The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 9)
1. Judy's reply -Reply
Scott Somerville
2. NH Law
Karen Peterson
3. NH's 1994 bill
Doris Hohensee
4. Scott's comment
Doris Hohensee
5. Judy's reply -Reply
Steve Rogers
6. NH's 1994 bill
Date:EDWARD GREER
7. Judy's reply -Reply
Chris Burian
8. Judy's reply -Reply
Steve Rogers
9. Scott's comment
David L. Hanson
10. Scott's comment
Evan Todd Yeager
11. Scott's comment
Alan Fiebig
12. Scott's comment
Greg Wolff
13. Scott's comment
Guerney D. H. Hunt
14. Judy's reply -Reply -Reply
Scott Somerville
15. NH Law -Reply
Scott Somerville
16. Judy's reply -Reply
Judy Leedom Tyrer
17. Objective Standards
Scott Somerville
18. Judy's reply - community rights
Steve Rogers
19. Judy's reply -Reply -Reply
Alan Fiebig
20. NH Law -Reply
Doris Hohensee
21. NH Law -Reply -Reply
Scott Somerville
22. Petition for Continuance
Doris Hohensee
23.Petition for Continuance
Tom Walker
24. Petition for Continuance
EDWARD GREER
25. Scott's comment
Doris Hohensee
26. Petition for Continuance
Doris Hohensee
27. Silver linings & TN
jackie willard
28. Silver linings & TN -Reply
Scott Somerville
29. Scott's basic premise
Doris Hohensee
30. CHINS and Home Education
Craig Peterson
31. Scott's basic premise
David L. Hanson
32. CHINS reply
EDWARD GREER
33. Scott's basic premise -Reply
Scott Somerville
34. What do you think?
Alan Fiebig
35. Scott's basic premise -Reply
Doris Hohensee
36. TN, CRS & SOF
jackie willard
37. TN, CRS & SOF
Steve Rogers
38. Vouchers...and basic premises
Doris Hohensee
39. Judy's Thread on Parents' Wisdom
Scott Somerville
40. Somerville/Hohensee Peace Treaty
Scott Somerville
41. Judy's and David's and Scott's Thread on Parents' Wisdom
Steve Rogers
42. The Experts Agree...?
Scott Somerville
43. Somerville/Hohensee Peace Treaty
Doris Hohensee
44. TN, CRS, & SOF
jackie willard
45. Math testing (those crazy educ
jackie willard
46.TN, CRS, & SOF
Doris Hohensee
47. SOFs and lying
Steve Rogers
48. SOFs and lying
Doris Hohensee
49. Scott's Farewell
Scott Somerville
50. SOFs and lying
Steve Rogers
51. SOFs and lying
Doris Hohensee
52. NH 94 Legislation: HSLDA rsvp requested
Doris Hohensee
53. Scott's basic premise (Hanson)
Doris Hohensee
54. Retry: Compliance vs. lying
Doris Hohensee
55. Re: NH 94 Legislation
Doris Hohensee
56. 1994 NH Legislation -Reply (fwd)
Karen Peterson fwd'ing msg from Scott Somerville
57. NH 94 politics - information only
Karen Peterson
58. HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Richard Wasserman / anne in chicago
59. HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Karl Pearson
60.Illinois situation
David L. Hanson
61. Reply to Strategy -Reply (fwd)
Karen Peterson fwd'ing msg from Scott Somerville
Message 1
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 11:53:44 -0400
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Judy and SR have been having a dynamic debate here for days, and
it seems a shame to leave this fruitful area of discussion to
these two, even if they do seem to be doing a great job at it.
My professor in "Child, Family and State" was Robert Mnookin, a
recognized legal expert in the area. Mnookin is an old-fashioned
liberal, which means he is willing to be politically incorrect if
necessary. He was a professor at Stanford Law School, and has
just been hired by Harvard. My guess is that both Judy and SR
would find Mnookin a thoughtful and insightful man.
So, let me bring Mnookin's thoughts into this discussion. He
analogized the family to the free market. A truly laissez-faire
approach to families means that some will do very, very well
(including SR's best unschooling examples) and others will do
very poorly (including Judy's nightmare cases). A totally
regulated approach to families probably means that all will wind
up mediocre -- at best; at worst, they may just be
mini-franchises of an all-powerful state.
As I see the debate so far, Judy and SR have been arguing back
and forth over whether a totally laissez-faire approach is better
than a slightly regulated approach. Perhaps one or the other of
them can tell me if that is what the debate is really about.
Since I have stuck my oar in, I'll go in with my own thoughts on
the issue. I think that the best overall solution is to set
certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
parents who intentionally violate those standards. Any lawyer
will tell you that the criminal law protects the rights of
individual defendants far better than any other area of the law
(too much, many would say). The problems that we are seeing on a
large scale at HSLDA are abuses of the juvenile court system,
where a disgruntled neighbor or ex-spouse calls the hotline with
ridiculous charges. Can you imagine a world where ANYBODY could
issue a warrant for your arrest? It gets really ugly.
Message 2
Subject:
Re: NH Law
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 11:59:13 -0400
From:
karen (Karen Peterson)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott:
>
> 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?
>
Well Scott, after reviewing the private school register in the
state. There are 114 private schools that are approved for
ATTENDANCE PURPOSES ONLY, another 41 which are approved for
attendance and are awaiting approval for curriculum and
ONLY 19 schools which are approved for both curriculum and
attendance. This would mean that if they were going to require
curriculum approval of NIPE's they would have to require it of the
all the private schools in the state that are approved for attendance
only, including the 41 which have not yet been approved for curriculum.
