Alliance for Intellectual Freedom in Education

The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 6)

1. NH 1992: Back to the Education committee
Doris Hohensee

2. NH Parental Rights Amendment: clarification
Doris Hohensee

3. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Greg Wolff

4. Parental Rights Amendment
Scott Somerville

5. Communications problems.
Greg Wolff

6. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Tom Dillard

7. NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Steve Rogers

8. Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
Tom Dillard

9. Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
Steve Rogers

10. Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
David L. Hanson

11. Four Pillars Discussion
William McDonald

12. communications & information
Craig Peterson

13. Following the Constitution (was: Re:
Scott Somerville

14. NH 1992: Resolution requesting Supreme Court opinion
Doris Hohensee

15. UN Treaty of Children's Rights
Doris Hohensee

16. Four Pillars Discussion
Alan R. Fiebig

17. Four Pillars Discussion
Greg Wolff

18. NH 1993: CHENH's version of the story
Doris Hohensee

Message 1

Subject: NH 1992: Back to the Education committee
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:43:10 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

This is the second in a series on political activity in New Hampshire over the last three years to reverse the effects of our 1990 home education law. Our 1992 attempt was to provide "equal treatment under the law" for *all* educators: public, private and home.

One of the things our opponents accused us of during debate on the PRA was making an attempt to confuse rights of conscience and home education (hey, don't blame me for that oxymoron: *they* said it). They advised us to go back to the education committees: they would *surely* be sympathetic. So we did.

Using the home education law as a template, we quite trivially added public and private school educators to every section of the law where home educators were mentioned. We wanted to see how public and private school teachers would feel about complying with: curriculum approval, annual evaluations, probation for failure to perform, and potential termination of their programs (and jobs). We wanted to rub their noses in it: we wanted them to understand *exactly* what they had done to home educators. Passage of this law, unlikely though it was (since it put public education in a *very* hot seat *and* would have cost $96 million to monitor every child the way home schooled children are monitored), would have had *zero* effect on the legal status of home education.

Knowing that the bill had no chance of passage, given that it's primary purpose was to drive home the facts to the education committee, we prepared, in advance, an amendment that to repeal the current home education law, reclassified home educators as private educators (though still mentioning them specifically as a variant of private educator) and subjecting them to the same standards as private schools. Which is to say, *effectively none*. This was the most we thought politically possible. Equal protection has a *very* strong following: home education per se does not.

Should both the bill and the amendment fail, we requested that the legislature demand an opinion from the NH Supreme Court (both they and the governor have that power in this state) regarding the constitutionality of the current law. We had prepared a resolution detailing the problems with it. We checked this document out with some of the *local* high-powered bar (that means politically well-connected, btw), including an ex-Supreme Court justice. They agreed that the Court would almost certainly come down on our side. So, evidently, did the our opposition: this request was the primary focus of the education lobby's behind-the-scenes maneuvering (our *public* opposition came primarily from HSLDA and CHENH). Finally, our request served notice on the governor that should he attempt to enforce the current law, the first motion filed would consist of this exact resolution. Nothing like a bit of gentle intimidation.

We did deliberately remove the Home Education Advisory Committee (HEAC) from statute and recommend its establishment in education rules, to be totally consistent and equivalent to the "highly successful" (according to CHENH) Non-Public School Advisory Council (NPSAC) on which the HEAC is modeled. NPSAC is already defined in rules. We were, after all, writing a generic education bill. We could not favor one particular special interest group. The HEAC would still have retained their State "advisory" power and "overseer" role.

Additionally, we removed the interaction layer between the commissioner of education and parents. Not only does the layer require a mandated local expense (unconstitutional in NH), it has in any case no practical effect wrt evaluation and approval.

On the plus side for home educators, the bill, in section 193-A:7, II(a), gutted the evaluation requirement by allowing a *parent* to evaluate a child.

The bill HAD NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HOME EDUCATORS, yet hundreds of home educators rallied at the state capital in opposition. HSLDA misrepresented the bill as a very dangerous "hostile" attack on the current law. In their legislative bulletins to N.H. home educators, HSLDA encouraged them to defeat it. HSLDA neglected to mention that the bill was mostly written by one lil' ol' home educatin' mother.

Home educators spoke before the education committee in such ignorance of the facts that one committee member remarked that the current inequitable statute was necessary to protect children from such obvious stupidity. This legislator acknowledged that we were correct in our analysis of the current home education law. It is vague, ambiguous and generally unconstitutional. In spite of this, she of course voted against our proposal: there's power in numbers, even misled ones.

Most of the people in opposition at the hearing did not even read, let alone understand the bill (it appears that CHENH is a remarkably top-down organization). That didn't stop them from emphatically opposing it. They said our proposal was "poorly crafted" in comparision to the "well-crafted" and "divinely inspired" existing statute. The fact that the bill used language identical to existing law seemed a bit ironic to us ;-).

There was no rational discussion of the issues at the hearing, only frightened home educators pleading for the status quo. Some went so far as to get their younger kids (6 to 10 years old) into the act, something I personally object to on the grounds that the kids don't have any idea what they're promoting. Those particular people *used* their kids.

