Alliance for Intellectual Freedom in Education

The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 8)

1. NH 94 legislation
Karen Peterson

2. Judy's reply to UN Child Rights -Reply
Scott Somerville

3. Re: Parental Rights Amendment -Reply
Scott Somerville

4. NH 94 legislation
Guerney D. H. Hunt

5. Judy's reply to UN Child Rights
Steve Rogers

6. Judy's reply to UN Child Rights
Craig Peterson

7. Judy's reply
Doris Hohense

8. Judy's reply
Steve Rogers

9. Answers to Guerney Hunt
Karen Peterson

10.How to influence what goes on in Washington.
"Greg Wolff

11.Answers to Guerney Hunt
Guerney D. H. Hunt

12. NH Legislation
Scott Somerville

13. Judy's reply
Judy Leedom Tyrer

14. How to influence ...
Doris Hohensee

15. NH Law
Scott Somerville

16. Judy's reply
Steve Rogers

17. How to influence ...
Steve Rogers

18.How to influence ...
Doris Hohense

19. Judy's reply
Judy Leedom Tyrer

20. Judy's reply
Steve Rogers

21. Judy's reply
Chris Burian

22. HSLDA's role in NH
Doris Hohensee

Message 1

Subject: NH 94 legislation
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 20:37:55 -0400
From: karen (Karen Peterson)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

The following is the latest in a series of legislative endevors in the state of New Hampshire to correct the unconstitutionalities of our home education law. This is the legislation that *WILL BE* submitted during the next legislative season. The filing of the bills has already been done and the issue will go before the legislative bodies starting in January. We are not being covert in our actions. (See previous posts on this issue). We intend to have a law with which all persons can comply in good conscience without the loss of ANY constitutional liberties.

Any feedback on the issues at hand will be answered promptly and respectfully.

karen peterson

_______________________________________________________________________________

1994 Session

SENATE BILL NO.

INTRODUCED BY: Senator David Wheeler

REFERRED TO:

AN ACT recognizing non-institutional private education;
authorizing the state board of education to adopt
rules relative to non-institutional private education
for the purpose of attendance, and certain other
changes relative to education.

_____________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS

This bill recognizes non-instituional private educators;
authorizes the state board to adopt rules relative to non-
institutional private education for the purpose of attendance;
and includes non-institutional private education in certain
statutes which impose requirements on private schools.

________________________________________________________________________
EXPLANATION: Matter added appears in bold italics
Matter removed appears in [brackets]
Matter which is repealed and reenacted or all
new appears in regular type.

^L
SB

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

AN ACT

recognizing non-institutional private education; authorizing the state board of education to adopt rules relative to non-institutional private education for the purpose of attendance; and making certain other changes relative to education.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
in General Court convened:

l New Paragraph; Rulemaking, State Board of Education. Amend 186:11
by inserting after paragraph XXXIV the following new paragraph:

XXXV. Non-Institutional Private Education. Adopt
rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to reasonable criteria for
approving non-institutional private education programs for the
purpose of compulsory attendance requirements. The state board of
education may, upon the request of a non-institutional private
educator, approve or disapprove such person's education program
and curriculum.

Non-Institutional Private Education Act

Page 2

2 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA
189:11 to read as follows:

RSA 189:11 Instruction of National and State History
and Government. In all public and private schools
AND IN NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS in
the state there shall be given regular courses of
instruction in the history, government and
constitutions of the United States and New Hampshire,
including the organization of New Hampshire
municipal, county and state government and of the Federal
government. Such instruction shall begin not later than
the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in high
school as an identifiable component of a years course in
the history and government of the United States and New
Hampshire.

3 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA
189:17 to read as follows:

RSA 189:17 Flags: Penalty. The school board shall supply a
United States and a New Hampshire state flag; the flags shall
be made not less than 5 feet in length, with a flag- staff and
appliances for displaying the same, for every schoolhouse in
the district in which a public school is taught, at the
expense of the district. They shall prescribe rules and
regulations for the proper custody, care and display of these
flags; the regulations shall require that wherever possible,
the United States flag and the New Hampshire state flag shall
be displayed on separate staffs of equal height. When the
flags are displayed on the same staff, the United States flag
shall be displayed above the New Hampshire flag. The
regulations shall further require that such flags shall be
displayed prominently outside of the schoolhouse. When they
are otherwise displayed, the flags shall be placed
conspicuously in the principal room of assembly of the
schoolhouse. The governing board of every private school
shall supply a United States flag, such flag to be made not
less than 5 feet in length, with a Flagstaff and appliances
for displaying the same. They shall make provisions similar
to those required in the public schools for the display of
said flag. A NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATOR SHALL PROVIDE
A UNITED STATES FLAG. SUCH PERSON SHALL MAKE PROVISIONS
SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUIRED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE
DISPLAY OF SAID FLAG. Any members of a school board
or the governing board who shall refuse or neglect to
comply with the provisions of this section shall be
guilty of a violation.

Non-Institutional Private Education Act

Page 3

4 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA
189:19 - 189:21 to read as follows:

RSA 189:19 English Required. In the instruction of
children in all schools, including private schools AND
NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATION, in reading, writing,
spelling, arithmetic, grammar, geography, physiology,
history, civil government, music, and drawing, the
English language shall be used exclusively, both for
the purposes of instruction therein and for the
purposes of general administration. Educational
programs in the field of bilingual education shall be
permitted under the provisions of is section with the
approval of the state board of education and the local
school district.

RSA 189:20 Foreign Languages: A foreign language may
be taught in elementary schools OR BY NON-INSTITUTIONAL
PRIVATE EDUCATION; provided that the course of study (or
its equivalent) outlined by the state board in the branches
named in RSA 189:19 be not abridged, but be taught in
compliance with the law of the state.