These numbers are from the 1990 statistics and I am awaiting the arrival
of the current statistics and will post them as soon as they are recieved.
These numbers seem to indicate that a majority of the schools have
no intention of being approved for curriculum content but are
satisfied with being approved for ATTENDANCE PURPOSES ONLY. I
think we have ample evidence on our side for asking for
attendance only status. What do you think?
Do you think that they would be willing to take on the 155
private schools in this state that have chosen not to be approved
just to get an NIPE?
karen
Message 3
Subject:
Re: NH's 1994 bill
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:25:36 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Scott at HSLDA:
> 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."
> Unfortunately, I am not sure that a court will stick to the "original
> intent" of this language. 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?
> I am also concerned that the Department would not give out
> special ed. money to "unapproved" NIPEs.
Personally, I'm NOT interested in federal funding. However, the state
cannot deny approval when parents comply with the simple statutory
requirements listed in our bill.
Private educators have currently three different catagories for
approval:
(AA) Schools which are approved for attendance purposes only
in accordance with the NH State Board of Education policies as
set forth in the publication Non-Public Schools in New Hampshire,
Regulations and Procedures for School Approval (1992).
*(AA) Schools approved for attendance purposes only, but
have requested program approval under criteria adopted by the
State Board of Education.
(AP) Schools which are approved for attendance and educational
program in accordance with N.H. State Board of Education policies
as set forth in the publication Non-Public Schools in New Hampshire,
Regulations and Procedures for School Approval (1992).
As of 1990, there were 114 private schools approved as (AA), 41
private schools waiting approval for curriculum and approved as
(*AA), and only 19 private schools approved as (AP).
It is NOT "reasonable" for the Department of Education to make
"curriculum and faculty requirements." It's politically unreasonable
as 114 private schools would immediately object. It's fiscally
unreasonable as the department doesn't have the money: N.H. has no
income tax to fund state control. The department can't keep up with
the 41 outstanding "requests" for a lengthy program approval, as it
is. The department actively discourages home educators from complying
directly with the state under the current law: they simply don't have
the money.
> 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.
N.H. is not Maine. You definitely *are* a lawyer, Scott. All you see
is your law books, all you consider are judicial possibilities. You
have not considered "practical politics." What motivates the Governor
and Attorney General, who, after all, are the ones who have to bring a
case in the first place? Right now, the Governor is extremely
sensitive to lawsuits against the state. He has approximately a
billion dollars worth of child abuse lawsuits alone, still pending. He
doesn't want any more.
We met with the Governor and he's *with the program*, Scott. ;-)
Out-of-state 'experts' don't have time to look for allies, understand
the problems of the Dept. of Education, or follow the money. Hot
buttons in N.H. are unfunded mandates and fear of expensive lawsuits.
As for Mr. Roger's comment in a previous post, we're not even close to
good legislation here in New Hampshire, thanks largely to HSLDA & Co.
> I am not opposed to your bill as it currently reads. How can I
> help?
Get with the program, Scott. ;-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 4
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:29:38 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>
> I think that the best overall solution is to set
> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
>
> Scott Somerville at HSLDA
How many readers still feel comfortable with HSLDA representing
the rights of *all* home educators at the state, or even the federal level,
after Scott's lastest comment?
Doris
Message 5
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:33:56 -0400
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: Scott Somerville
>
> As I see the debate so far, Judy and SR have been arguing back
> and forth over whether a totally laissez-faire approach is better
> than a slightly regulated approach. Perhaps one or the other of
> them can tell me if that is what the debate is really about.
I think that's the question. (There's also the more fundamental thread of
whether the argument can be properly be put in terms of moral absolutes.)
> Since I have stuck my oar in, I'll go in with my own thoughts on
> the issue. I think that the best overall solution is to set
> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
Sounds good to me, so long as they are objective physical standards.
[I've changed the order of things I'm quoting.]
> So, let me bring Mnookin's thoughts into this discussion. He
> analogized the family to the free market . . .
I agree with that analysis, but I would go further . . .
I would say that the health of the family in free conditions is not
merely analogous to the health of business in a free-market. The two
entities are, in principle, identical in their need for freedom to
function, and in the justification for that freedom lying in individual
rights. Businesses flourish in a free market fundamentally as a result
of their operators being able to act on thier own judgment (because
force has been removed as a consideration in the marketplace).
Families need freedom for exactly the same reason - so their operators
(parents) can pursue the health and well being of the family members by
their own judegment. The justification for a businessman being able to
trade freely is the same as for families to pursue education of thier
children freely - individual rights.
BTW: how does one pronounce a word starting with "Mn"?
Message 6
Subject:
Re: NH's 1994 bill
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:45:00 -0400
From:
"EDWARD GREER - GREERED@APPSTATE.EDU"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>
> > I am not opposed to your bill as it currently reads. How can I
> > help?
>
> Get with the program, Scott. ;-)
Doris Hohensee
Doris -
I have been observing this dialogue for some time and have appreciated your
concerns and efforts.
Looks like Scott is trying to mend a fence. Might be wise to cut the negatives
at this point and try to move on with constructive dialogue.
