooling at the high school level is not restricted.
Homeschooling special needs children is not denied.
According to the proposed rules, a parent is eligible to establish a
home education program for a child between six and sixteen years of
age including an "educationally handicapped child" as defined under
RSA 186-C. Although parents of handicapped children are not prdevented
from teaching them at home, they are not necessarily eligible to
receive special services.
[Ed.: The law does not specifically protect "educationally handicapped
children."]
Remediation
The law requires that a parent be given a one-year probationary period
to provide remedial instruction for the child when the evaluation does
not show acceptable educational progress.
Due Process Hearing Procedure
The commissioner of education may schedule a due process hearing for
several reasons:
1) If the parent does not provide all of the information
required for commencing a home education program
2) If the commissioner has "written and substantiated
information which strongly implies that a home education
program will not meet the requirements of" the law
[Ed.: This allows the Commissioner to terminate a home education
program for any reason he sees fit.]
3) If the evaluation shows that the education program has
failed substantially, even after a one-year probationary period
In order to terminate a home education program, the State has the
burden of proving that the parent has failed to comply with the
notification and [Ed.: "AND" should be "OR"] evaluation reuqirements
of the law or that an education program has substantially failed.
The parent may appeal a negative judgement to a court of competent
jurisdication, and may continue the home educaiton program pending the
appeal.
Message 6
Subject:
Re: NH Home Education Law
Date:
Mon, 18 Oct 1993 00:02:25 -0400
From:
PHIKLEPP@ACS.EKU.EDU
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I think Doris Hohensee has misunderstood my comments on the NH law
thread as somehow defending HSLDA or CHENH. I intended rather to be
writing about the character of the discussion on this list. She is
probably correct when she suggests that the relative lack of legal
burdens on Kentucky homeschoolers reduces my sensitivity to what may be
truly offensive laws. Let me make my view as clear as possible on this
point: _no_ state has a legitimate right to inspect or approve
curriculum, license or approve instructors, or interfere in other ways
with a law-abiding homeschooling family. I don't know whether "all"
testing requirements are illegitimate, primarily because I don't yet
understand when/where/why/how performance testing became so standard in
public education that it became part of the law in some states. I
happen to believe that performance testing results are essentially
meaningless as measures of learning, but such practical objections are
irrelevant when the state demands accountability.
To return briefly to the NH law discussion, I want Doris H. to know that
her comments on the construction of homeschooling legislation are very
enlightening, perhaps even frightening. (I thought, naively, that state
legislators everywhere had much better things to do than to rein in
homeschoolers with particular laws.) My questions on the relative roles
of CHENH and HSLDA in the legislative process have produced valuable
fruit; I am not yet convinced that HSLDA is a perniciously tyrannical
oligarchy feasting on homeschoolers' "pounds of flesh," but I will take
HSLDA's judgments of legislation with more grains of salt than I used
to. And I hope the HSLDA folk who are reading this will take any steps
needed to insure moderation in making public generalizations about
homeschoolers.
-Gene Kleppinger --> phiklepp@acs.eku.edu