RSA 189:21 Language of Devotional Exercises in Private
Schools OR NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATION. The
exclusive use of English for purposes of instruction and
administration shall not prohibit the conduct of devotional
exercises in private schools OR IN NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE
EDUCATION in a language other than English.

5 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA
189:27-a and 189:27-b to read as follows:

RSA 189:27-a Computerization of Pupil Registers. School
boards, or the governing bodies of public academies,
nonpublic schools OR NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATION
may choose to maintain pupil registration and enrollment
information through the use of a computer, instead of using
a register provided by the state board of education. The
software program for any such computer application shall be
capable of providing in printed form at least the information
required by RSA 186:11, VI.

RSA 189:27-b Retention of Pupil Registers. Pupil Registers,
whether kept manually or by means of a computer, shall be
retained as s permanent record of the school district, public
academy, non-public school OR NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE
EDUCATOR. When a computer is used, the permanent record
shall consist, at a minimum, of a paper printout.

Non-Institutional Private Education Act

Page 4

6 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 194:31
to read as follows:

RSA 194:31 Registers; Reports. All academies, private
schools AND NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATORS shall be
furnished with copies of the school register, and shall
make annual statistical report to the state board.

7 Non-Institutional Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 193:1
I. (a) to read as follows and keep RSA 193:1 I. (b) and (c) unchanged.

RSA 193:1 Duty of Parent; Compulsory Attendance by Pupil.
I. (a) The child is attending a public school
outside the district to which he is assigned,
an approved private school OR THE CHILD IS
RECEIVING NON-INSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE EDUCATION for
the same time;

8 Effective Date. This act shall take effect September 1, 1994.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Department of Education would be required to maintain a
file of attendance registers and to bear the cost of
maintenance thereof. The cost should be limited to postage
and the salary of one (1) part-time clerical worker.

Message 2

Subject: Re: Judy's reply to UN Child Rights -Repl
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 09:38:18 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

A note on "The Ones Who Left Omelas." There is a well-recognized distinction, in moral philosophy, between INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY causing something to happen. If we adopt a free market economy, for instance, we KNOW that some people will be poor, and that others will be rich. There is a big difference between tolerating that outcome, on the one hand, and taking money away from some poor people in order to make other rich. The first is a free market, the second is theft.

I haven't read "The Ones Who Left Omelas," but I would guess that the happiness of the village depends on INTENTIONALLY causing the misery of the poor children that Judy has described. If this is so, it is a sad tale, but essentially irrelevant to any discussion of freedom and family privacy.

Judy, you have read it. Is the misery of the children intended, or merely accepted?

Scott+amember%HSLDA@mcimail.com

Message 3

Subject: Re: Parental Rights Amendment -Reply
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 09:42:38 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Personal response to Doris in NH from Scott at HSLDA.

Doris, I was one of two NH home schoolers who fought the Department of Education for seven months over their effort to triple the home ed regulations in 1988. As you remember, home schoolers won that fight -- or at least, brought them to a draw. I was NOT at HSLDA at that time. I was, just like you, a citizen patriot of New Hampshire.

My experience in that battle was that the regulations were burdensome, and that there was a great danger that they would get worse. You seem to look back on the regulations as "the good old days." You rely on someone's opinion that the regulations were "unenforceable." Maybe you should have been on that committee instead of me. I DID NOT compromise away our rights -- Elaine Rapp and I beat them to a standstill.

The committee had two home schoolers, one ACLU lawyer, and eight public school people, five of whom were lawyers. Elaine and I wrangled and negotiated until we got the regulations whittled down from Ellen Ann Robinson's original draft, which was three times more burdensome, to our final draft, which was only twice as burdensome. At that point, Elaine and I announced that we could not sign onto the final draft. The other nine members of the committee said, in essence, "Too bad."

Elaine and I wrote a minority report, which was exactly like the majority report, with one additional sentence. When the majority reported to the State Board of Education, we quietly sat and watched. Then the Board asked us for our position. We said, "Our draft is just like theirs, with the following sentence added: 'These regulations shall govern the manner in which public schools supervise home school programs; however, private schools may also supervise home schools.'"

The State Board asked us why we felt we had to add that sentence. We shared most of the things that you, Doris, have been saying: that home schoolers would go underground rather than submit to the regulations, etc., etc. Then the Board asked the rest of the committee what was wrong with out proposal. The rest of the committee objected that it would leave home schools essentially unregulated. The Board rejected the majority report, and ordered the Department to form a new committee to consider our proposal.

The Department never did form that committee. Instead, Ellen Ann Robinson introduced legislation that was essentially the same as her first draft of regulations. The New Hampshire home schoolers amended her legislation by adding our proposal (supervision by private schools). As we all know, by now, that amended legislation passed.

HSLDA did NOT come up with this "private school supervision" law. New Hampshire is the only state in the union with such a law. In MY humble opinion, New Hampshire's home schoolers were twice spared from the speeding locomotive of triply burdensome laws, each time because the private school supervision option derailed the train.

Doris, I know you think we can do better. I agree with you. You also think we could have done better. I was there with the regulations: I don't agree, but maybe I'm wrong. I still do believe that private school supervision is better than Ellen Ann Robinson's wish list.

Let's move forward. What shall we do to the pointy-headed bureaucrats this spring?

Message 4

Subject: Re: NH 94 legislation
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 10:05:20 -0400
From: hunt@cs.cornell.edu (Guerney D. H. Hunt)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

I read through your new act. I thought that part of the debate in NH was whether or not home schoolers (non-institutional private education) were notifying the state that they were going to home school or requesting permission to home school. Do you really want to say that the state of NH has authority to regulate home schooling or is this the best you think you can do? (I do not want to start a debate on this point, I just want to understand the thrust of your law.)