Fear and ignorance triumphed with a little help from HSLDA. After all, in 1990 HSLDA's lawyers came personally to our N.H. legislature and lobbied to get our current law enacted: they had to defend their law. They'd lose what credibility they have if they hadn't.

As a final note, we *did* attempt to meet with CHENH 'leaders' both before and during this legislative attempt. They wouldn't talk to us, let alone meet with us. They were all rather rude: one 'leader' went so far as to accuse one of us of being not-a-Christian (she's a Mormon). All we wanted was to discuss the issues civilly. We were rebuffed most emphatically.

Doris Hohensee

The text of the bill. The reader will find it helpful to place it and the current law (see a previous post) side by side. I'll post the resolution separately and the amendment as part of the description of our 1993 legislative effort.

CHAPTER 193-A EDUCATION OF CHILDREN; ALL EDUCATORS INCLUDED

193-A:1 Statement of Purpose. The general court recognizes that the enactment of RSA 193-A will ensure equal treatment before the law for all educators, whether they be public or private school teachers or parents at home.

193-A:2 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.

V. "Teacher" means either a person who is currently certified to teach in a public school or a person currently employed to teach in a nonpublic school.

193-A:3 Program Established.

There is established the education program to be administered by the department of education.

193-A:4 Rulemaking.

The state board of education shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to administering the education program.

193-A:5 Education; Defined; Curriculum Required.

I. Instruction shall be deemed 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.

II. The department of education shall work with the teacher or parents upon request in meeting the requirements of this section.

193-A:6 Notification and Other Procedural Requirements.

A teacher or parent may provide education to a child or children, subject to the following requirements:

I. The teacher or parent shall notify, by August 1 of each year, the commissioner of education of his intention to provide education. Any teacher, or any parent who moves into a school district after August 1, who desires to provide education shall immediately notify the commissioner of education of his intent to educate a child and shall comply with the requirements of this section within 30 days of such notice. Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:8, I, the commissioner of education shall acknowledge in writing that the teacher or parent shall be permitted to initiate an education program for a child if the program meets the minimum definitional and educational requirements as provided in RSA 193-A:5, I and II of this section.

II. Notification made by the teacher or parent pursuant to paragraph I shall include a list of the names, addresses and birth dates of all children who are participating in the education program and a list of the subjects to be taught each child in accordance with RSA 193-A:5, 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 an education program shall be filed by the teacher or parent with the commissioner of education within 15 days of said termination.

IV. Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:8, I, the commissioner of education shall acknowledge receipt of notification within 21 days of such receipt.

193-A:7 Records; Evaluation.

I. The teacher or parent shall maintain a portfolio of records and materials relative to the 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 teacher or parent for 2 years from the date of the ending of the instruction.

II. The teacher or 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, a teacher currently teaching in a nonpublic school, or a parent who is selected by the teacher or parent shall evaluate the child's educational progress upon review of the portfolio and discussion with the parent or child. The parent or teacher shall submit a written evaluation to the commissioner of education;

(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;

(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; or

(d) The child shall be evaluated using any other valid measurement tool mutually agreed upon by the teacher or parent and the commissioner of education. The results shall be reported by the teacher, parent or the testing agency to such appropriate official.

III. The commissioner of education shall review the results of the annual educational evaluation of the child in the 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 shall notify the teacher or parent, in writing, that such progress had not been achieved. The teacher or 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 the 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 teacher or 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 teacher or parent is entitled to a hearing a provided in RSA 193-A:8, 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 to the appropriate resident superintendent, who shall, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure that compulsory attendance requirements are met.

193-A:8 Hearing; Notice and Procedure.

I. Prior to the acknowledgment of notification as provided in RSA 193-A:6, I, if the commissioner has written and substantiated information which strongly implies that the education program will not meet the requirements of RSA 193-A:5, I and RSA 193-A:6, II and that, based on such information, the commissioner decides to withhold acknowledgment, 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 teacher or parent at such hearing shall establish, and the hearing officer shall so find, that both the teacher or parent and the education program will comply with RSA 193-A:5, I and RSA 193-A:6, II.

II. After acknowledgment of notification as provided in RSA 193-A:6, 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 teacher or 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 teacher or 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 education program.

IV. In order to terminate a program, the hearing officer shall find at the hearing at least one of the following:

(a) The teacher or parent has failed to comply with the requirements of this chapter; or

(b) The teacher or parent or the education program has substantially failed to or cannot provide the child with the minimum course of study as required by RSA 193-A:5, I.

193-A:9 Order; Appeals.

I. Subsequent to a hearing conducted in accordance with RSA 193-A:8, I or II, the hearing officer shall enter an order within 10 working days which shall order either the continuance or termination of the 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 teacher or 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 education program shall continue.

193-A:10 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 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, his teacher or parent, or any other person as a result of the child's receipt of 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.

Effective Date.

This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Message 2

Subject: NH Parental Rights Amendment: clarification
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 11:57:14 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> 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!
>
> What do you mean by this? You've said "remove seven words" a number
> of times in your postings. Which seven words?
>
> Craig.

Sorry about the confusion. Remove the LAST seven words to get:
"No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any school."

Doris Hohensee

Message 3

Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:44:45 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 19-Oct-1993 0929"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Thank you for posting the text of the amendment to the New Hampshire state constitution.