Ed
>
>
--
Ed Greer
greered@appstate.edu
Message 7
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 15:06:05 -0400
From:
(Chris Burian)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott writes:
> Since I have stuck my oar in, I'll go in with my own thoughts on
> the issue. I think that the best overall solution is to set
> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
No way. We can't give the government the acknowledged authority to
specify standards of care. Prosecutors must always be held to the high
standard of proving harm was actually suffered by the victim and that
such harm was directly caused by the accused. Inventing standards takes
the people out of the picture. Instead of defensible charges of harming
a child, offenders will face accusations of breaking a rule written on a
piece of paper by some social worker or other government lackey.
I'll once again bring up the analogy of gun control. It's very difficult
for bureaucrats to install even the most meager measures, like a waiting
period, in an area with no controls at all. But it's almost trivial for
them to pile on more regulations, often written by unelected state
employees not accountable to the people, in areas where gun control is
already in place, ex: Cal., Mass., & NJ.
If we allow any regulation at all, it will be stretched and abused with
impunity by self-righteous big-gov't stooges. How long before an 'approved'
home-school curriculum demands multi-culturalism and condom training? How
long before social workers burst into our homes at suppertime to check that
all four food groups (sorry, I mean the new food pyramid) are being served
in healthy portions?
--
==============
========
============================
Message 8
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 15:17:25 -0400
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: (Chris Burian)
>
> Scott writes:
> > . . . certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish . . .
> No way. We can't give the government the acknowledged authority to
> specify standards of care. Prosecutors must always be held to the high
> standard of proving harm was actually suffered by the victim and that
> such harm was directly caused by the accused.
I assumed, perhaps too quickly, that by "standards for care" Scott meant
objective standards based on physical harm, as Chris describes.
Would you clear this up, Scott?
SR
| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Center Drive
| srogers@mcc.com Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691
Message 9
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 15:28:34 -0400
From:
David L. Hanson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Doris writes:
>Scott Somerville writes:
>>
>> I think that the best overall solution is to set
>> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
>> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
>>
>How many readers still feel comfortable with HSLDA representing
>the rights of *all* home educators at the state, or even the federal level,
>after Scott's lastest comment?
I would think (and hope) that Scott is speaking for himself and not HSLDA.
Also, I would also like Scott to further explain what he means by "certain
minimum standards". Taking the statement at face value, I strongly disagree
with him. THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH FAMILIES!!!!!! There
are already laws which concern murder (except in the case of the unborn),
rape, battery resulting in serious injury, etc.
I do have one additional question that has been on my mind for awhile.
Does HSLDA believe that there must also be minimum standards for homeschooling
(caused by an attitude that some "negligent" parents just must be controlled
by the State - why you never know "they" might just not educate their children
at home - we better make a law to make sure "they" don't violate our minimum
standards)?
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
Message 10
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 15:46:34 -0400
From:
Evan Todd Yeager
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I do, quite frankly.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Evan T. Yeager | Prevent AIDS: Practice morality. |
| EdD Student | Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:24 ; Rom. 1:26 - 27;|
| East Texas State University | 1Cor. 6:9; 1Cor. 6:18; 1Ths. 4:3 - 6 |
|------ Eph. 6:10-17 <=========([=== ------|
On Wed, 27 Oct 1993, Doris Hohensee wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that the best overall solution is to set
> > certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
> > parents who intentionally violate those standards.
> >
> > Scott Somerville at HSLDA
>
>
> How many readers still feel comfortable with HSLDA representing
> the rights of *all* home educators at the state, or even the federal level,
> after Scott's lastest comment?
>
> Doris
Message 11
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:11:41 -0400
From:
arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>How many readers still feel comfortable with HSLDA representing
>the rights of *all* home educators at the state, or even the federal level,
>after Scott's lastest comment?
>
>Doris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a lead in, I am extremely glad that a group like HSLDA exists, and I
recommend to members of my support group to consider becomming paid members
of HSLDA as a form of insurance. HSers greatly need legal assistance that
is on our side. The work that HSLDA performs for it's paid members on
individual legal problems is wonderful.
As previously posted though, I GREATLY wish that HSLDA AND all other groups
and/or individuals that feel a need to represent ALL homeschoolers to state
and/or federal agencies would cease and desist all such activity.
The only ones I trust to represent me and my family are those that are
carrying in hand a petition I have signed, or a letter I have sent them, or
come from a group or association I am a member of and have elected.
~~~~
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 12
ubject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:37:28 -0400
From:
"Greg Wolff, 297-6421, S&M IM&T 27-Oct-1993 1618"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Doris
I feel very comfortable with HSLDA. I go so far as to say that "no one
should home school without them."
I think that you are mis-interpreting this comment. When a lawyer says
that he would rather have a criminal statute, he is not making the kind
of statemnet that you think he is making. He is rather saying that "it
is much easier to defend against a criminal case than other kinds of
legal attack." It is much harder, for example, for social workers to
take custody of your kids if they are held to the same legal
accountability as the police.
Semantics is terribly important in computer programming. Semantics is
also VERY important in legal work.
I am reminded of the recent case in Massachusetts involving an
un-schooler. The unschooler had a curriculum that was completely
unacceptable to the school district. They charged criminal truancy.
The home schooler won the case because criminal truancy has nothing to
do with the legal language of approving and disapproving a home
schooling curriculum. So the judge followed the law and the home
schooler is not guilty as charged.
Greg Wolff
wolff@devlpr.enet.dec.com
Message 13
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 17:09:26 -0400
From:
hunt@cs.cornell.edu (Guerney D. H. Hunt)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>>
>> I think that the best overall solution is to set
>> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
>> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
>>
>> Scott Somerville at HSLDA
>
>
>How many readers still feel comfortable with HSLDA representing
>the rights of *all* home educators at the state, or even the federal level,
>after Scott's lastest comment?