It would seem that if one believes that their right to educate their child is guarenteed by the constitution of the United States (for any reason), then would this law amount to a loss of constituional liberties?

In your provision on the flag, it would seem that it requires homeschoolers to have two flag poles and display the flag. Would it be better to say something like "A non-institutional private educator shall provide for the display of the United States Flag?"

In my opinion your english language requirments is a bit restricitve. I can understand the requirement for english instruction in reading, writing,spelling, grammar, and civil government. I think you could also make a reasonable argument for arithmetic and geography. But the other subjects seem excessive. For most of the other subjects it seems it should not matter. What is the underlying goal/philosophy of this section?

Thanks.

Guerney

Message 5

Subject: Re: Judy's reply to UN Child Rights
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 10:15:41 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
> >

> Excuse me, but my study of history indicates that freedom is a relatively
> new concept to the human animal. For thousands of years we have been
> pack animals with an elite few who dominate the majority. The Feudal system
> lasted longer than democracy has been in existence.

It's taken a long time for people, in general, to *realize* that freedom is a requirement for human survival, but it always has been. To the extent that a country is free, its people are happy and prosperous. To the extent The type of miserable conditions you cite, where people live as animals, is exactly the case I mean. Neither the rulers nor the ruled are living as humans. They are living as animals - predator and prey.

> > The child growing
> > up in a home with no education has a better long-term chance for a happy
> > life than one who lives in a country where education is controlled by the
> > government.

> That is a very broad statement that is nothing other than your opinion and
> has NO basis in fact.

I didn't give further details. Something beyond my opinion that supports this notion is the literacy levels before and after the advent of public schools. Or the general conditions of the communist block, contrasted with the free world. In order to see that these specific instances support my point, you have to see that government run schools necessitate bringing force into the realm of ideas - and that this is incompatible with human life.

> It reminds me of the flame-wars on misc.kids over
> daycare vs. parental care. The conclusion was, and while I argued on the
> latter side I had to concur, that a child in a good daycare environment
> is better off than a child in a bad parental environment.

This is not a parallel argument, so long as parents have free choice in daycare (including none) and daycare providors have free choice in what they will offer.

> A GOOD government school will provide a rich environment conducive to learning.

But my point is NOT that the public school experience will always invariably be bad, or that its *always* impossible to learn in public school. My point is that the nature of it is opposed to human nature. Concerned parents, teachers, and community can band together and create a good school through investing tons of effort. At what cost (in terms of effort) do we have these *good* government schools. Why not change the system, rather than ask parents and teachers to donate their lives in service toward conteracting its ill effects.

> Perhaps you'd like to trade in your life filled with abilities to read and
> type and communicate on computers for one without these things. If not, then
> I believe your argument is spurious.

I give my parents (not government) credit for my ability to read and write. I learned to read and write in a church pre-school. If that hadn't been available, they would have found some other means to handle the responsibility of educating me. My abilities are NOT due to the public school system, and the abilities of most people are NOT. The statistics suggest that public school has lowered the literacy rate, not raised it. People succeed despite the system, not because of it; as they do in any socialistic system where the state is turned against the citizenry.

SR

Message 6

Subject: Judy's reply to UN Child Rights
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 11:06:58 -0400
From: craig@osf.org
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 12:21:13 -0400
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Originator: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Sender: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Home Education Political Subjects List

Craig presents the unschooling philosophy, but with the comment "Given even the most minor instruction". However, the argument was that a child in a home with NO education, not with the most minor instruction but NONE, ZERO, ZIP! Will a child raised by illieterate parents in a home with no instruction regarding reading learn to read?

Judy

To answer Judy: Not necessarily.

Will a child raised by highly educated and well-trained teachers in a multi-million dollar school facility surrounded by books, high-tech equipment, and the latest in educational technology learn to read? Not necessarily.

According to our government some twenty to thirty percent of high school graduates are illiterate. In fact the highest literacy rates in this country were _before_ public schools were forced on the parents and children of the Cape in Mass.

The great educational experiment has failed.

Craig.

Message 7

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 12:37:41 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

>
> Craig presents the unschooling philosophy, but with the comment "Given
> even the most minor instruction". However, the argument was that a child
> in a home with NO education, not with the most minor instruction but NONE,
> ZERO, ZIP! Will a child raised by illiterate parents in a home with no
> instruction regarding reading learn to read?
>
> Judy
>

I hate to interrupt a perfectly good argument ;-) but...

Unschooling should not be defined in terms of instructional time, which is irrelevant to the crux of the philosophy. The crucial difference is that unschooling allows the child the freedom to direct his own education. It is this self-motivation which yields dramatically better results than compulsed or forced learning, at home or in an institutional setting. It develops both the intellect and self-esteem.

IMO it is a simple question: does a parent wish to continually fight the tide (require the child to endure regular instructional periods) or ride the waves (be patient and wait for the child to indicate his interest in a particular subject). Unschoolers do not necessarily refrain from all attempts to interest their children in a variety of subjects. But the decision to pursue a subject or not must rest with the child.

For most parents the problem with unschooling is believing that their children are capable enough to direct their own learning. Considering our culture which basically distrusts children completely, unschooling parents must develop this "trust" in their children's capabilities on their own.

Most parents like to encourage their children. They "help" their toddlers to walk and talk, and like to believe that they played a very crucial role. Parents of larger families soon realize, as their free time diminishes and they must re-evaluate priorities, that they did not "need" to instruct their children so much. A child learns from watching and listening. When a child is ready, he usually makes his desires perfectly clear. This type of self-discovery enhances the child's self-image as well as his intellect. Remarkably enough children are natural learners.