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

This looks like a nice simple one sentence amendment. Nice and clear. However, I wonder whether it would actually have the effect that you desire.

Your amendment does not say anything about the states powers of regulation of the public, private and home school. Because you have not explicitly forbidden all regulation of home schooling, every un-schooler will be liable for violation of state regulations on how they should run their school. This leaves un-schoolers open to charges of child abbuse, the usual "educational neglect" attack.

Did you word it this way so that you would be attacking the compulsory attendance laws without explicitly saying so?

Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com

Message 4

Subject: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:48:24 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Scott Somerville, at HSLDA, reporting in...

HSLDA is actively working with home schoolers in Kansas who are trying to introduce a parental rights amendment. I will get the text of this ASAP, to share with you thoughtful people.

PLEASE don't think this is vicious discrimination against Doris ("HSLDA works with Kansas, but they leave poor little me out in the cold!"). We FULLY support parental rights amendments, and will gladly work with anyone to get them passed. It is hard to get much done, however, after folks have burned every possible bridge of communication.

Doris, HSLDA would be happy to do what we can to help you succeed in this! Contact me directly at scott+amember%HSLDA@mcimail.com.

Message 5

Subject: Communications problems...
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 10:13:15 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 21-Oct-1993 0957"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Do I detect a slight communications problem?

I've not been on the list but a little while, and several things have already become apparent.

The information described about what happened in Wisconsinn sounds a lot like a lack of propper communication. The various difficulties in New Hampshire also sound like a lack of communication. The working at cross purposes that came about from the lack of talking "with" each other seem to have generated strong feelings of dis-trust. Without some measure of trust we will not be willing to work with each other on our shared goals.

Given the way that home schoolers and home schooling organizations tend be small, separate and highly focused, I'm not surprised by the lack of communications and trust.

But given our modern means of communications, we can at least tell each other who we are and some broad outlines of what we are about. Then the individual communications that are the heart of every political activity can begin.

Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com

ps: I am surprised by the slowness of the mail link. It's taking over 24 hours from the time I send the mail to the time I get it back from the listserver at mainstream.com. I wonder why?

Message 6

Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 12:11:41 -0400
From: ldillard@aplo357.dsccc.com (Tom Dillard)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> Included from "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 19-Oct-1993 0929"
> Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
> Thank you for posting the text of the amendment to the New Hampshire
> state constitution.
>
> > Article 4-a. "No parent shall be compelled to send his child to any
> > school to which he may be conscientiously opposed."
>
> This looks like a nice simple one sentence amendment. Nice and clear.
> However, I wonder whether it would actually have the effect that you
> desire.
>
> Your amendment does not say anything about the states powers of
> regulation of the public, private and home school. Because you have
> not explicitly forbidden all regulation of home schooling, every
> un-schooler will be liable for violation of state regulations on how
> they should run their school. This leaves un-schoolers open to charges
> of child abbuse, the usual "educational neglect" attack.
>
> Did you word it this way so that you would be attacking the compulsory
> attendance laws without explicitly saying so?
>
> Greg Wolff
> wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com
> Message Date: Oct 21, 9:43am

Greg, I certainly don't intend to "pick" on you. I just wanted to use your post to make a point.

The idea put forth that the amendment must be explicit or the state will find some way to regulate is exactly contrary to (my understanding, at least) of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it should be the other way around; the state can do only what is _explicitly_ stated in the law.

Now, state constitutions may be different, and certainly no one seems to be following the US Constitution either. However, we should remember that originally these were written to bind the government, not the people.

-TD

--
L.T. Dillard | DSC Communications Corporation | ldillard@spd.dsccc.com
*** standard disclaimer ***

Message 7

Subject: Re: NH 1991: Parental Rights Amendment
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 12:53:36 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> Now, state constitutions may be different, and certainly no one seems to
> be following the US Constitution either. However, we should remember that
> originally these were written to bind the government, not the people.

That's a good point. The law itself would seem to imply that custody of
one's children needs to be *granted* by the government. This signifies a
change in the a-priori assumptions of the culture at large. As I pointed
out in my previous message, its the underlying philosophy of the culture
that ultimately must be changed (or restored) for rights to be safe. In
the meantime, however, some relief would certainly be apprieciated.

SR

Message 8

Subject: Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:11:22 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 21-Oct-1993 1256"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Tom Dillard (ldillard@aplo357.dsccc.com) writes:
> The idea put forth that the amendment must be explicit or the state will
> find some way to regulate is exactly contrary to (my understanding, at
> least) of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it should be the other
> way around; the state can do only what is _explicitly_ stated in the law.

Yes, that is the idea. However, as has been driven into my thick skull
by various texts on our current constitutional law situation, this is
NOT the case.

In practice, it appears to me, that our government obeys the letter and
spirit of the law only when it suits its fancy to do so. Currently we
have a situation where the interpretation is: "if it is not explicitly
prohibited, then it is permitted."

The Supreme Courts interpretation of Freedom of Religion in the peyote
case in Oregon (please forgive me, I forget the name of the case) is a
glaring example. They interpreted away our rights to religious
freedom. At this moment, unless a generally applicable criminal code
specifically mentions its intention not to burden religious liberty,
the courts are free to use it to restrict religious freedom. The Amish
and usage of modern technology are just one example.