>
>Doris
I feel reasonably comfortable with HSLDA representing home schoolers,
in some context, at the state and federal level. I don't think they
can presume to represent "*all*" home educators. I also recommend
to other home schoolers, that they consider joining HLSDA.
In my view HSLDA is not a substidute for our individual involvement in
state and federal politics. Also I consider them servants, not
leaders. They represent legan defense and expertise that home
schoolers can use.
Doris, I agree with the earlier post on peacemaking. HSLDA in not
perfect nor is any other orginazation made up of people. If there are
substanative differences between your orginazation and HSLDA I would
expect you to continue to disagree. However since both orginizations
are concerned about home schooling, I believe that you would further
the cause if you were to look to see if there is a way for you to
coperate. It does not appear to me, from your most recient posts that
you are doing this.
>From what I have read of HSLDAs materials they do not stand for or
support the government defining or controling "standards" for
parenting. Therefore the above remarke needs further clairfication.
Message 14
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 18:16:44 -0400
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA responding to the latest round of stuff...
To SR: One pronounces "Mnookin" this way, "M-N-O-O-K-I-N."
Sorry, that is the best I can do. E-mail has its limitations.
To Doris' last little dig: "How can ANYONE trust Scott after [he
suggests criminal prosecution of parents]." I am glad that I am
an active participant in this conversation, because if I weren't,
everything I say or do would be distorted beyond recognition.
Let me explain, though, a little more carefully, why a home
school lawyer would advocate criminal prosecution of families.
Criminal prosecution of parents is MUCH, MUCH BETTER than
juvenile court jurisdiction over families! Criminals have
rights, families in juvenile court have NONE. If parents beat a
child to death, the criminal court will convict them of murder,
while the juvenile court will put them under the never-ending
jurisdiction of the court.
I am currently representing a family whose oldest son is being
charged with murder. The same family is under juvenile court
jurisdiction because the parents pled guilty to contributing to
the delinquency of a child. (A severely handicapped child died
several days after getting into the bleach in the laundry room.
The oldest son was baby-sitting at the time. The parents pled
guilty in a plea-bargaining effort to keep the death of the child
from permanently ending their home school program. Then the
judge who accepted the plea bargain left the case, and a new
judge stepped in who ignored the plea bargaining agreement and
started hounding the family.) In this case, I am MUCH happier
dealing with the murder charges being brought against the son
than I am with the continuing juvenile court jurisdiction over
the family. There is very little that the State can do to the
son in criminal court (neither I nor the primary defense attorney
think the prosecutors have the faintest chance of proving, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that this boy intentionally murdered his
sister). But the juvenile court has never-ending jurisdiction,
just because the family left a 16 year old as a baby-sitter.
So, to make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, I think criminal prosecution is
better for the average family than juvenile court jurisdiction.
I think the criminal law can be made to protect children from
murder, battering, starvation, torture, and all the other horrors
that really do happen. I don't think that the juvenile courts
can be made to respect the rights of families to establish their
own values.
(I don't really have the time to get into debates with people who
take what I say out of context and twist it beyond recognition.)
Message 15
Subject:
Re: NH Law -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 18:41:47 -0400
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA responding to Karen Peterson's articulate and
careful response to my question about NH law; and, just to keep
the traffic down, to Doris Hohensee's sincere but skeptical list
of personal questions...
Karen, you stress that private schools only have to comply with
regulations governing attendance. My problem is that your
proposed bill gives the State Board of Education the power to
promulgate a SEPARATE set of rules for non-institutional private
educators (NIPEs). What makes you think that the Board won't
draft NIPE "attendance" regulations that rule out unschooling?
Doris: let me respond to each of your questions and comments.
1) "The [old] regulations had no force of law." YOUR
superintendent was free to let you home school with no
requirements at all, which is great. My superintendent in Durham
was much more picky. To avoid prosecution, I had to attend
several meetings, submit to a lot of reviews, and document our
program in a way that the average unschooler simply could not do.
The Litchfield school committee spent three years prosecuting the
Merriam family, who spent well over $20,000 of their own money in
their own defense. You may remember that the entire fight
between the Merriams and Litchfield was over whether the children
would take the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the California
Achievement Test in the spring. Can you imagine what would have
happened if the Merriams had simply refused to take ANY tests?
It was not the "good old days" for everyone.
2) George Disnard's opinion that the old regulations were
unenforceable was based on Litchfield's legal bills in the
Merriam case. The "manifest educational hardship" provision in
the statute provided a very small toehold for the Department to
write home-school regulations, but I don't think you appreciate
which way that cuts. The Department had very limited statutory
authority to grant exemptions from attendance at a public or
private school. Every legal battle over home schooling turned
into a factual question of whether or not there was a "manifest
education hardship." Disnard is right in saying that it was very
hard to figure out what that meant, but don't imagine that it
always meant the home schooler wins!
For me, in the Oyster River School District (Durham, Lee and
Madbury), under the old regulations, I had to prove that my home
school program was SO GOOD that it would be a "hardship" to force
my children to go to the Durham elementary school. Given the
fact that Durham is a college town, with one of the highest SAT
scores in a state that is famous for its high scores, this was
not an easy thing to prove. Fortunately, both my wife and I were
Dartmouth graduates, and could mouth the right words for the
superintendent. What about my neighbors, though, who only
graduated from high school?