Doris Hohensee

Message 8

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:42:41 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> From: doris@mainstream.com (Doris Hohensee)
> >
> > Craig presents the unschooling philosophy, but with the comment "Given
> > even the most minor instruction". . . .
> >
> > Judy
> >
>
> I hate to interrupt a perfectly good argument ;-) but...
>
> Unschooling should not be defined in terms of instructional time,
> which is irrelevant to the crux of the philosophy. The crucial
> difference is that unschooling allows the child the freedom to direct
> his own education. . . .
> Doris Hohensee

For purposes of this discussion, it seems clear to me that there are two choices: people can be free to pursue what they think is best, e.g. homeschooling, unschooling, Montessori, etc.; or the government can be empowered to ensure that everyone is taught ideas that are acceptable to all, in a manner that is acceptable to all.

The farce lies in pretending that there is a set of ideas or methods that are acceptable to all; and that anyone, regardless of how unfortunate their circumstances, will be better off for having the choice taken away from everyone.

SR

Message 9

Subject: Answers to Guerney Hunt
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:15:19 -0400
From: karen (Karen Peterson)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> Guerney Hunt asked:
>
> I read through your new act. I thought that part of the
> debate in NH was whether or not home schoolers
> (non-institutional private education) were notifying the
> state that they were going to home school or requesting
> permission to home school. Do you really want to say that
> the state of NH has authority to regulate home schooling or
> is this the best you think you can do? (I do not want to
> start a debate on this point, I just want to understand the
> thrust of your law.)
>
Karen Peterson replies:

Our bill grants the board of education the authority to write rules with respect to ATTENDANCE only.

We aren't notifying the state on the method or content of our education program, only that we are establishing a "non-institutional private education" program. We cannot be denied because we never ask permission. We simply let them know that we are in compliance with the compulsory attendance statutes so our children cannot be considered truant, or CHINS (children-in-need-of-services).

Our bill asks that we be treated the _same_ as other private educators. Thus, we are willing to put up with the trivial regulatory requirements that private educators currently comply with, such as flag display and instuction in the english language, in order to be afforded the same protection that they have.

> Guerney Hunt asked:
>
> It would seem that if one believes that their right to
> educate their child is guarranteed by the constitution of
> the United States (for any reason), then would this law
> amount to a loss of constitutional liberties?

Karen Peterson replies:

As to the loss of constitutional liberties, that happened ninety years ago in N.H. with the enactment of our compulsory attendance law. Unless you are ready to abolish compulsory attendance, we still must deal with the compulsory attendance laws. Private educators already have the best deal with respect to compulsory attendance, so we are attempting to identify ourselves as private educators.

> Guerney Hunts asked:
>
> In your provision on the flag, it would seem that it
> requires homeschoolers to have two flag poles and display
> the flag. Would it be better to say something like "A
> non-institutional private educator shall provide for the
> display of the United States Flag?"
>
Karen Peterson replies:

First of all, the display is for all practical purposes a moot point as it is entirely unenforceable. In order to enter your home they must have probable cause indicating that you do not display your flag. Then they must obtain a search warrant. Can you imagine them going before a judge to obtain a warrant? Not a problem, don't you agree?

The section of the bill in question discusses the display of a U.S. flag in public schools, private schools and now at home. It only specifies one flag pole.

> Guerney Hunts asked:
>
> In my opinion your english language requirments is a bit
> restricitve. I can understand the requirement for english
> instruction in reading, writing,spelling, grammar, and
> civil government. I think you could also make a reasonable
> argument for arithmetic and geography. But the other
> subjects seem excessive. For most of the other subjects it
> seems it should not matter. What is the underlying
> goal/philosophy of this section?
>
>
> Karen Peterson replies:

Again, we are not creating this statute for our own benefit. It is an existing private school statute that we are including ourselves into as we are identifying ourselves as private educators and must therefore act as private educators act.

If we agree to meet all the same specifications that the private schools meet, then how could the legislature possibly say that _we_ were being irresponsible educators without inditing all private educators at the same time?

I hope that I answered some of your questions and clarified our position.

karen

Message 10

Subject: How to influence what goes on in Washington...
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:56:37 -0400
From: "Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 25-Oct-1993 1427"
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Doris and I both enjoy emotionally inflammatory political rhetoric. I must say that in my opinion her writing skills are much better than mine and she is much better at this kind of rhetoric than I am.

I do hope that Doris does not _believe_ her interpretation of what I wrote. It would ruin my admiration for her political sense. I would be forced to conclude that she doesn't know how to interpret what she reads. Even so, she appears to be doing a good job of getting close to passing laws in New Hampshire that she thinks would help.

Now, about that beautiful post of Doris' ...

> Indeed, Mr. Wolff must jest when he suggests that we must rely solely upon
> the "dedication" and "good deeds" of HSLDA.

Did I ever say that we must rely only upon the good deeds of HSLDA? Rather we need such "sneaky, dastardly, lawyerly" actions inside the beltway or the bureaucrats will regulate us through the back door. We should also work through the front door as well.

> It is "too late" once again...for what? Any political action of our
> own? Or, is this simply a justification for doing nothing for oneself?

I believe that those who think that "good old fashioned American government" through the political process can save us, without the use of the modern PACs and lawyers, are misguided. We need both.

We must be shrewd with the things of this modern world.

> "Nothing would get done?"...only HSLDA is "effective?" Only _they_ can
> defend us? Let HSLDA lead us out of Egypt?

We have been attacked often by such shrewd lawyers. Shrewd lawyers can be supported in response to these attacks.

Lead us out of Egypt? Well, some would say that Moses was a lawyer...

> Is it that personal responsibility is too difficult and being lead
> is much easier?

There is a difference between "personal responsibility" and refusal to accept help. If the "helper" doesn't get the help quite right, find a way to educate him on what kind of help might be better...