So, given this situation, one has to carefully word things so that
there are no claring loopholes through which a court can "interpret" a
mac-truck, so to speak.

All of this is moot of course if the Congress ratifies the "UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child." When / If that happens, we
will all be in for _serious_ difficulties...

Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com

Message 9

Subject: Re: Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:47:22 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> All of this is moot of course if the Congress ratifies the "UN
> Convention on the Rights of the Child." When / If that happens, we
> will all be in for _serious_ difficulties...

Do you know what's in this UN Convention, or know any references to it ?

SR

Message 10

Subject: RE: Following the Constitution (was: Re: NH 1991: PRA)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:59:13 -0400
From: David L. Hanson
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Greg Wolff writes:

> Tom Dillard (ldillard@aplo357.dsccc.com) writes:
>> The idea put forth that the amendment must be explicit or the state will
>> find some way to regulate is exactly contrary to (my understanding, at
>> least) of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it should be the other
>> way around; the state can do only what is _explicitly_ stated in the law.

> Yes, that is the idea. However, as has been driven into my thick skull
> by various texts on our current constitutional law situation, this is
> NOT the case.

> In practice, it appears to me, that our government obeys the letter and
> spirit of the law only when it suits its fancy to do so. Currently we
> have a situation where the interpretation is: "if it is not explicitly
> prohibited, then it is permitted."

If one were to base their opinion on constitional law on TV news and the
popular press, that opinion would be that the Federal government reserves
all powers unto itself unless a power is expressly taken away by the
Constitution (and the Federal government has taken care of that problem by
reinterpreting the meaning of what it is prohibiting from doing).

That's why our fellow citizens keep saying "there ought to be a law" as an
answer to every conceivable problem. After all isn't the government all
powerful.

> The Supreme Courts interpretation of Freedom of Religion in the peyote
> case in Oregon (please forgive me, I forget the name of the case) is a
> glaring example. They interpreted away our rights to religious
> freedom. At this moment, unless a generally applicable criminal code
> specifically mentions its intention not to burden religious liberty,
> the courts are free to use it to restrict religious freedom. The Amish
> and usage of modern technology are just one example.

Smith was part of the name of the Oregon case.

I don't understand your last sentence, though. The Amish have been persecuted
because it would be cultural suicide for them to send their children to
public schools. But are there some other problems that I am not aware of?
Please explain this more.

Since we are talking about the Amish let me get a little bit off track.
There was a famous US Supreme
Court case in the 70's ( vs. Yoder) where the Amish won a narrow victory
in Wisconsin to educate their children. The State of Wisconsin wanted to
regulate their schooling; this was against the Amish people's convictions.
(The Amish don't have certified teachers and I think that their formal
education ends at 8th grade. These positions are foreign to a society which
worships education as a saviour to mankind's faults.)

As I understand it, the victory was very specific to people who had deeply
held convictions (which they are willing to be jailed or perhaps even die for).

Let's compare the Amish situation to a hypothetical case where the State
was trying to do the same thing to me (force me to send my children to a
State approved school).

Amish - deeply held convictions that they are willing to go to jail or
perhaps die for
me - deeply held convictions that I am willing to go to jail for, perhaps die
for but I am not sure

Amish - total community support for their convictions
me - I live in a community where public schooling is the norm, I am a member
of a church where the majority of the member's children attend a
private institutional school, a sizeable minority homeschool, and the
rest send their children to public school, my own parents don't even
support our choice to homeschool, our pastor is mildly opposed to
homeschooling

Amish - total way of life that lives by their convictions
me - I work for a major corporation, I was educated through graduate school
in public schools(in the case of graduate school, a private but very secular
institution), we have a television in our home even if it is
seldom watched, we have relatively speaking a lot of "things"

Amish - a way of life that has been held since they are old enough to make
life decisions
me - I determined that homeschooling was a conviction about two years ago

My whole point of this comparison is that my reading of the Yoder case causes
me to believe that the judges involved were moved by the total committment
that Mr. Yoder had to their way of live; they backed up their stated
convictions with concrete actions. They had support of church, community, and
family.

I wrote the above to state my concern that it seems to me that the protection
that the Yoder case gives to the rest of us is very thin because we just
don't have the lived out convictions with the cultural support that swayed
the judges in that case. Perhaps Scott would comment on whether I am being
over pessimistic.

> So, given this situation, one has to carefully word things so that
> there are no claring loopholes through which a court can "interpret" a
> mac-truck, so to speak.

Mrs. Ginsburg for one can hardly wait to start "interpreting".

Signature follows:
"Jesus saith unto him: I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life; NO MAN
COMETH unto the Father BUT BY ME."

David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL

Message 11

Subject: Four Pillars Discussion
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:56:52 -0400
From: wm2237@swuts.sbc.com (William McDonald)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

I've listened carefully to the discussion on this subject now for the past several weeks and intentionally remained silent. As past Executive Director for Missouri Families for Home Education this thread is, I'm afraid, much too familiar. It seems that homeschoolers are very much like the stereotypical Irishmen: If they're not fighting a common enemy, they can't seem to resist the temptation of fighting each other...

