The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 5)

1. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Doris Hohensee

2. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Greg Wolff

3. NH Home Education Law
EDWARD GREER

4. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Doris Hohensee

5. NH Home Education Law
Steve Rogers

6. Ms. Hohensee, HSLDA & political speech
Greg Wolff

7. CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Alan R. Fiebig

8. CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Doris Hohensee

9. CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Alan R. Fiebig

10. NH Home Education Law -Reply
Scott Somerville

11. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment -Reply
Scott Somerville

12. Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Scott Somerville

13. NH Home Education Law -Reply
Steve Rogers

14. Re: Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Guerney D. H. Hunt

15. Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Greg Wolff

16. State Constitutional Amendments: NH & Kansas
Greg Wolff

17. Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Steve Rogers

18. NH Parental Rights Amendment
Doris Hohensee



Message 1

Subject: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 11:07:19 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com


This the first in a series of political activity in New Hampshire over the last three years to reverse the effects of our 1990 home education law. This first attempt was an end run around the entire issue. We intended to make the entire law moot.

Doris Hohensee



In 1991 we submitted the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) to the N.H. legislature. It is essentially the same as the Beckner amendment to the Kentucky constitution which states:

"... NOR SHALL ANY MAN BE COMPELLED TO SEND HIS CHILD TO ANY SCHOOL TO WHICH HE MAY BE CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED."

While the official position of the CHENH board of governors was neither to support nor oppose the PRA, one of the bill's sponsors in the N.H. House of Representative told us that many Christian home educators called his committee requesting that he withdraw his support. They refused to go on record in their opposition. Their leadership did nothing to make the issues clear to them. In their newsletter they called it the Parental Choice Amendment, perhaps subconsciously linking it with either the pro-choicers (pro-abortionists) or choice-in-education (pro-vouchers).

HSLDA advised state home education leaders that our PRA was ill advised. They said that the original Kentucky amendment resulted in a favorable court interpretation due to the debate of the sponsors at the time of enactment. There would be no guarantee that we could expect the same favorable outcome here in N.H., they said.

We were fully conscious of this fact and had researched the entire Kentucky constitutional convention in some detail. We had procurred the original manuscript from Kentucky on the convention to thoroughly ensure the proper intent.

Below is a short q&a and two articles we published in our newsletter about the amendment.



1) WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT DO? It deregulates private education. Under the amendment, neither the method nor content of private education can be dictated by the State.

2) WHY DO WE NEED THIS AMENDMENT? As we address problems with the current education system in our state and nation, we must clearly define what rights are involved before changes are made. It's all too easy to trample parental rights of conscience in our zeal to fix the mess we're in.

3) AREN'T THESE RIGHTS RESPECTED IN N.H. ALREADY? No. In 1784, it was obvious to all that parents had these rights. Things have changed in 207 years. We need an amendment now to clearly establish them by law; it's far past due.

4) WHAT IMPACT WILL THE AMENDMENT HAVE? It will, first and foremost, allow parents to feel secure from State interference when selecting alternatives to public schools. It will also relieve the State of the cost of trying to regulate private education.

5) COULDN'T A PARENT OBJECT TO EVERYTHING, AND NOT EDUCATE HIS CHILD? No. That wouldn't be *conscientious* opposition. Compulsory education isn't abolished; it's just deregulated.

6) DOES THE AMENDMENT RESTRICT STATE MONITORING OF EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES? No restrictions are placed upon evaluation. Note, however, that all educators, public and private, must be held equally accountable under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

7) WILL THE AMENDMENT MANDATE FUNDING FOR ANY FORM OF EDUCATION A PARENT CHOOSES? No. The amendment allows a parent to select an unregulated alternative to public school; it doesn't authorize or mandate funding of non-public education.

8) ISN'T REGULATION NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE EDUCATING CHILDREN? No. Parents have proven to be better regulators of private schools than overworked state employees. It's the parents' money, after all. History has shown that parents demand value for their dollars.

9) COULD ANYTHING ABOUT PRIVATE EDUCATION BE REGULATED? Yes. Reasonable health, fire, and safety regulations are not prohibited.

10) WILL THE AMENDMENT CHANGE PUBLIC EDUCATION? Not directly. The rules, laws, and procedures regulating public education are not affected. It can, indirectly, make public education more responsive to community standards and preferences.

* 11) WOULD THE AMENDMENT PROVIDE A WAY TO OPT OUT OF "OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION" (OBE) ? Since curriculum could not be regulated for private education, OBE would be restricted to value-neutral things such as "Can you read this?" or "Can you fill out a tax form?"

* This question has been added since our 1991 legislative effort.



The following is excerpted from November 1990 issue of our newsletter, N.H. PURE Forum:



The Beckner Amendment: The Priority of Parental Rights

"... Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed." (The Beckner Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution, Section 5)

This amendment codifies the principle that while the State has an interest in the education of its citizens, the rights of conscience of the parent command priority.

How many times have parents been confronted by the education establishment without having their rights respected?