> 'All is lost...please save me.' It's dangerous, indeed, when a people
> need to believe and must rely completely upon earthly 'saviors.'

There is no mortal man able to save even himself, let alone another.

> Doris Hohensee

Greg Wolff

Message 11

Suject: Re: Answers to Guerney Hunt
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 15:25:20 -0400
From: hunt@cs.cornell.edu (Guerney D. H. Hunt)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Karen,
Thanks for your reply. Given the situation that you described, it seems best for home schoolers to be treated like other private schools. When I read through the bill, it occurred to me that it MIGHT be limiting the state to writing rules with respect to attendance only. (I am not a lawyer.) From my perspective, I would like this restriction more clearly stated. However, I do not live in N. H. and so have no say in how you improve your laws. Thanks again for responding to an interested outsider.

Guerney Hunt

Message 12

Subject: NH Legislation
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 20:04:15 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Scott at HSLDA, responding to Doris on proposed legislation.

Doris, I looked over your bill, adding "non-institutional private education" as an option. (Do you mind if I abbreviate this as "NIPE"?)

Your NIPE bill could be a real help to families who have kids with special needs. Right now, such families cannot get services from the state, because home schools are not classified as private schools (under Federal law, the state must make services available to kids in public and private schools, but NH argues that home schools are neither of the above).

I see that you only grant the Department rule-making power over ATTENDANCE at a NIPE. Departmental rules regarding approval of curriculum and educational program are only applicable if the families request.

I think it is risky to give the Department the power to adopt rules relative to REASONABLE criteria for approving NIPEs for the purpose of compulsory attendance requirements (amended 186:11, paragraph XXXV). I know what you mean (which is that attendance, and ONLY attendance, can be regulated), but I suspect that many a judge would find some curriculum and faculty restrictions "reasonable."

I am also concerned that the Department would not give out special ed. money to "unapproved" NIPEs.

I suspect that you intend to bring equal protection challenges to any regulations which unfairly burden NIPEs. Remember, when you do this, the _Blount_ case in Maine. Not all home schoolers win all equal protection cases.

***

I am not opposed to your bill as it currently reads. How can I help?

Message 13

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 20:38:11 -0400
From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> For purposes of this discussion, it seems clear to me that there are two
> choices: people can be free to pursue what they think is best, e.g.
> homeschooling, unschooling, Montessori, etc.; or the government can be
> empowered to ensure that everyone is taught ideas that are acceptable
> to all, in a manner that is acceptable to all.
>

Oh, I can think of others. What you have presented is one middle ground to the left and another extreme option to the very far right. (or vice versa, I'm not really talking political spectrums here).

1. People can be totally free to do whatever they please from providing their children with the best possible education to providing them with absolutely no education nor any opportunity to obtain one.

2. People can be free so pursue what they think is best regarding the education of their children with minimal interference to ensure the children are learning at least something.

3. People can be free to pursue what they think is best with significant interference to ensure that the children are learning according to the prevailing standards of the time.

4. People have no freedom to choose and must submit to the governments determination of what it feels is best.

The problem is that I am argueing number 2 but SR refuses to accept that 2 exists and insists that number 1 is the only acceptable alternative since all children will obviously learn regardless of what the parents choose (unless, of course, they choose to use a government school in which case the child cannot possibly ever learn anything). So any check whatsoever at all is the equivalent of the government mandating what it wants and the parents having no choice whatsoever at all.

The world is just not black-and-white and insisting that it is does not make it so. That being the case, I do not see #1 as acceptable because while a genius may learn regardless of the circumstances, they are the exception and not the rule (IMO, of course). And a child denied any type of enrichment and denied any kind of educational stimulus may well flounder. And when the loss of freedom is so minimal that its infringement is hardly felt and the gain is children's lives, I have a hard time accepting the argument that the pay off is not worth the intrusion.

But I am sure many are tiring of our personal argument. I am clearly not going to sway SR and he is clearly not going to sway me.

Judy

Message 14

Subject: Re: How to influence ...
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 21:24:11 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Mr. Wolff writes:

> I do hope that Doris does not _believe_ her interpretation of what I
> wrote. It would ruin my admiration for her political sense.

It's so nice to be appreciated. ;-)

> If the "helper" doesn't get the help quite right, find a
> way to educate him on what kind of help might be better...

Education isn't what it's cracked up to be. I've been at it for three years now: but just listen to Scott go on. I guess we'll have to wait until he's ready to learn. I *am* an unschooler, after all. ;-)

Btw, I hope Scott doesn't mind a little gentle teasing. He's just gotta get with the *program,* s'all.

The intent of my previous posts was to disabuse 'true-believers' from relying exclusively upon the "sneaky, dastardly, lawyerly" actions (to use your words) of a certain group of people who profess to be the benefactors, or 'saviors,' of all home educators. But if you insist, I'll try education one more time, with extra-special feeling, from the top. ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------

The intent of my previous posts was to disabuse people of the notion that they can rely on 'hired guns' to do their work for them. The system was set up in the first place under the assumption that the average person would be politically involved, at *least* at the local level ('local' used to mean U.S. House district, btw, but I'd settle for a state legislative district or two).

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" is literally true: you can't just send money to various organizations and vote. That's not "vigilance" because it's too easily subverted. Just sending money doesn't work because, once sent, you generally have no control over *how* it's spent. Just voting doesn't work because the various interest groups can rig the process via "interesting" ballot laws and control of who gets nominated. The only way to beat any of this is to get *personally* involved.

IMNSHO, the progressive failure of good people to involve themselves over the last 100 or so years in the "dirty" game of politics is the primary cause of the situation we find ourselves in. Everybody's always got something better to do than "waste their time on politics." The result is political discourse dominated by special, rather than general, interests. The only people who end up participating are the vultures who hope to gain personally from the exercise of power. They're always the ones that end up in legislative leadership: they have the most to gain from such positions of public trust.