I have always been somewhat uneasy about the presence of large, monolithic national structures such as the Teaching Home, primarily because they tend to supplant the need for strong state organizations. Nothing, but nothing, beats a strong, vocal and politically active local presence. Elected politicians in the final analysis are sensitive to the needs of their constituents and can (and do) easily dismiss out-of-state hired guns. Without the numbing convienience that organizations like the Teaching Home provide, homeschoolers are forced to get along and pool their common talents and interests. Too often the Teaching Home has incited a party spirit and effectively fractured state unity over ill-proportioned theological squabbles.

Now I certainly support the right of each homeschooler to seek out and support those information providers that they think best personify their view of the world; Indeed, this is one of the strengths that homeschooling affords--we don't all have to be like each other. But I find the Teaching Home's exclusivity and net subtraction from strong state structures to be one of the most dangerous things threatening the success of homeschooling in America.

Let's face it. State home schooling organizations aren't churches. As a devout Christian I've come to believe that most if not all of the problems facing America today are the direct result of the three ordained organizations--family, church and government--each failing to take care of the responsibilities they've been assigned and worrying way too much about responsibilities that belong to one of the other two.

State homeschooling organizations are, in my view, more like a para governmental organization than they are a para-church group. They're primary purpose is to defend the common rights for homeschooler in the state, preserving the maximum amount of freedom for all. Statements of faith need not cloud this issue. It's the local support groups that look more like the traditional church, isn't it? It's in the support groups that nurturing, loving and growth take place, not the state group. Statements of faith and theology have a useful purpose at the local support group level, IMHO, simply because this sort of common understanding is needed between people who support and teach each other regarding the philosophy of educating in the home. But let's be honest and admit that such exclusivity in front of the state legislature only serves to fracture unity and ultimately works against the good of all homeschoolers. Politicians are expert animals at sniffing out the smallest thread of dissention and then using it to avoid taking a stand.

Regarding HSLDA: I've always believed that HSLDA's greatest asset has been its close scrutiny of homeschooling issues of NATIONAL importance. As a state leader, I received an excellent packet of up-to-date current national news each month, free of charge. Via these monthly mailings and Inge Cannon's (HSLDA's director of Center for Home Education) FAX alerts, I was treated to a valuable source of information that simply wasn't available anywhere else. While I strongly believe in the absolute primacy of strong state organizations, HSLDA is the only watchdog primarily focused on Washington DC. I don't want HSLDA trampling into state affairs simply to meet the needs of a relatively small number of their clients, but the national focus they bring is much needed, I think, and protects homeschooling from the potentially devastating effects of a blind-side shot from our "friends" in DC.

Just my $.02 worth...

McD

*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
Bill McDonald | "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison
Southwestern Bell | ne connait point -- The heart has its
wm2237@swuts.sbc.com | reasons that reason cannot
understand"
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*

Message 12

Subject: communications & information
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 16:26:03 -0400
From: craig@osf.org
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

There is much that can be said about a lack of communication, and about a lack of information dissemination. We must communicate, and we must keep informed with the best & most timely information possible.

In his mail, William McDonald, states that HSLDA sends out information packets and faxes to alert various State organizations about goings-on in the national (& sometimes state?) arenas. I have to assume that the reason HSLDA doesn't provide this information to everyone who homeschools, or who is active in the homeschooling movement, is because of the exhorbitant cost in doing so.

Would it be possible for HSLDA to post electronically items of national interest to homeschoolers? William stated that he received valuable information which wasn't available anywhere else -- this sort of information needs to be widely disseminated. Could items concerning Federal rules, regulations, etc. be sent to this and other forums, and from there disseminated to various other interested parties?

I think that it would be great if all of our resources could be used to help further the information exchange & help to unite the homeschooling movement, including -or perhaps especially- HSLDA's.

Some orgs. provide BBSes with information on them. Unfortunately this early 1980's technology does not provide the ability to filter mail, examine subjects locally & quickly, easily archive important information, have exchanges with large groups of people, or even get information out in a timely manner because everyone interested needs to connect to the bbs frequently to check and see if they have any messages. Hopefully HSLDA could send this information out on the internet through mailing lists, which could then be up-loaded to various BBSes. home-ed-politics is the perfect forum for this political side to home education.

I like the idea,

Craig.

Message 13

Subject: RE: Following the Constitution (was: Re:
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 17:26:37 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

David Hanson writes on the narrow victory the Amish won in _Yoder_. A lot of courts agree with his interpretation of that case. This is why the good language in the _Smith_ case (the Peyote case) is so important, and why the recent _DeJonge_ case in Michigan is even more important.

_Yoder_ said the good guys win. Subsequent courts tended to rule that that was a "fluke," dependant mostly on the extreme tenets of the Old Order Amish faith. _Smith_ came along, in 1990, and ruled that there is very little religious freedom. What about _Yoder_, though, cried the dissenting minority on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia explained away _Yoder_. That case was not really about religion, he explains. That was a case where religion was coupled with the parent's right to direct the education of the child. When you have a "Hybrid Right" (religion plus education), the full protection of the Constitution is still available.