Home schooling parents in N.H. must seek permission from the state each year in order to educate their own children. Yet it is their unalienable right as responsible parents to raise and guide the education of their children as they see fit. The Beckner Amendment would ensure that right.

Parents of "special needs" or "learning disabled" children are particularly vulnerable to the overwhelming control exerted by teams of "specialists" who often leave parents out of the decision making process. Experts are human and thus fallible, yet parents have little recourse from their dictates. If a parent chooses not to accept the prescribed treatment or drug therapy, they can be accused of negligence. Many of these children are perfectly normal, but are reacting badly to the over-stressed learning environment or methodologies of current public education. A codifed child commands large amounts of additional federal and state funding for a school district. When money and control conflict with the best interests of a child, parents should have the ultimate right to intercede on his behalf and withdraw him from any offensive program. Their rights should be acknowledged without resort to costly litigation, as is now often the case. The Beckner Amendment would ensure those rights.

When public school programs conflict with family values, parents should have the right to oppose or withdraw their children from them. Whether it be death awareness, sex education, or a particular offensive textbook, parents' rights of conscience should take priority over the State's interest in education. The Beckner Amendment would ensure those rights.

Wittingly or not, many schools have alienated children from their parents' values and heritage, while failing to teach the basic skills necessary for a productive life in a free society. Back in 1978, U.S. Senator Hayakawa warned that "schools have become vehicles for heresy that rejects the idea of education as the aquisition of knowledge and skills" but "regards the fundamental task in education as therapy." School inquiry into the attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of their charges is a serious invasion of privacy. Teachers are not psychoanalysts.

"... We do not know what may arise in the future in the zeal of those who come after us; and they may attempt to compell persons who are conscientiously opposed to the public schools to send their children to them, fixing pains and penalties for refusal."

These words of warning were spoken in 1890 at the Constitutional Convention in Kentucky. The dangers of compulsory school attendance were forseen by these statesmen. Forced schooling did not exist in Kentucky at that time. A child was educated primarily at the family hearth, since even formal schools were in session only twelve weeks a year.

"The family is the proper unit; and I think a good many gentlemen who have spoken will bear me out in the statement that the head of the family is the unity of government in this country, and the family have some rights which ought to be respected and cannot be invaded, and if there are not enough inducements for a man to send his child to school, the government ought not to interfere..."

The Kentucky Supreme Court recognized that public education should not "uniformly develop (children) socially and morally in the same educational mold. State controlled homogeneous schools have provided a fertile field for the growth of totalitarian governments." The Court went on to cite Adolf Hitler's recommendations in Mein Kampf as part of the case against State control of education. It is important to note that the N.H. legislature is required only to "encourage" the interests, not dictate the content, of education (Art. 83,N.H.Const). Many over-zealous legislators and education officials in N.H. fail to understand the meaning of the word "encourage".

With the Beckner Amendment, the N.H state government would have to follow Kentucky's example by deregulating private, parochial, and home schools. They would finally be "private", meaning "not of the state". None but reasonable fire, health, and safety standards could be required, and that in institutional settings only. Parents would no longer be compelled to accept "unacceptable" educational choices, even within public schools.

Innovation would flourish, as private educators would be free to teach what and as they saw fit. The state education monopoly would finally be put in their proper constitutional place. We know that all monopolies "tend to hinder or destroy." Free and fair competition, is an "inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected." (Art.83,N.H.Const). Monopolies breed abuse despite the best of intentions, especially those enforced through government power.

State deregulation of non-public education would encourage the pursuit of pluralistic educational goals. School regulation restrains "departure from orthodox methodologies." They "become sacrosanct and compulsory like the Ptolomeic view of the solar system, before the evidence is in..." (Freedom's Two Educational Imperatives: A Proposal, in Public Controls for Nonpublic Schools by Donald Erickson, former Professor of Education at the University of Chicago)

Parents willing to assume responsibility for their children's education should be aided by the State, not treated as lawbreackers. A conscientiously devoted parent or teacher working directly with a child knows far better what to do to encourage his educational development than any remote administrator.

"It is the primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children." (Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 1972)

It is within the privacy of the home, more than any public institution, where a child's character and intelligence are formed. It is the responsibility and right of parents, in the free exercise of conscience, to choose and direct the education of their children. Diversity and that exercise are the qualities that make real alternatives in education possible. Parents, no less that the State, can be relied upon to choose or provide for their children a healthy, safe, supportive, and challenging environment in which to grow and learn. (Adapted from Conscientious Opposition by Daniel Goldberg, Kentucky Home School Congress).

Public, private, and home educators are being over-controlled and over-regulated. The creativity, flexibility, and potential outcome of our efforts are thus seriously limited. By removing their child from any public school class that they are conscientiously opposed to, parents could positively direct their child's education. Through free choice of an unregulated private school, they could select a genuine educational alternative. By educating their children at home, they could assume complete responsibility for their children's education.

Getting the Beckner Amendment through the legislature will be our primary objective. We need to join together to defend the rights of all parents, whether they choose public, private, or home education for their children.