Now, I'm not blame free in this matter: until four years ago I didn't involve myself personally either. I suppose passage of a law that purported to give the State the power to dictate what I could teach my children exceeded the limit of what I could tolerate. The impulse to action was a review of a book that appeared on the net entitled "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-1945." It consists of in-depth interviews of ordinary people who lived through the Nazi era in Germany. I went out and bought a copy and read it. What leaps out from the pages is the fact that Hitler *could* have been stopped relatively easily (or at least slowed down quite a bit) if only people had resisted the beginnings, if only people simply *refused*, even privately, but better publically, to go along to get along, *refused* to compromise, *refused* to silently consent to their gradual enslavement. Every single refusal throws sand into the gears, every single refusal is a brush fire that has to be put out, derailing the opposition agenda and forcing them to *react* instead of act. Public refusals disrupt our opposition's program a lot more than private, because they act as rallying points for others. But you have to do it *in person*. No one can act as your agent.

Perhaps with that as background, you can begin to understand my frustration with the HSLDA types and the people who follow them. It's not so much their political screw-ups per se, though these are bad enough, but their *attitude* I find maddening. Because it's *precisely* "go along to get along, this is the best we can hope for," etc., etc., etc. They won't have anything to do with the politics of confrontation: they won't simply *refuse*. And in failing to do so, they give aid and comfort to both my and their oppressors, whether they realize it or not. They provide, with a nod to Rand, the sanction of the victim. And the machine chugs on, because there's not enough sand in its gears.

It's really amazing the effect one person or a few persons can have on the system. *It was designed that way.* We, *personally,* go up to Concord every year and make a big stink, and, lo and behold, *they leave us alone.* So far, we know of *no* case where a simple refusal to comply with the law has been challenged by the state. A bad law is no law. The only people who have problems that we know about are those who start out trying to obey the law. The bureaucrats jump on these people because they know they're easy targets. Be a hard case and they've steered clear. If *piles* of people were hard cases, our not-so-esteemed opponents would back down. They always do when confronted personally, at least at this stage on the road to serfdom. "The Chancellor has been elected" all right, but he can still be nit-picked to a standstill: he has very little good help.

All it takes is the will to do it. Caving in and adopting the enemy's tactics are guaranteed to result in the eventual co-option of those you hire. No matter how zealous the hired guns start out being, the enemy can always outbid you for their services, leaving you defenseless. Heck, most of the time your hired guns end up *becoming* your opposition, the Magnificent Seven notwithstanding.

There's no substitute for personal involvment. It's messy, it's ugly, it costs money, it takes time away from your job and kids, it drives you batty with frustration at times. But the system *requires* this sacrifice of you: if you won't do it, you're going to get tyranny, will you or nil you. That's what Franklin meant when, after the Constitutional Convention, he was asked what kind of government he and his cohorts had created. He is rumored to have said,

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

Doris Hohensee

Message 15

Subject: NH Law
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 06:48:29 -0400
From: Scott Somerville
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Scott at HSLDA, responding to Karen Peterson's response to Guerney Hunt's response to the proposed NH law...

Karen, I can see that you and Doris intend to limit the State Board's authority to promulgate rules to ATTENDANCE only. Unfortunately, I am not sure that a court will stick to the "original intent" of this language. I know you only give the Board rule-making authority to set adopt rules, "relative to reasonable criteria for approving non-institutional private education programs for the purpose of compulsory attendance requirements," but I suspect that judges will interpret "compulsory attendance" to mean a lot more than ATTENDANCE.

Do you have some particular reason why the judges will stick to your original intent, when they rarely seem to care about it in other contexts?

Message 16

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:36:24 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
>
> > For purposes of this discussion, it seems clear to me that there are two
> > choices: people can be free . . . or the government can be
> > empowered to ensure . . .
> >
> Oh, I can think of others. . . .
>
> 1. People can be totally free . . .
> 2. People can be free . . . with minimal interference . ..
> 3. People can be free . . . with significant . . . interference
> 4. People have no freedom . . .
>
> The problem is that I am argueing number 2 but SR refuses to accept that 2
> exists and insists that number 1 is the only acceptable alternative . . .

I'm not denying that (2) exists, my position is that (2) is merely a transition stage to (3) and ultimately (4). I am arguing that there is a fundamental difference between (1) and all the others, whereas (2 - 4) differ only by a matter of degrees.

> The world is just not black-and-white and insisting that it is does not make
> it so.

It depends on what you mean by black-and-white. Particular people, governments, institutions, etc. are seldom purely good or bad, but that does not change the fact that there are black-and-white standards by which they can be judged. Different people may have different standards, and so may make different judgements - that means that someone's standards are wrong; but there is still *some* standard. The idea that there are no standards is something I'm *really* opposed to.

Remember that a thief is not a person who *always* steals - a thief is a person who engages in stealing, no matter how seldom or small the amount. This is a reflection of the idea that it is possible to define right and wrong in terms of clear cut principles (black-and-white) that should never be violated.

> But I am sure many are tiring of our personal argument. I am clearly
> not going to sway SR and he is clearly not going to sway me.

Probably true, but the goal of discussion is not merely to change the other person.

SR

Message 17

Subject: Re: How to influence ...
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:39:55 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> From: doris@mainstream.com (Doris Hohensee)

I've been throwing most of the articles related to this discussion away, but I thought this one was particularly well done. It touches on a lot of really important issues.

> IMNSHO, the progressive failure of good people to involve themselves
> over the last 100 or so years in the "dirty" game of politics is the
> primary cause of the situation we find ourselves in.

That, and the fact that good people often have not had the philosphy to cogently argue against the "vultures".