Now we move to Michigan. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that secular home schoolers (the Bennetts) are subject to any regulations that the Michigan Department of Education thinks are reasonable. But the same court followed _Smith_ explicitly, holding that religion PLUS education prevented all regulation of religious home schooling unless the State could PROVE that it was necessary to serve a COMPELLING interest.

_Smith_ and _DeJonge_ take a lot of the emphasis off of the peculiarities of the particular religious belief. Under Supreme Court precedent going back to the Vietnam War, anyone can claim a religious belief if they have a STRONG conviction which they cannot change and which takes the same place in the life of the believer as would an orthodox religious belief. This covers just about every home schooler I have ever met.

Message 14

Subject: NH 1992: Resolution requesting Supreme Court opinion
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 22:03:50 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

This is the third in a series of postings on the New Hampshire political situation over the last three years. It is the resolution mentioned in the second part of this series.

Doris Hohensee

Draft Resolution

requesting an opinion of the Justices concerning the constitutionality of RSA-193-A.

Whereas, there is pending in the house, House Bill 1470-FN-LOCAL, "An act relative to the education of children;" and

Whereas, doubt has arisen as to the constitutionality of the provisions of said bill and the provisions of current RSA 193-A; and

whereas, it is important that the question of the constitutionality of said provisions should be settled in advance of the enactment of HB 1470-FN-LOCAL; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion on the following questions of law:

1 Would the procedural, record keeping, and evaluation requirements imposed upon local districts by RSA 193-A:5 and RSA 193-A:6 constitute an illegal state mandated expense according to Part I, Article 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution?

2 Would current RSA 193-A violate the guarantee of equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by common law, and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Part I, Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, in that home educators are subject to far more stringent requirements and sanctions than public and other private educators? Such requirements and sanctions include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Nonpublic schools can qualify for certification for the purpose of the compulsory attendance requirement, without curriculum requirements, as provided by RSA 186:11, XXIX, whereas home educators must have a defined curriculum and obtain approval annually as required under current RSA 193-A:4.

(b) Public and private school education programs are not terminated when students fail, whereas home education programs may be terminated for this reason as provided in current RSA 193-A:7.

(c) Current law does not hold public or nonpublic schools accountable for the educational achievement of their students, nor does it enforce the use of evaluation mechanisms to determine the worth or utility of a particular education program. Under current RSA 193-A:6 third party evaluations can cause the termination of a home education program.

(d) Current law does not require public or nonpublic schools to maintain a portfolio of each student's work for a period of 2 years after the work is completed, but home educators are required to do so under current RSA 193-A:6.

3 In regard to question 2(a), would RSA 193-A:4 constitute, contrary to the common law principle of presumption of innocence, a presumption of guilt of educational neglect on the part of a home educator without probable cause, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt? Such a presumption is not made with respect to other private educators.

4 In regard to question 2(d), would RSA 193-A:6 violate Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, in that it constitutes a requirement that a home educator maintain a file of evidence that could be used against him in a court of law?

5 Would RSA 193-A:5, I, violate Part I, Article 4 of the New Hampshire Constitution, in that it grants the Commissioner of Education final authority over what is to be taught to a child, possibly in contradiction of a parent's constitutional rights of conscience?

6 Would the requirement in current RSA 193-A:6, III, that a child "demonstrate educational progress for age and ability at a level commensurate with his ability" or the requirement in current RSA 193-A:7, I, that if there be "written and substantiated information that strongly implies that a home education program will not meet [certain] requirements," constitute, under common law, unenforceable vagueness, or violate the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and deprive home educators of the right to provide home education without due process of law because the statute is unconstitutionally vague?

That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit copies of this resolution and copies of HB 1470-FN-LOCAL and the proposed amendment thereto to the Justices of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Message 15

Subject: Re: UN Treaty of Children's Rights
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 08:15:11 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

We defeated legislation similar to this in 1991 in New Hampshire (HCR 7). It was supposedly a "non-binding" resolution adopting a Bill of Rights for Children.

State Sen. Tom Colantuono helped to defeat the resolution by showing the hidden agenda of the nationwide children's rights movement. He quoted from two books detailing the long-term objectives of this group. The "Bill of Rights for Children" by Richard Farsen and "Birthrights" (I don't have this author's name in my notes, sorry). Those books were rather enlightening, if my memory serves me well.

Terry Lockhead, head of the N.H. Alliance for Children and Youth (a children's rights group), indicated that the resolution was, in fact, taken from the UN Convention and Rights of Children.

Doris Hohensee

Message 16

Subject: Re: Four Pillars Discussion
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 10:26:24 -0400
From: arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

>Regarding HSLDA: I don't want HSLDA
>trampling into state affairs simply to meet the needs of a relatively
>small number of their clients, but the national focus they bring is
>much needed, I think, and protects homeschooling from the potentially
>devastating effects of a blind-side shot from our "friends" in DC.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill,
Excellent essay, I agree quite strongly with your statements except for the above excerpt. As you state, I also don't want HSLDA involved in my state's affairs, representing me without my say-so. This argument is even stronger for me at the national level. As a watchdog group with fax alerts etc, wonderful. But I do not want ANY group, including HSLDA, standing in Washington saying they represent ALL (or even the majority) home schoolers. I may or may not agree with their stand, but they DO NOT represent ME.