3) You criticize my joint efforts with Elaine Rapp by quoting
from Elaine's newsletter, which advocates compliance with state
requirements. Elaine and I presented a united front, but it took
an enormous amount of "smoke-filled back room" meetings to
accomplish that. Elaine primarily saw herself as representing
low-profile "pedagogues," while I had been chosen to represent
the confrontational "ideologues" in the newly-formed CHENH. I
repeatedly made the very arguments that you, Doris, are now
making: in essence, blood in the streets, massive resistance, and
million-dollar legal fees if the State tried to prosecute
conscientious objectors. Elaine tried to "balance" my radicalism
by saying, over and over again, "All we want are rules that work
for everyone." The good cop-bad cop strategy was INTENTIONAL,
and it generally worked.
4) You state that the Commissioner of Education has the statutory
power to accept or reject home education proposals, not the
overseer. A private school overseer has NO legal duty to send
proposals or evaluations to the commissioner. All the private
schools are required to do is to report the names of home school
children who are being overseen. How do you come up with a
"statutory power to accept or reject home education proposals" if
the commissioner doesn't even have statutory power to SEE the
proposal?
5) You say Ellen-Ann's wish-list was politically impossible. My
experience is that when the Chairman of the Higher Education
Appropriations Committee (dear, sweet Ellen-Ann) speaks,
legislators listen. They may pare down her list a bit, but the
tendency is to give her, say, half of what she is asking for.
This means she only has to ask for twice as much as she wants to
get everything she really cares about.
6) You say home schoolers have wasted their political clout.
Don't you think one little problem that we have had is that the
home schoolers have been busy fighting each other? "We must all
hang together, or we shall assuredly all hang separately."
7) You say, "We have not even established that we are really on
the same side, Scott." Granted. But we are working towards it,
right?
8) You ask, "Why do you support our parental rights amendment
when you believe it will only work for Kentucky home educators?"
In the immortal words of a recent President, "There you go
again!" I didn't say, and I don't believe, that it will only
work for Kentucky home educators. What are you talking about?
I have noted my doubts about how effective I think your proposed
PRA will be for the goals that you have stated. My cynicism
about how courts will interpret your proposals does NOT mean that
I oppose your intentions, or question your sincerity. I am happy
to support your efforts. If I dreamed for one second that you
had any interest in my comments, I would cheerfully suggest what
I think might stregthen your proposal, but given our current
chilly relationship, I wouldn't dare to improve on your current
draft.
9) You ask, "Are you finally supporting, not attacking, our
efforts towards the recognition of parents as private educators?"
I guess you never heard my position on your efforts last year. I
advised our members to SUPPORT your effort to amend the law to
include non-institutional private educators (NIPEs).
Message 16
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:35:15 -0400
From:
Judy Leedom Tyrer
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Since I have stuck my oar in, I'll go in with my own thoughts on
> the issue. I think that the best overall solution is to set
> certain minimum standards for care, and then criminally punish
> parents who intentionally violate those standards.
Sounds good to me, so long as they are objective physical standards.
Okay, so now all we have to do is agree on what does and does not constitute
objective physical standards. I say the ability to perform a skill is an
objective physical standard.
> So, let me bring Mnookin's thoughts into this discussion. He
> analogized the family to the free market . . .
I agree with that analysis, but I would go further . . .
I would say that the health of the family in free conditions is not
merely analogous to the health of business in a free-market. The two
entities are, in principle, identical in their need for freedom to
function, and in the justification for that freedom lying in individual
rights. Businesses flourish in a free market fundamentally as a result
of their operators being able to act on thier own judgment (because
force has been removed as a consideration in the marketplace).
Families need freedom for exactly the same reason - so their operators
(parents) can pursue the health and well being of the family members by
their own judegment. The justification for a businessman being able to
trade freely is the same as for families to pursue education of thier
children freely - individual rights.
Individual rights are always held in balance with community rights. Your
individual right to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.
BTW: how does one pronounce a word starting with "Mn"?
I think its with a silent M.
Judy
Message 17
Subject:
Objective Standards
Date:
Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:53:13 -0400
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA, for what had better be the last time if I am
going to get my other work done...
I suggested the state set certain minimum standards, and bring
criminal charges against parents who intentionally violated them.
I realize that none of you are telepathic, so I have to spell out
what I mean by "minimum." (Thanks, SR, for assuming the best
about my original comment. That common courtesy goes a long way
towards making this a more pleasant piece of cyberspace.)
Minimum standards of adult parents towards dependent children:
food, shelter, clothing. Use of parental force against a child
limited to legitimate disciplinary needs. Medical and
educational needs of child are the parents' responsibility;
however, these are areas where experts disagree, and parents
should be rebuttably presumed to be acting in the best interest
of the child.
Message 18
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply - community rights
Date:
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:58:01 -0400
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: Judy Leedom Tyrer
>
> Okay, so now all we have to do is agree on what does and does not constitute
> objective physical standards. I say the ability to perform a skill is an
> objective physical standard.
I failed to make myself clear here. I mean standards for physical harm.
> But, businesses ARE regulated. They are regulated against anti-trust laws.
> Why? Because otherwise predatory businesses would make it impossible for
> other businesses to flourish.
Sure they are, but that's not relevant. It just means that more people (and
more influencial people, like university level academics) have supported your
point of view than mine, since the turn of the century. This doesn't make
them right.
As to anti-trust law, I think its baseless. But a little too far afield
for this group.
> The justification for a businessman being able to
> trade freely is the same as for families to pursue education of thier
> children freely - individual rights.