> What leaps out
> from the pages is the fact that Hitler *could* have been stopped
> relatively easily (or at least slowed down quite a bit) if only people
> had resisted the beginnings, if only people simply *refused*, even
> privately, but better publically, to go along to get along, *refused*
> to compromise, *refused* to silently consent to their gradual
> enslavement. Every single refusal throws sand into the gears, every
> single refusal is a brush fire that has to be put out, derailing the
> opposition agenda and forcing them to *react* instead of act.

How well said! There is another book called "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff that goes into the culture of Weimar Germany leading up to Hitler, and how this culture made it easier for Hitler to do what he did - then parallels between the culture of Weimar Germany and the culture of America today are drawn. Pretty eye opening.

> They provide, with a nod to Rand, the
> sanction of the victim. And the machine chugs on, because there's not
> enough sand in its gears.

This is a good point. It seems, in a effort to get the government off our backs, it is easy to get sucked up into the political process and become part of the problem.

> It's really amazing the effect one person or a few persons can have on
> the system. *It was designed that way.* We, *personally,* go up to
> Concord every year and make a big stink, and, lo and behold, *they
> leave us alone.* So far, we know of *no* case where a simple refusal
> to comply with the law has been challenged by the state. A bad law is
> no law. The only people who have problems that we know about are
> those who start out trying to obey the law. The bureaucrats jump on
> these people because they know they're easy targets. Be a hard case
> and they've steered clear. If *piles* of people were hard cases, our
> not-so-esteemed opponents would back down. They always do when
> confronted personally, at least at this stage on the road to serfdom.
> "The Chancellor has been elected" all right, but he can still be
> nit-picked to a standstill: he has very little good help.

This is very encouraging. It surprises me to hear that you don't seem to need legal help to keep the bureaucrats at bay. It very encouraging to hear that they still back down.

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

Message 18

Subject: Re: How to influence ...
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 12:14:40 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> This is very encouraging. It surprises me to hear that you don't seem to
> need legal help to keep the bureaucrats at bay. It very encouraging to
> hear that they still back down.

> Steven Rogers

A politician or bureaucrat should never underestimate the impact of even one angry, but persistant, citizen. Any reasonably intelligent person can match a lawyer, if he takes the time to do so. Computer programmers are better at dealing with masses of mind-numbing detail than almost any lawyer I know. But, I'm only a little ol' house wife, what do I know? ;-)

Doris

<

Message 19

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 15:19:27 -0400
From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

>> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
>>
>> 1. People can be totally free . . .
>> 2. People can be free . . . with minimal interference . ..
>> 3. People can be free . . . with significant . . . interference
>> 4. People have no freedom . . .
>>
>I'm not denying that (2) exists, my position is that (2) is merely a transition
>stage to (3) and ultimately (4). I am arguing that there is a fundamental
>difference between (1) and all the others, whereas (2 - 4) differ only by a
>matter of degrees.

Ah, just like smoking marijuana leads to heroine addiction. I understand now! >

>Remember that a thief is not a person who *always* steals - a thief is a
>person who engages in stealing, no matter how seldom or small the amount.
>This is a reflection of the idea that it is possible to define right and
>wrong in terms of clear cut principles (black-and-white) that should never
>be violated.

Reread Les Miserables.

Judy

Message 20

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 16:57:43 -0400
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
>
> >> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
> >>
> >> 1. People can be totally free . . .
> >> 2. People can be free . . . with minimal interference . ..
> >> 3. People can be free . . . with significant . . . interference
> >> 4. People have no freedom . . .
> >>
> > I'm not denying that (2) exists, my position is that (2) is merely a
> > transition stage to (3) and ultimately (4). I am arguing that there
> > is a fundamental difference between (1) and all the others, whereas
> > (2 - 4) differ only by a matter of degrees.
>
> Ah, just like smoking marijuana leads to heroine addiction. I understand now!

Cute, but no, not just like that. Its more like Hitler's rise to power on the tails of Weimar Germany.

> >Remember that a thief is not a person who *always* steals - a thief is a
> >person who engages in stealing, no matter how seldom or small the amount.
> >This is a reflection of the idea that it is possible to define right and
> >wrong in terms of clear cut principles (black-and-white) that should never
> >be violated.
>
> Reread Les Miserables.

Good reference, but the point of Les Mis is justice. There is no question that a crime has been committed, the question is what is justice and the role of law (in Les Mis). You were questioning whether there are absolute standards by which right and wrong can be judged.

I claiming that (2) leads (4) because (2) conceeds the premise that there is a valid role for government force in the realm of ideas (education). Once the use of force is legitimized there is no limit on its use. Reread "The Ominous Parallels"

SR

Message 21

Subject: Re: Judy's reply
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 11:41:10 -0400
From: (Chris Burian)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

judy@fafnir.la.locis.com writes in home-ed-politics:

> >> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
> >>
> >> 1. People can be totally free . . .
> >> 2. People can be free . . . with minimal interference . ..
> >> 3. People can be free . . . with significant . . . interference
> >> 4. People have no freedom . . .
> >>
> >I'm not denying that (2) exists, my position is that (2) is merely a transition
> >stage to (3) and ultimately (4). I am arguing that there is a fundamental
> >difference between (1) and all the others, whereas (2 - 4) differ only by a
> >matter of degrees.
>
> Ah, just like smoking marijuana leads to heroine addiction. I understand now!

Bad analogy. Our politicians like to play the incrementalism game. As long as you beat them over the head, they won't interfere, but give them an inch and they take a thousand miles. An example is gun control. How many remember when gun registration was enacted in New York City? It's proponents claimed that they were registering only, and registration would only cost $3 forever, and the laws would never become any more strict. For over 200 years NYC was free of any gun regulation. And now, starting with "minimal interference," almost all firearms have been banned in just two decades.