I feel that my home school desires should be felt in Washington the same way all of my other desires are felt (or not felt as the case may be). And that is via my representatives. If I, and my appointed state para-government group, have an issue that needs addressing, then we will petition our state representatives to take it to Washington. In this manner, the overall desires of all home schoolers are felt, and not the individual power of a group (HSLDA or others) lobbying Washington.

Alan

~~~~
Alan Fiebig
arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com
All postings are solely my opinions, and not any representation of Ameritech
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for a good person to do nothing"

Message 17

Subject: Re: Four Pillars Discussion
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 10:55:49 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 22-Oct-1993 1044"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

I recognise, and even sympathise and appreciate, the argument inherent in what Alan Fiebig (arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com) wrote below:

> ... But I do not want ANY group, including HSLDA, standing in
> Washington saying they represent ALL (or even the majority) home schoolers.
> I may or may not agree with their stand, but they DO NOT represent ME.

However, there are only a very few groups effectively trying to defend us from the fascists in Washington. If they were to follow your desires in your second paragraph:

> I feel that my home school desires should be felt in Washington the
> same way all of my other desires are felt (or not felt as the case may be).
> ... In this manner, the overall desires of all home schoolers are felt,
> and not the individual power of a group (HSLDA or others) lobbying
> Washington.

nothing would get done, there would be no defense.

I GREATLY appreciate the work that the various groups of dedicated lawyers are doing to defend us. I especially applaud HSLDA.

The fact that we have, as a people, refused to believe that we are no longer governed as a "nation of laws" means that it is now TOO late to take this approach. "The Chancellor has been elected" and we need to deal with that reality. If GOD be willing, then we can still turn them back.

Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com

Message 18

Subject: NH 1993: CHENH's version of the story
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 11:25:39 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

This is the fifth in a series on political activity in New Hampshire over the last three years to reverse the effects of our 1990 home education law. The following article appeared in the April 1993 issue of N.H. Family Watch, a newsletter passed out at many local Christian churches free of charge.

I don't know what HSLDA's official position on the '93 bill was. I was inexplicably taken off their mailing list around the time this legislation was pending. I no longer got their bulletins. I can only assume CHENH finally made me persona non grata. I further assume that CHENH reflected HSLDA's opinions: they always have in the past.

This post is rather more emotional in nature than the previous ones. They let off some steam, we let off some steam. Reader discretion is advised. ;-)

Doris Hohensee

"The Story Behind that Ill-Conceived Home Schooling Bill"

by Rich Amador and Dan Gable

The authors are on the board of Governors of Christian Home Educators of NH (CHENH).

Many have asked what brought about the recent attempt to nullify present home schooling law, placing home schoolers in a situation where they must ask permission from the state to teach their children at home.

[Ed.: An outright lie, of course: there's no way they can be ignorant of the truth at this late date. Home educators have to ask permission *now*. Read on: it only gets better.]

Presently, the following groups represent a majority of the home-schooling families in the state: NH Home Schooling Coalition, a non-sectarian group, Catholics United for Home Education, and Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire (CHENH).

[Ed.: A majority of those who comply with the law, of course. Don't you just love mob rule? The Bolsheviks used to style themselves the "majority" as compared to the Mencheviks, too.]

There is an additional faction, significantly smaller in numbers compared to the others, which through various verbal and published statements, has vowed to deplete the resources of the others because for whatever reason, they oppose the idea of "working within system" when it comes to home education.

[Ed.: They won't even legitimize our group, the N.H. Alliance for Home Education. They dismiss us as a mere "faction", the traditional way of attempting to marginalize one's opponents. They won't mention us in their joint guidebook: we mention them in ours. We don't work within the system? We have submitted more legislation in the past three years than they can handle, as it is: they want us to work harder? Or perhaps their idea of "working within the system" is to obey intolerable laws? Where's Patrick Henry when you need him? As to our "vow" to deplete the resources of all state-wide groups: perhaps I'll take that up at our next meeting. ;-) ]

Whenever something that affects N.H. Homeschoolers is under consideration legislatively, the three main organizations take great care to work together in an open spirit of cooperation. CHENH even maintains an electronic computer bulletin board open to all home schoolers 24 hours a day to promote open communication and debate.

[Ed.: They won't let us on, of course. There's that "main organizations" idea again. Majoritarianism repeated like a mantra.]

This years bill, HB 657, was introduced covertly by members of the NH Home Schooling Alliance, the small maverick faction mentioned above. The other organizations first heard about the measure in mid-January. By that time, it was a bill already assigned to the education committee, with a hearing date set for Febuary 9th. The alliance intentionally did not communicate with any other home school organization before or during this period.

[Ed.: Well now, I *thought* we "weren't working within the system." Just can't please some people. And there's that "small maverick faction" again. They emphatically refused all of our attempts to meet last year. We never knew they willing to "legitimize" us by formally talking *to* us, rather than talking *about* us. They can't even get our name right. Sigh.]

The authors of the bill represented it as needed and supported by the majority of home-schoolers, misrepresenting the present law as placing home-educators as being at risk of losing liberties.