>
> Individual rights are always held in balance with community rights. Your
> individual right to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.
Its often characterized that way. Its OK as a catchy summary, but its
not an accurate description of rights. Rights are not balanced, because
true rights are never in conflict. The need to balance rights arises
when activities or things are improperly categorized as rights. For
example, there is no right to swing arms or flail about madly. If you
can flail about madly without violating anyone's rights, then have at it;
but this is not the exercise of a right. Same goes for "right" to education,
"right" to health care, and the kinds of rights elaborated in the UN
declaration concerning children's rights.
Communities do not have rights. The only possible rights that a community
could be said to have, is the sum of the rights that each individual in
the community possesses separately; but no more. The only way a community
could exercise these rights, or have them violated, would be on a person
by person basis. In this sense, it is a redundant concecpt; the rights
of society are claimed by those who want to assign rights to "society"
or "community" that no particular individual can claim - such as the
right to enforce qualitative standards for the parent-child relationship.
SR
| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Center Drive
| srogers@mcc.com Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691
<
Message 19
Subject:
Re: Judy's reply -Reply -Reply
Date:
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:12:35 -0400
From:
arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>I am currently representing a family whose oldest son is being
>charged with murder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCOTT @ HSLDA,
Do you intend any kind of copyright on you posts, or may I excerpt
them in our HS newsletter? We have a misc HS news column that contains
stories such as the one you told us of.
By the way, we offer complimentary reciprocal subscriptions for any
HS type organizations' newsletters or bulletins. We are part of the
newletter exchange sponsered by Anne-in-Chicago (Hi Anne!). Email me if
your interested.
Thanks,
~~~~
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 20
Subject:
Re: NH Law -Reply
Date:
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 23:30:35 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott Somerville at HSLDA writes:
> My problem is that your proposed bill gives the State Board of
> Education the power to promulgate a SEPARATE set of rules for
> non-institutional private educators (NIPEs). What makes you think
> that the Board won't draft NIPE "attendance" regulations that rule out
> unschooling?
As a lawyer you should realize that *every* statute (not just my
proposed statutes) must have rules to explain the proper method of
compliance. Without rules the statute is unenforceable since you can
countersue the State, when enforcement is attempted, that the law is
vague and ambiguous. Moreover, in New Hampshire we have a sunset rule
which retires rules every eight years, which explains why review and
resubmission of the "manifest educational hardship" rules for home
educators was necessary five years ago.
Currently there is a mini-scandal over the Division for Children and
Youth Services' (DCYS) lack of rulemaking. Nearly all of their rules
have expired and it is a lengthy process to resubmit them to the
legislature. Meanwhile, it is debatable whether they currently have
authority to continue to remove children from their homes.
Returning to our subject, our HSLDA-endorsed home education law
contains the following concerning administration and rulemaking
authority:
RSA 193-A:2 Program Established. There is established the home
eduation program to be administered by the department of education.
[Lest you have any residual notions that private schools, not the
commissioner, administers home education.]
RSA 193-A:4 Rulemaking. The state board of education shall adopt
rules pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to administering the home
education program. [This is the *same* board of education that you
are now so worried about.]
So you see, Scott, it is just as "risky" under your current law as
it will be for our proposed law, as the Board *always* gets the
opportunity to draft rules. The Board can also submit new regulations
for any statute, as they see fit.
I have a fighting chance with my proposal though: I can comply and
still not give up my right to retract that application, unlike under
current law. See below.
> 1) "The [old] regulations had no force of law." YOUR superintendent
> was free to let you home school with no requirements at all, which is
> great. My superintendent in Durham was much more picky. To avoid
> prosecution, I had to attend several meetings, submit to a lot of
> reviews, and document our program in a way that the average unschooler
> simply could not do.
I get the feeling that you have no more use for unschoolers than your
affiliated group, CHENH. Current law, as now administered, certainly
doesn't put you out any more than the regulations did.
Scott, your superintendent was as free as mine was. All you had to do
was point at the town of Litchfield's bad experience (see your own
statement below). Your superintendent would almost certainly have
backed down. If he had remained recalcitrant, a short talk with the
school board and/or alderman (I don't know what form of government
Durham has) concerning the expense of a suit would have slowed him
down a lot. Failing all of that, a few people picketing the city
offices with the right spin on your story would have caused them a lot
of difficulty. Failing that, organizing a committee to unelect the
people causing the problem and letting those people *know* what you
were doing would have worked wonders. Bureaucrats and career
politicians *hate* taking risks. Darn it, Scott, you didn't even
*try*!
> The Litchfield school committee spent three
> years prosecuting the Merriam family, who spent well over $20,000 of
> their own money in their own defense. You may remember that the
> entire fight between the Merriams and Litchfield was over whether the
> children would take the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the California
> Achievement Test in the spring. Can you imagine what would have
> happened if the Merriams had simply refused to take ANY tests? It was
> not the "good old days" for everyone.
I am truly sorry that many good families were intimidated, but the
fact remains: the old regulations did *not* have the force of law. If
you had been more tenacious perhaps you, too, could have worked out a
deal with your superintendent, as I did. Problems often occur after a
number of families set a precedent of compliance with bad rules, or
bad laws for that matter. I managed to overcome this problem in
Nashua, even with Elaine Rapp's own superintendent. I did have to
endure many lectures from Elaine on how I was going to "ruin it" for
everyone though. What I actually ended up doing was "fixing it" for
everyone who really *wanted* to be a refusenik in Nashua.