As soon as we allow government regulation to go beyond objective, obviously harmful acts like starvation, severe beating, or sexual abuse into subjective measurements of "fulfillment" like quality or thoroughness of education, we will open the door to complete State ownership of children. In fact, the door is already open and it is time to slam it shut.

--
==============
========
============================

Message 22

Subject: Re: HSLDA's role in NH
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 11:47:59 -0400
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> Personal response to Doris in NH from Scott at HSLDA.

> My experience in that battle was that the regulations were
> burdensome, and that there was a great danger that they would get
> worse. You seem to look back on the regulations as "the good old
> days." You rely on someone's opinion that the regulations were
> "unenforceable."

The regulations had no force of law. Those *were* the good old days. I simply informed my local school superintendent that the state issued "Guidelines" for Home Education were just that, optional. I explained to him that he had the power to make as many exceptions as he wished. And he did. I was totally free then to educate my children without any interference. This was the situation in the vast majority of school districts in N.H..

The "someone's opinion" that I considered significant was Sen. George Disnard's, the sponsor of the current home education law. Ellen-Ann Robinson was just a flunky. When he said the regulations were impossible to litigate and therefore a problem for the state, he was making an accurate assessment of the situation. The regulations had very limited statutory authority. They were derived from the "manifest educational hardship" clause, whose intent was extremely vague and ambiguous, which granted exclusion from the compulsory attendance law. *Any new regulations would have been equally unenforcable.*

> Maybe you should have been on that committee
> instead of me. I DID NOT compromise away our rights -- Elaine
> Rapp and I beat them to a standstill.

Perhaps I should explain my skepticism concerning your joint efforts on this regulatory review committee. From Elaine Rapp's May/June 1988 newsletter, N.H. Home Schooler Newsletter (Subscriptions cost $3.00 per year. As a subscriber I did not elect Ms. Rapp as my state spokesperson. This was apparently a "self-appointed" role.):

"As chairman of the NHHEA I feel this organization represents many styles and philosophies of home schooling, and as such, has an obligation to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL by NOT taking an ANTI-STATE position."

This does not seem to be very 'confrontational.' She continues:

"...If we recognize this and encourage people to APPLY through the regulations so that confrontations between home schoolers and school authoritites do not arise, I believe we will be in a good position to work with the state in making changes to the regulations."

Let's 'go along to get along,' guys. This is just one issue. The theme was always the same: "It's bad up there in Concord. Compromise a little or things could very easily get worse. Your actions could negatively impact all of us, please COMPLY with the state."

Remember the 1991 fiasco at NHHC (the state-wide group organized to keep all home educators politically informed, but which was actually run as front for the Dept. of Ed.) with ex-public-school-teacher, non-home-educator and Coordinator Mary Faiella violating the group's by-laws in order to insure that home educators *comply* with state regulation?

These were not isolated events. They represented a continuous pattern. All home education 'leadership' (which has included NHHC, NHHEA, CHENH, CUHE and HSLDA) promotes 'state compliance' not individual rights. All except the N.H. Alliance for Home Education.

> In MY humble opinion, New Hampshire's home schoolers were twice
> spared from the speeding locomotive of triply burdensome laws,
> each time because the private school supervision option derailed
> the train.

This wonderful private school option is no panacea. The private school is simply an 'overseer' for the commissioner, who controls home education. He has the statutory power to accept or reject home education proposals, not the overseer. He has the statutory power to place home educators on probation or terminate their programs, not the overseer. What is so wonderful about having a private school become the state's shill?

>
> Doris, I know you think we can do better. I agree with you. You
> also think we could have done better. I was there with the
> regulations: I don't agree, but maybe I'm wrong. I still do
> believe that private school supervision is better than Ellen Ann
> Robinson's wish list.

Ellen-Ann's wish list was politically impossible. As I have already pointed out, how could the legislature have required teacher certification, which would have dis-qualified most parents from home education, and then ask those same parents for their support to pass the measure? That is why Ellen-Ann was forced to back down and withdrew her support from the bill.

IMO the past 'leaders' of the 'movement' have frittered away enormous political clout they might have used to protect parental rights. Several hundred home eduators showed up at Concord on four separate occasions to defend home education. This is extremely unusual for N.H. Only gun owners have exceeded our numbers in recent memory. The legislature does not try to directly oppose such large groups. We could have put this political capital to better use. 300 people at a hearing can block *any* legislation in this state.

>
> Let's move forward. What shall we do to the pointy-headed
> bureaucrats this spring?
>

We have not even established that we are really on the same side, Scott. As a matter of actual historical fact, you and your allies have stood with the Dept. of Ed. at *every* legislative encounter. How could *we* possibly move forward?

Why do you support our parental rights amendment when you believe it will only work for Kentucky home educators?

Are you finally supporting, not attacking, our efforts towards the recognition of parents as private educators? Your comments on our pending legislation indicate that you are still skeptical. What type of 'support' are you considering? The legislature can smell lack of commitment a mile away.

Are you going to encourage HSLDA not to attack our efforts in the future?

Are you going to explain the sudden 180 degree turn around to N.H. home educators? That would require a public retraction by HSLDA. And by public, Scott, I mean on the net, in your legislative bulletins and, most importantly, before the legislature.

How is HSLDA going to have any credibility, unless they publically admit they were wrong to oppose our efforts, if they are to suddenly endorse the very same efforts they opposed?

How do you think we can get people out to support something HSLDA condemned not once, but twice?

Am I to trust HSLDA just like that? No apology. No explanation. HSLDA has been my *major* opposition for over four years now.

I am truly listening, Scott. It's just that I don't hear anything substantive yet. Please pardon my skepticism: I have been burned by well-meaning and pleasant-sounding home educators before.

Doris Hohensee