[Ed.: Au contraire. We represented ourselves and, by default, anyone who won't obey current law. It's not like there's tons of people panting to go up to Concord and tell the government "we don't obey the law now nor will we do so in the future." Generally not good for one's peace of mind. The only people "misrepresenting" the present law are those 'leaders' that helped to get it passed in the first place and have a vested interest in its perpetuation.

These 'leaders' believe that only "majority" rights deserve respect. Well, what about those disenfrancised home educators who have gone underground since this new law? I know several underground home educators who are pastors of large, well-respected Christian churches in nearby affluent towns (we met them while campaigning for the PRA). These are "mainstream" Christian churches, not what CHENH might call "cults." In 1990 the Department of Education (D.O.E.) estimated that there were as many underground families as those that comply. At this year's hearing, the D.O.E. testified that they are certain that I'm practically the last one out of compliance with the law. Now *that's* a *genuine* whopper!]

After State Sen. David Wheeler received a large number of phone calls protesting the bill, he invited many to meet at his home on Jan. 30th to discuss the bill and resolve differences.

[Ed.: We were at the meeting, not that they care to mention us. Wouldn't have *been* much of a meeting without us there, right?. We work closely with Sen. Wheeler on many issues (including child abuse bills we draft to protect parental rights). Sen. Wheeler supported our bill and is submitting it again this year in the senate. Yes, Scott, this is "covert" political action in progress...make sure to rally the troops again. ;-)]

The bill proposed to RESCIND the most recent law (RSA 193-A), which was crafted several years ago and supported by at least 800 home-schooling families from all areas of the state. The new bill also proposed to make home-schoolers private schools, with the various bureaucratic limitations and facility requirements which such formal institutions are required to work under.

[Ed.: *800* home schoolers couldn't be *wrong*, could they? "Crafted", huh? Right: they're elves in Santa's workshop. They neglect to mention that such bureaucratic requirements are almost non-existent. All private schools have to do is notify the state and keep attendance rosters. As to the facility requirements, homes are not public institutions and thus only require an occupancy permit, which everyone has already.]

It became evident at the meeting held at Senator Wheeler's that the authors of the bill intentionally kept the bill covert. Although written by people who are openly libertarian in philosophy, amazingly, they were attempting to rescind the protection that present law offers and place home-schoolers under greater state control.

[Ed.: "Covert" legislation? All legislation is public record. Besides which, the '93 bill was identical to the '92 amendment. We'd already gone *real* public with that the previous year. A Libertarian plot? Sorry, most of our people and support are Republicans. In N.H. Libertarians are a recognized and legitimate third party with full ballot status. Should I tell them to be "covert" in their philosophy? ;-) As for the their description of the effects of our proposed legislation, it's simply more disinformation. Judge for yourselves.]

After much discussion, the representatives of the majority of home schoolers at Sen. Wheeler's home that night agreed not to lobby to kill the bill, if an amendment was attached to remove language repealing the present law, but making "private school" home education simply another option for parents to consider.

[Ed.: There's that word "majority" again. Btw, the "discussion" became quite heated at times: reasoning with screaming and shouting people is a tad difficult.]

During testimony on the bill at the State House, however, the authors did not keep their word, and attacked the present law (RSA 193-A), calling it an "Unfunded state mandate", referring to a state constitutional provision that prohibits the promulgation of state laws and regulations onto local communities without attendant funding for implementation (after the year 1984).

[Ed.: This is disingenuous at best. What we *said* was that our bill should be passed so that districts could, at their discretion, direct would-be home educators to the "private home educator" statute should they not wish to spend the extra money as described below. This option would have eliminated the "unfunded state mandate" contained in current law. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (S&G, "The Fighter"). We kept our word: not to rescind their home education law by attaching the amendment, as agreed upon. We never promised to publically endorse their home education law, as they made it clear that they wouldn't endorse ours. We simply agreed not to attack each other in public and to support two *separate* paths.

They thoroughly and completely broke all their promises to Sen. Wheeler. He was livid. He will never trust them again. Their word is worthless.]

The supporters of the present law were therefore forced to defend the present system, partly by showing that home-educators save local school districts approximately $1,400 to $2,400 per child, because although home schooling parents still pay taxes, they do not use all the services available in the districts.

[Ed.: Ah, the "official" excuse for their broken promise.

As to the so-called "savings", it is a fact that children officially registered as home schooled count as public school pupils for the purpose of per-capita (combined local, state and federal) spending. This comes to about $5-$6K each. Since it only costs a district around $500 per home educated child, the balance is available free and clear to a district for such "other" purposes they deem appropriate. *That entire sum constitutes spending that would not have occurred absent current law*. We *could* say that the local portion of the *entire* amount constitutes a state mandate, but we're content with claiming just the $500.

It's CYA time. If their followers ever learned the truth, their positions as so-called 'leaders' would become untenable.]

After considering the testimony and letters the committee voted to kill HB 657 with a vote of 15 to 0.

[Ed.: Well, if *I* were on the education committee and had witnessed the silliness of these people, and didn't subscribe to the moral code I do, *I'd* vote it down too. From the point of view of John Q. Public, they *need* regulation. Desperately.]