The Right of Parental Liberty and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." (Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 1925)

The liberty of parents to guide the education of their children is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To override this fundamental right, the State must demonstrate that its requirements are necessitated by a compelling state interest and that any such interest be accomplished by the least burdensome means.

What is the State's compelling interest in education? Education is necessary to prepare children to participate effectively and intelligently as citizens in our open political system, as well as to ensure their self-reliance and sufficiency as adults. Yet should forced schooling be visited upon our children? Absence of any compelling State interest is evident in the failure of public school systems across the country in achieving these ends. Uniform public education promotes conformity, not the pluralistic diversity, which has been historically recognized as the inherent strength of the people of this Nation. "Restricting parental liberty chokes diviersity and pluralism upon which our country was founded and for which many have given their lives..." (Bright vs. Isenbarger, 1970;). "The concept of individual freedom of mind is assured only when privacy and ideological self-determination are not hindered." (West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943).

Excessive regulation is also unconstitutional. The State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that its regulations are the least burdensome means to achieve its compelling interests, such as they are.

The 14th Amendment prohibits vague or discretionary enforcement of laws. Laws must provide explicit standards to prevent ad hoc, subjective, arbitrary, or discriminatory application. To avoid the vagueness strictures of the due process clause from applying (since the compulsory schooling law can lead to parents' loss of their children) terms such as "private school" require definition. N.H. statute has not defined "private school" other than as "non-public". A private school should be defined to include any place where learning occurs other than a public school. This would include formal or informal instruction or apprenticeship in the home or elsewhere.





Message 2

Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 13:13:05 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 18-Oct-1993 1308"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Would you please post the full text of the constitutional ammendment that you mentioned in this posting?
"NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment"

Thank you!

Greg Wolff



Message 3

Subject: Re: NH Home Education Law
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 13:23:13 -0400
From: "EDWARD GREER - GREERED@APPSTATE.EDU"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



For what it is worth - I agree with David Hanson and the New Hampshire folks could have a difficult situation to deal with.



Message 4

Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 23:11:49 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



>
> Would you please post the full text of the constitutional ammendment
> that you mentioned in this posting?
> "NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment"
>
> Thank you!
>
> Greg Wolff
>
The following was submitted to the legislature in 1991:


Article 4-a. "No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed."

Legal council at legislative services attempted to undermine us by insisting on two substantive changes. Legislative services is the organization which formally drafts and tracks bills. It is in fact an extension of the leadership. Said leadership frequently has bills altered as it sees fit. Enough go rounds like this and your bill is defacto killed due to lack of time to consider it.

First, they altered it to amend article 83 of the state constitution which addressed "Encouragement of literature, etc.", ie, education, rather than article 4 which addresses "Rights of Conscience," as we specified. The significance of this is immediately obvious.

Second, they altered the amendment to read:

"No person shall be compelled to send any child for whom such person is legally responsible to any school to which such person is conscientiously opposed."

This change they explained as "necessary" because of the legal implications of the terminology had changed over the years. The significance of this change is more subtle. It was pointed out to me by another homeschooling mother of seven who specializes in the legal aspects of child abuse laws. This would have been very useful to the State child abuse police should they decide to remove your child from your home. It would have allowed State-appointed custodians to usurp your parental rights without even terminating them in a court of law.

Finally, they changed 'may be' to 'is'. This change puts the burden of proof on the petitioner rather than the government.

Although we lost, we feel it was a good initial attempt. Over one hundred people turned out to support the amendment at the public hearing spilling out into the hallways with several hundred more signing petitions and calling the committee in support. All testimony was in favor of the measure with the exception of two lobbyists: the N.H. ACLU and N.H. School Boards Association. Note well the former: the ACLU is no friend of anyone trying for genuine, rather than superficial, liberty.

The Constitutional and Statutory Review committee vice-chairman promised our bill's sponsor, who was a member of this committee, that they would wait for him to return from out of state before voting on his bill. They proceeded as soon as he had left. The chairman knew that our support was growing and shrewdly managed to have the "correct" committee members present for the vote. Our amendment was narrowly defeated (6-5) in committee with the minimum quorum present. The chairman went so far as to delay a vote until two of our votes were out of the room. The committee vote was stacked, we should have won. Slime politics in action.

Then we watched the vice-chairman of the committee actively orchestrate lobbyists to oppose the measure. Lobbyists stopped legislators on their way to vote on the floor of the House to tell them that our measure would fiscally ruin town budgets. A bald-faced lie, that one: it would have had no fiscal impact, of course.

We listened as Rep. Ellen-Ann Robinson, co-sponsor of the 1990 home education law, who had removed her support of the home education bill at the end because it wasn't restrictive enough, lied on the floor of the House. She claimed the amendment wasn't necessary as our Home Education law was one of the "best in the nation" and that it presented no problem for parents. The transcript of this floor fight was subsequently 'lost', an unheard of event. Very convenient for our opposition, of course. With no record, falsehoods uttered on the floor couldn't be subsequently exposed.