Again, political action would have been a lot cheaper than $20K. As I
recall, the Merriams initially complied with the regulations, then
balked over the testing issue. Paradoxically, they'd probably have
been better off legally if they *had* completely refused. They hurt
their case badly *just by applying in the first place*. By doing so,
they implicitly granted the state the right to regulate them. That
is, they *voluntarily* gave up their sovereignity over the education
of their children. They certainly didn't realize that they were doing
so, though. It's like any other form of licensure: the mere act of
asking permission pretty much destroys your right to object to the
consequences in court. It's unfortunate that you made the identical
mistake.
Note that compliance with the current law *explicitly* has the same
effect. You restricted the "intent" of your law by adding the
following statement of purpose:
"The general court recognizes ... that it is the primary right
and obligation of a parent to *choose* the appropriate
educational alternative for a child under his care and
supervision, *as provided by law.* One such alternative allows
a parent to elect to educate a child at home as an alternative
to attendance at a public or private school, in accordance
with RSA 193-A."
Megabummer. You're boxed in, Scott. In the case of a hostile
commissioner, everyone who's complied with the current law has no
recourse from his authority. Remember: any rights not restricted by
statute remain with the people? In this case, they didn't just
restrict your rights, they eliminated them entirely.
> 2) George Disnard's opinion that the old regulations were
> unenforceable was based on Litchfield's legal bills in the Merriam
> case.
Yes, money talks! Note again: compared to a lawsuit, political action
is downright *cheap*.
> The "manifest educational hardship" provision in the statute
> provided a very small toehold for the Department to write home-school
> regulations, but I don't think you appreciate which way that cuts.
> The Department had very limited statutory authority to grant
> exemptions from attendance at a public or private school.
Not so. The *local school board*, not the Department, was in charge
of acknowledging "manifest educational hardship." Remember the good
ol' days of *local* control, when we really *had* local control, not
pretend local control, with a designated overseer for the state? The
statute was not "limited" but "vague and ambiguous," therefore the
State could only issue "Guidelines" (i.e., suggestions) to the local
districts, who had very broad latitude on granting exemptions.
Remember: any power not specifically granted to the state
automatically reverts to the people? Or the next lower jurisdiction,
anyway.
For reference, here's the clause in question:
RSA 193:3 Any person having custody of a child may apply to
the school board for relief if he thinks the attendance of the
child at the school to which such child has been assigned will
result in a manifest educational hardship to the child.
> Every legal
> battle over home schooling turned into a factual question of whether
> or not there was a "manifest education hardship." Disnard is right in
> saying that it was very hard to figure out what that meant, but don't
> imagine that it always meant the home schooler wins!
No, not everyone won. Only the stubborn and tenacious parents who
believed in their right to educate their children and held out to the
very end. Including the Merriams, by taking the ultimate step of
moving to a more accomodating town (which one can't do anymore, what
with state preemption). Perhaps this is because home educator
'leadership' did not properly help support or advise the rest of
the parents of their rights: they preached only compliance and
trust. (Literally. At the 1990 hearings on the current law, mutual
"trust" was about all one heard about. It was practically a love
fest.) If everyone had been a hard case, the state would have given
up, due to the expense alone.
> 3) You criticize my joint efforts with Elaine Rapp by quoting from
> Elaine's newsletter, which advocates compliance with state
> requirements.
I still criticize your position and that of HSLDA of advocating
compliance with an unconstitutional and unbearable law.
Need another reason not to comply? Military families, who home
educate and constantly travel from state to state, sought legal advice
concerning our current law. The Judge Advocate General (JAG) for two
local military bases felt that our law was unenforceable. The JAG's
office told our state attorney general's office and the department of
education's office that if they tried to enforce this law on any
military families that a suit would immediately be slapped on the
state. They agree the law is unconstitutional, on the same grounds we
do. *They*, at least, protect their own.
> 4) You state that the Commissioner of Education has the statutory
> power to accept or reject home education proposals, not the overseer.
> A private school overseer has NO legal duty to send proposals or
> evaluations to the commissioner. All the private schools are required
> to do is to report the names of home school children who are being
> overseen. How do you come up with a "statutory power to accept or
> reject home education proposals" if the commissioner doesn't even have
> statutory power to SEE the proposal?
Where, Scott, does the *statute* say that the commissioner may never
*see* the proposed programs? Even the rules don't say that the
commissioner may never see the programs. It is just a matter of time
and the personal preference of the commissioner. Perhaps, instigated
by some irate school district, rules to define a legal duty to send
proposals to the commissioner on a regular basis will be added.
Justification for this type of change can easily be found in the
following sections:
RSA 193-A:5, Section I: "...Said superintendent or principal shall
provide notification of such intention to the department of
education...
RSA 193-A:7, Section I: "...if the commissioner has written
and substantiated information which *strongly implies*
[doesn't even have to prove it and it's "a priori," too] that
a home education program will not meet the requirements of
[curriculum and "notification"] based on such information, the
commissioner decides to withhold acknowledgment, he shall
immediately schedule a due process hearing..."
Without complete paperwork, how can the commissioner do his job
properly? He's got the power. All he lacks, so far, is the will and
the money. A new commissioner could change home education to suit his
fancy.
> 5) You say Ellen-Ann's wish-list was politically impossible. My
> experience is that when the Chairman of the Higher Education
> Appropriations Committee (dear, sweet Ellen-Ann) speaks,
> legislators listen. They may pare down her list a bit, but the
> tendency is to give her, say, half of what she is asking for.