Legislative leadership absolutely did not want our amendment. They put so much pressure on one of our sponsors at the last minute, that he was afraid to speak out on the floor of the House as he had promised. During the vote the speaker of the House 'overlooked' a motion for a roll call vote. When it was finally reconsidered on the floor on the following day, due to the overlooked roll call vote, it was determined that the House had inadvertently passed the amendment in their haste to put it to rest. The speaker had forgotten which motion he was considering, to pass or to kill it. With some embarrassment leadership straightened things out and the amendment was finally killed.

When we submit the amendment again we will change the wording to:

"No parent shall be compelled to raise or educate his child in any manner to which he may be conscientiously opposed."

This will broaden the protection for parents as both education and child abuse establishments threaten our rights. Every state should have this amendment.

Doris Hohensee



The Jan/Feb 1991 issue of The NHHC News, The Newsletter of the New Hampshire Homeschooling Coalition contained an article by Mary Faiella on our proposed amendment:

[Ed.: Ms. Faiella, a public school teacher for ten years, has no homeschooling experience. Faiella does not support the right of parents to educate their children without State approval. According to her opposition, it was not only the disagreement over specific issues which lost Faiella support in 1991 when half the NHHC board left, but the deliberate manipulation and deception used to control the organization.

Disgruntled supporters cited the complete unwillingness of the NHHC to focus on the needs of homeschoolers and the NHHC's effective alignment with the interests of the Department of Education as reasons for the split. Her husband currently teaches public school and 'represents' home educators interests on the Home Education Advisory Council.]

"Michael Smith of the Home School Legal Defense Association pointed out that the 1890 debate on the Beckner amendment, and the context of the Beckner amendment as a part of Article V of the Kentucky Constitution, make it clear that the "conscientious objection" referred to hinges on religious conviction."

[Ed.: HSLDA doesn't have much sympathy for the secularists. A "conscientious objection" is a difficult item to prove and may require a demonstratable religious conviction. However the amendment specifies "*may* be conscientiously opposed." This is quite different. One need only indicate that there "may be" a problem to which you are conscientiously opposed.]

"Mr. Smith further noted that the Beckner amendment itself has been interpreted by the Kentucky Supreme Court (KY 589SW2d887) to mean what in 1890 its sponsor, William Beckner, said it meant, which was that although parents should not have to send their children to a school to which they might by conscientiously opposed, they may in Kentucky be compelled to send their children to some formal school."

[Ed.: From my understanding of the results of Kentucky State v. Rudasill case in 1979, home educators now operate as private schools in Kentucky, without teacher certification, without any required textbooks and without any monitoring whatsoever. That's not a bad start.]



The following is the verbatum text we submitted to the N.H. Legislature:



1991 Session


CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8

INTRODUCED BY: Rep. Robert Ouellette, R-Manchester

REFERRED TO: Constitutional and Statutory Review Committee

RELATING TO: conscientious objection to method and content of education

PROVIDING THAT: No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.



ANALYSIS


This constitutional amendment-concurrent resolution prohibits the government from compelling any parent to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.


____________________

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO: conscientious opposition to education. PROVIDING THAT: no parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.


Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows:

I. That part first of the Constitution be amended by inserting after article IV the following new article:

[ART.] IV-a. [Prohibition of Compelling Method and Content of Education. No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.

II. That the above amendment proposed to the constitution be submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the state general election to be held in November, 1992.

III. That the selectmen of all towns, cities, wards, and places in the state are directed to insert in their warrants for the said 1992 election to the following effect: To decide whether the amendments of the constitution proposed by the 1991 session of the General Court shall be approved.

IV. That the wording of the question put to the qualified voters shall be: Are you in favor of amending the constitution to provide that no parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed?

V. That the secretary of state shall print the question to be submitted on a separate ballot or on the same ballot with other constitutional questions. The ballot containing the questions shall include 2 squares next to the question allowing the voter to vote "Yes" or "No." If no cross is made in either of the squares, the ballot shall not be counted on the question. The outside of the ballot shall be the same as the regular official ballot except that the words "Questions Relating to Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the 1991 General Court" shall be printed in bold type at the top of the ballot.

VI. That if the proposed amendment is approved by 2/3 of those voting on the amendment, it becomes effective when the governor proclaims its adoption.



Message 5

Subject: Re: NH Home Education Law
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 08:48:12 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



I've lost track of this debate now. Its become so wrapped up in specifics that I can't keep track of them all anymore. I do have a couple of general observations I'd like to toss out, though:

This type of conflict almost always arises when a group of people with an ideology get together with lawyers or politicians. Now don't assume you know what I'm going to say . . . because the typical assessment would be that ideologies cause problems, and that's not my point. *My* perspective of this problem is that: its a mistake to try to spread an ideology or educate the public using a legislative vehicle.

Our laws. by-and-large, reflect the sense of fairness of the average person. The average person is not comfortable with home-schooling, and many other individual rights. The solution to this lies in cultural activity, not legislative efforts. Even if laws were passed giving parents jurisdiction over their children, such rights would be constantly in jeopardy in a society where most people disagree with the law, or at least do not understand what it represents. Indeed, I think it would be lost on most folks to point out that some of these laws *in principle* transfer custody of children to the government. They're just not used to analyzing or thinking in principles, and they're already very sympathetic to the collectivist notion that government oversight is "safer".

Of course, we're all interested in living our lives and raising our children without fear. It seems a very abstract problem to change the culture of an entire country in order to feel safe in your own home - but that *is* the problem. Its easy to sympathize with the HSLDA when they are proud of tiny victories that still conceed the wrong premise - "See they're only going to cut off your arm at the elbow! How wonderful! They *were* going to cut it off at the shoulder! Maybe someday, they'll only be chopping off your hand!" Its also easy to sympathize with the home-schooler who says "but I don't conceed the premise that any of my arm should be cut off!".

The problem here is that legislation is not the forum to propogate the (correct) idea of individual rights. The right will ultimately be gained or lost in the culture, not in the statehouses. Legislation still reflects the sense of the culture, and that's what primarily needs to be changed, then the law will follow. The HSLDA is right in as much as you *are* better off with your arm only chopped off at the elbow. However, it is a mistake to think of this activity as advancing rights in any real sense. It is merely a stopgap measure. Rights embodied in the law are an expression of a culture's ideology. If the philosophy of a culture does not support freedom, then the documents guaranteeing freedom are simply scratchings on paper.

Ironically, I think education is the primary vehicle for cultural change. A bit of a catch-22 there. To get rid of them, the culture needs to change, but the culture needs to change to get rid of them . . .

SR
| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Center Drive
| srogers@mcc.com Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691



Message 6

Subject: Ms. Hohensee, HSLDA & political speech
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 08:53:15 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 18-Oct-1993 1158"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



I've seen a couple of days of postings on the topic of the "affiliation" between CHENH, HSLDA and The Teaching Home. Now I think I understand a little better.

In political matters there is clearly a brethrenly "affinity" between the above mentioned organizations. They work together on some activities to achieve some common goals, where common goals apply. When legal questions arise the state home schooling organizations will naturally ask HSLDA if they have any information... The same goes for the national readership of The Teaching Home.

But the use of the politically charged word "affiliation" seems intentional here as a means of slighting the various organizations and painting the HSLDA as a "tyrannical" group. The CHENH is painted, by use of this word, as a "subordinate" organization of HSLDA. Thus the actions and words of CHENH that are offensive to the unschooler(s) can be portrayed as the malicious intentions of HSLDA.

A very smooth political speech. As political speech it is well done. But it is about as true as the political speech of Madam President...

In this particular case Ms. Hohensee is saying that a law passed in New Hampshire is not the "good" law that HSLDA says that it is.

What Ms. Hohensee thinks is a good law is one that explicitly repeals the state laws on mandatory education. The compulsory school attendance laws are what Ms. Hohensee wants repealed. The passage of THAT law would be what she calls a good law.

I completely AGREE. I would love it! The only time that I've heard Michael Farris speak on the topic, he said that the long term goal of HSLDA was the repeal of these compulsory attendance laws.

But face it folks, it isn't going to happen any time soon. So, what we need are achievable BETTER laws that reduce the state's intrusion into our parental rights to educate our children as we see fit. HSLDA is working towards this objective, and doing a good job at the task.

I personally believe that the apparent slander of HSLDA is not appropriate. They are doing a good job in a _BAD_ situation.

Greg Wolff wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com a home schooling father from the peoples republic of Massachusetts Don't ask for approval, notify them



Message 7

Subject: CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 08:57:37 -0400
From: arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Gene,
To help back up Doris' comments on an association between CHEA, HSLDA, and The Teaching Home, I'd like to relate some happenings here in Wisconsin.

A number of years ago (I think about 8, I'd have to check) a grass roots organization formed to fight a very restrictive law that was forming in Wisconsin. This group was very effective in getting one of the best HSing laws enacted in the country. This group became Wisconsin Parents Association, and today serves a the political watchdog for the state (annual convention has around 1100 members attending, not sure what actual membership is). This group is secular in nature, serving two main functions: political watchdog and a referral to local support groups for new HSers (and holding an annual conference with vendors and speakers, both religious and secular). This group is VERY effective as a watchdog and has excellent knowledge and experiance in defending our HS rights.

A couple of years ago, a branch of CHEA formed in Milwaukee, WI, stating they were a new statewide group. The Teaching Home advertises that it wants every state to have a statewide support group, and that they are willing to help to this end, a noble endeaver. Upon checking, you will find that almost all of these statewide groups TTH has helped start are CHEAs or a derivative thereof. If you check the calendar of events, you will see a strong emphasis on CHEA state events. In the few years I have received TTH, they have never listed WPA events, but have always listed CHEA's events.

Shortly after CHEA forming in WI, they invited HSLDA in to represent 'Home Schoolers' in Wisconsin. Repeatedly they have made politicle blunders that WPA has had to do emergency mailings to their members to counteract CHEA/HSLDA actions. HSLDA, being out of state, are not aware of our intentions, desires, or alliances we have in place. They are not aware of who should be wined and dined, or who should be ignored so as to avoid giving them the appearance of authority. Ever since CHEA formed and brought the HSLDA into Wisconsin, we have had nothing but confusion and wasted effort in countering their actions, not to mention losing face with state government as a group that can not get our act together.

HSLDA presents themselves as representing ALL Wisconsin HSers without ALL of our permission. I feel HSLDA is a very worthwhile organization, but that they should limit themselves to defending home schoolers that are paid members requiring assistance in individual cases, and STAY OUT of state government.

In any case, I wanted to show another instance of association between CHEA-HSLDA-TTH. CHEA gets the foot in the state's door, HSLDA playes the politics, and Teaching Home performs the communications.

Less there be any doubt on anti-religious bias, I am personnaly a conservative fundamentalist Christian and the founder and director of a tri-county Christian home school support group. I personnaly will vouch for the fact that while WPA is a secular group, they are EXTREMLY inclusive. I have no fault against CHEA forming in Wisconsin for those Christians that strongly felt the need for a Christian support group (CHEA in WI happens to be much more exclusive than WPA). I simply resent them inviting HSLDA in to represent ME at a state level, and I resent TTH giving support and press to CHEA and HSLDA events while ignoring WPA.

For those interested, Growing Without Schooling (Washington State) has published a very good document showing the existance of the 'Four Pillars' and their inter-relatedness. If you need information on how to obtain a copy, let me know. (As a sideline, I am also in disagreement with 'Unschooling' methods, but defend their right to pursue as long as it does not negatively impact my rights.)

Alan



Message 8

Subject: Re: CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:48:40 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Undoubtedly a typo, the Four Pillars article appeared in Home Education Magazine which is based in Washington state. Growing Without Schooling is a newsletter published in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Doris



Message 9

Subject: Re: CHEA-HSLDA-TTH
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:19:08 -0400
From: arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



>Undoubtedly a typo, the Four Pillars article appeared in Home
>Education Magazine which is based in Washington state. Growing Without
>Schooling is a newsletter published in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
>
>Doris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stand corrected, I had the state right, the publication wrong. Thanks



Message 10

Subject: Re: NH Home Education Law -Reply
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 14:22:12 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Scott Somerville, at HSLDA, responding to SR's suggestion that we need to change the culture in order to win back the fundamental rights of families...

Good point!

Would you agree that having lots and lots of successful home schoolers is a good way to carry on the cultural mission?



Message 11

Subject: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment -Reply
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 14:26:26 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Scott, at HSLDA, responding to proposed NH Parental Rights Amendment...

I support Doris' proposed PRA. I will let CHENH know that I support it, although I don't know any of the new officers personally.

I do have one very sincere question for Doris, however. I think your current language would primarily act to let public school students object to compulsory attendance at public school classes which offend their family's values. I don't think it would provide a lot of legal basis for objecting to "content-neutral" regulation of private schools.

This may just be a restatement of Mike Smith's evaluation of the PRA when you first proposed it. If so, please believe me that this is not simply the "HSLDA party line," but is an honest legal opinion of the legal effect of proposed legal language. I do a lot of constitutional law.

The _Rudasill_ case in Kentucky (which was a great win for home schoolers) supports my reasoning. In _Rudasill_, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that home schools could not be regulated any MORE than any other private school, and held that private schools could only be regulated, in theory, by very content-neutral means. The court suggested that standardized tests might be an appropriate form of regulation. In practice, however, the State of Kentucky has never taken up the court's suggestion, so home schools are completely deregulated.

As an aside, a nationwide legal defense outfit that (up until recently) claims to defend home home schoolers "just like HSLDA" read the _Rudasill_ case without knowing the actual practice in Kentucky, and advised a new home schooling family to submit standardized test scores in order to get "permission" to home school. (These other guys are very sharp lawyers, but there is more to law than just reading the cases.)

So, although I fully support your PRA, Doris, I don't think it completely deregulates private and home schools. Do you think it does, or do you have more limited goals?



Message 12

Subject: Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 14:36:51 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Scott@HSLDA reporting on the Kansas PRA . . .

Kent Vincent, a Kansas attorney, is actively working with a group called QNET to get a PRA through in Kansas. HSLDA is working closely with him, to do what we can to help this pass. (HSLDA is NOT running the show, we are just trying to lend what assistance we can.) Steve Graber (who until recently was Rutherford's home school lawyer) is working closely with a group called QNET (mostly home schoolers) who are spearheading this.

*******************Kansas PRA*****************************

"The Legislature, subject to the fundamental rights of parents to exercise the primary right of parents to direct the education of their children shall provide for public schools.

"Nothing herein shall be construed to extend the power of state government to other than public school institutions. The freedom of parents and guardians to choose private, home, and other educational alternatives shall not be hindered by any state entity."

Another section reduces the power of the State Board from "all education in the State" to "all public education in the State."

******************End of Kansas PRA**********************



Message 13

Subject: Re: NH Home Education Law -Reply
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 14:41:10 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



> From: Scott Somerville
>
> Scott Somerville, at HSLDA, responding to SR's suggestion that we
> need to change the culture in order to win back the fundamental
> rights of families...
>
> Good point!
>
> Would you agree that having lots and lots of successful home
> schoolers is a good way to carry on the cultural mission?


Certainly. The more people that are actually educated, the better. The essence of the idea is that culture and philosophies are primary, and politics is a secondary expression of it. Repeal of compulsory attendance laws wouldn't hurt either - its just that I would say this is the means to the end of creating a culture that genuinely supports freedom, rather than an end in itself.

SR




Message 14

Subject: Re: Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 15:27:44 -0400
From: hunt@cs.cornell.edu (Guerney D. H. Hunt)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Every state should have a law that recognizes the parrents rights to educate and care for their children and limits the state education board to governing public education. Getting these laws passed will be a major political task. Even after they are passed, we will need to be concerned about the quality of education in public schools.



Message 15

Subject: Re: Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 15:52:49 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 19-Oct-1993 1533"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Guerney D. H. Hunt (hunt@cs.cornell.edu) writes:
> Every state should have a law that recognizes the parents rights to
> educate and care for their children and limits the state education
> board to governing public education...

One of the trying things about this situation is that at the beginning of the nation, "everybody knew" that the parents had the authority and responsibility to educate their children. The states had no right to intervene. Now, we are in the situation where the children are almost wards of the state and the parents have no fundamental rights.

Even so, the application of the principle of subsidiarity would lead me to say that there should not even BE a state board of education. This is a local task.

Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com



Message 16

Subject: State Constitutional Amendments: NH & Kansas
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:03:36 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 19-Oct-1993 1600"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me like the Kansas amendment is more likely to achieve the desired result than the New Hampshire amendment. Would it make sense to add to the New Hampshire amendment those features of the Kansas amendment that give it teeth?

I like the Kansas amendments mention of the "fundamental rights of parents..."

New Hampshire amendment:
> Article 4-a. "No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any
> school to which he may be conscientiously opposed."


> *******************Kansas PRA*****************************
>
> "The Legislature, subject to the fundamental rights of parents to
> exercise the primary right of parents to direct the education of
> their children shall provide for public schools.
>
> "Nothing herein shall be construed to extend the power of state
> government to other than public school institutions. The freedom
> of parents and guardians to choose private, home, and other
> educational alternatives shall not be hindered by any state
> entity."
>
> Another section reduces the power of the State Board from "all
> education in the State" to "all public education in the State."
>
> ******************End of Kansas PRA**********************


Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com



Message 17

Subject: Re: Kansas Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:14:29 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



> From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 19-Oct-1993 1533"
> . . . .
> Even so, the application of the principle of subsidiarity would lead me
> to say that there should not even BE a state board of education. This
> is a local task.

Application of the principle of individual rights leads me to say that there should be no involvement of government in education at all.

SR
| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Center Drive
| srogers@mcc.com Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691



Message 18

Subject: Re: NH Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:19:52 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



Wolff
: > But the use of the politically charged word "affiliation" seems
> intentional here as a means of slighting the various organizations and
> painting the HSLDA as a "tyrannical" group.


Hohensee:
The term "affiliation" is appropriate, not "tyrannical." I agree with Alan Fiebig who suggests that HSLDA limit themselves to defending families that specifically request and pay for their services and stop meddling in state politics outside their home state.

Wolff:
> What Ms. Hohensee thinks is a good law is one that explicitly repeals
> the state laws on mandatory education. The compulsory school attendance
> laws are what Ms. Hohensee wants repealed. The passage of THAT law
> would be what she calls a good law.

> I completely AGREE. I would love it! The only time that I've heard
> Michael Farris speak on the topic, he said that the long term goal of
> HSLDA was the repeal of these compulsory attendance laws.
>
> But face it folks, it isn't going to happen any time soon. So, what we
> need are achievable BETTER laws that reduce the state's intrusion into
> our parental rights to educate our children as we see fit. HSLDA is
> working towards this objective, and doing a good job at the task.

Hohensee: So "it isn't going to happen any time soon?" Leave the mess for our children to clean up? It will only be worse then. We need to set our goal and start by determining how many steps are required to accomplish it.

If you look at the Parental Rights amendment that we submitted: "No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed." Remove seven words. What do you get? No more compulsory attendance!

I couldn't simply "waltz" up to the legislature and say "No more compulsory attendance" please. Parents would go ballistic! They "need" public education for whatever reason. But I could legitimately ask them to respect my rights of conscience.

The Kansas version of the PRA deals with the issue head on as an education issue. In N.H. we were deliberately directing the discussion away from education and towards rights of conscience. This circumvented the education committees, which have been less than receptive to date.

Removal of compulsory attendance is a long-term goal. That was the debate in Kentucky in 1890: Whether or not to permanently prevent compulsory attendance. Eventually home educators need to complete the work that Mr. Knott tried to accomplish at the convention.

"I may be conscientiously opposed to sending my child to any school. I may want to educate it in the bosom of my family, or to allow it to grow up uneducated. And who makes my fellow-man my keeper? In that regard, I am responsible to my God." Knott

Why did HSLDA criticize our effort? Are they truly for the removal of compulsory education? I saw no evidence in N.H. This legislation wouldn't have affected their home education law at all. Or is it that only HSLDA decides when the appropriate "time" for new legislation is right, like Scott Somerville suggested.

Wolf:
> I personally believe that the apparent slander of HSLDA is not
> appropriate. They are doing a good job in a _BAD_ situation.

Hohensee:
Slander is the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation. I am only relating my personal experiences with HSLDA over the past three years.



Rogers:
> *My* perspective of this problem is that: its a mistake to try to
> spread an ideology or educate the public using a legislative vehicle.

Hohensee:
No. Hearings are held before the legislature in every state for that very reason: to encourage discussion of ideas in a public forum. It helps legislators understand the issues and problems that affect their constituents. It allows individual citizens to have a direct voice in their government.

It might be useful to remember that compulsory education, Prussian style schooling, was legislated in a top-down fashion. There's no reason we can't undo it in the same manner.

Many N.H. home educators talk in circles as their justification for doing NOTHING. Yes, life is tough. Stand up or sit down, you decide. My question is why HSLDA opposed all legislative action in N.H. even when it did not impact them, or more properly their client home educators, at all!



Somerville:

> I support Doris' proposed PRA. I will let CHENH know that I

> support it, although I don't know any of the new officers personally

.

Hohensee: Thank you. When I met you in 1991 at Steve Moitozio's convention at the Sheraton in Nashua, you opposed the PRA. Nice of you to change your mind, even if a bit late to undo the damage. In fact, how *does* HSLDA propose to undo the damage? Not only to the PRA, but to those efforts I shall describe in subsequent posts.

Somerville:
> I do have one very sincere question for Doris, however. I think your
> current language would primarily act to let public school students
> object to compulsory attendance at public school classes which offend
> their family's values. I don't think it would provide a lot of legal
> basis for objecting to "content-neutral" regulation of private
> schools.

> This may just be a restatement of Mike Smith's evaluation of the PRA
> when you first proposed it. If so, please believe me that this is not
> simply the "HSLDA party line," but is an honest legal opinion of the
> legal effect of proposed legal language. I do a lot of constitutional
> law.

> The _Rudasill_ case in Kentucky (which was a great win for home
> schoolers) supports my reasoning. In _Rudasill_, the Kentucky
> Supreme Court held that home schools could not be regulated any MORE
> than any other private school, and held that private schools could
> only be regulated, in theory, by very content-neutral means. The court
> suggested that standardized tests might be an appropriate form of
> regulation. In practice, however, the State of Kentucky has never
> taken up the court's suggestion, so home schools are completely
> deregulated.

> As an aside, a nationwide legal defense outfit that (up until
> recently) claims to defend home home schoolers "just like HSLDA" read
> the _Rudasill_ case without knowing the actual practice in Kentucky,
> and advised a new home schooling family to submit standardized test
> scores in order to get "permission" to home school. (These other guys
> are very sharp lawyers, but there is more to law than just reading the
> cases.)

> So, although I fully support your PRA, Doris, I don't think it
> completely deregulates private and home schools. Do you think it
> does, or do you have more limited goals?

Hohensee:
Your third paragraph contradicts your first and second, Scott. Since our PRA is identical to Kentucky's, and since, if passed, NH legislative history would clearly show identical intent, why wouldn't the result be the same in NH as it has been in Kentucky? Lawyers get good at arguing both sides of a question. Perhaps you've been at it too long. ;-)

_Rudasill_ had nothing to do with home schoolers. Read it again Scott. It had to do with *private* (and parochial) schools. Which, in my opinion, is the way it should be. To single out home educators as a different class in law is a monumental political mistake. Among other unintended results, it gives the opposition a way around the equal protection clause. In those cases such as NH, where private schools are regulated to the *same* extent as in Kentucky (i.e., hardly at all), it also provides a wedge into heavier regulation of private schools. Lawyers ought to stick to the law, and leave politics to the politicians. 1/2 :-)

Our intent was not, as I pointed out above and at length in previous posts, to completely deregulate private and home schools. It was to get a foot in the door to that happy condition *and* to do and end run around the education committees *and* to clearly associate freedom in education with rights of conscience. Classic salami tactics, with multiple benefits if we win. In point of fact, we came near to succeeding with the end run. Lack of the necessary number of bodies to lobby the legislature one-on-one *and* covert CHENH opposition *and* having our sponsers crap out in the endgame is what did us in. The opposition was in a panic the day of the vote. They turned out *all* their big guns to defeat us.