> This means she only has to ask for twice as much as she wants to
> get everything she really cares about.
Yes, but she *lost*. First she lost her local school board seat in
Litchfield. Then she lost her seat in the N.H. House of
Representatives. Now she's a Hillsborough County coordinator for
child abuse and neglect (payment for services rendered). *Our* people
had a lot to do with her ejection from elected office. A gentle
reminder of that to certain parties might focus their minds
wonderfully.
It is a fact that much of legislative leadership win their primaries
and/or elections by *very* slim margins. It is also a fact that there
aren't very many of them: 20 or 30 people own the 400-member House.
E.g., Mike Hill, the current House deputy speaker, won by *one*
(that's no typo) vote in the last election. These people are
*vulnerable* and they know it.
> 6) You say home schoolers have wasted their political clout. Don't
> you think one little problem that we have had is that the home
> schoolers have been busy fighting each other? "We must all hang
> together, or we shall assuredly all hang separately."
Give me a break, Scott. The biggest waste of political clout was on
the current law itself in 1990, which is irrelevant to the subsequent
battles. We weren't busy fighting each other *then*.
We have been fighting for three years now, not over *what* to do,
but over whether we should do anything at *all*. During the
legislative effort to enact our current law, I was told: "Let this
bill pass. It's not perfect but it's the best we can get now. We'll
be back to the legislature to fix the remaining problems." I have met
and met and met with your 'leadership' to find common ground for
amending the law. They now say, like you did, that: "We mustn't change
anything. It's too risky. Etc. Etc."
Comply with an unconstitutional statute like the rest of you? Sorry,
but NO THANKS. I'll take my chances outside the law. Group conformity
is not even tempting. With the law as it is, the whole gang will hang
as soon as a hostile commissioner comes in.
> 7) You say, "We have not even established that we are really on the
> same side, Scott." Granted. But we are working towards it, right?
I'm afraid you are more optimistic than I am. After all, I am not
standing in the way of your freedom.
> 8) You ask, "Why do you support our parental rights amendment
> when you believe it will only work for Kentucky home educators?"
> I have noted my doubts about how effective I think your proposed PRA
> will be for the goals that you have stated. My cynicism about how
> courts will interpret your proposals does NOT mean that I oppose your
> intentions, or question your sincerity. I am happy to support your
> efforts.
We both understand each other's sincerity (and I don't mean that to
reflect badly on you). Of what value is your lukewarm endorsement?
"I am emotionally happy to support your efforts, but I have
reservations about its effectiveness in a court of law." Gee, thanks,
Scott, but I'm trying to get it *passed*.
Serious radicalism, like repealing cumpulsory attendance, is,
unfortunately, right out. With a nod to Steve Rogers, that's not
going to happen absent the sort of social upheaval I don't like
thinking about.
Yes, I understand the "risks" (here we go again with that word of
yours) involved in going before a different judge in a court of law.
There are no guarantees in life, except that you and I will never
completely see eye to eye. The PRA works in Kentucky, why shouldn't
we give it a try in New Hampshire? I know how you feel about
unschoolers, but even *they* can comply in Kentucky!
> If I dreamed for one second that you had any interest in my
> comments, I would cheerfully suggest what I think might strengthen your
> proposal, but given our current chilly relationship, I wouldn't dare
> to improve on your current draft.
Chilly relationship? Cheerful suggestions? Watch it, Scott, people
may start to think that I'm really awful. I would never even dream
for a second that you really mean *that*.
I'd be happy to see your suggestions. I'm not vain enough to believe
I have all the answers. I'm *real* good at finding problems though. ;-)
Remember that I've got to get it *passed*. That requires a certain
obscurity of language.
> 9) You ask, "Are you finally supporting, not attacking, our
> efforts towards the recognition of parents as private educators?"
> I guess you never heard my position on your efforts last year. I
> advised our members to SUPPORT your effort to amend the law to
> include non-institutional private educators (NIPEs).
Thank you, after the fact. I hadn't known that. It would be
interesting to see the actual text of your recommendation, along with
the surrounding article. It doesn't appear to have worked though,
because they all rallied and opposed the amendment. And yes, that's
supposed to sound bitter.
-------------------------
I understand your time is limited, but you forgot a few questions.
Perhaps you could get around to answering them? I think they're the
most important ones. I've listed them again, for your convenience:
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?
More important, how are you going to prevent your people from coming
out in opposition, given how you've demonized us in the past? (See the
Family Watch article I posted and my comment on your point 9 above.)
This is going to be a real tough row to hoe, Scott. Current home
education 'leaders' will take a lot of heat if they do a 180. They'd
more than likely lose their positions. They're human, they don't like
loss of status.
Am I to trust HSLDA just like that? No apology. No explanation. HSLDA
has been my *major* opposition for over four years now.
You're directly connected to Rapp and the Faiellas, who give every
appearance of being fronts for the commissioner. And as a *practical*
political matter, all personal feelings aside, you know quite well
that it's your side that'll have to publically bend, if I'm to have
any hope of getting something through the legislature. You guys have
dug yourselves a political hole too deep for anything else.
Doris Hohensee
Message 21
Subject:
Re: NH Law -Reply -Reply
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:41:52 -0400
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA, responding to Doris for what really needs to be
the last time. Honest, Doris, I think we are boring the rest of
the list, and we are haggling over details of past hurt feelings
that very few other people really care about. I also REALLY HAVE
TO DO SOME WORK! I am assisting in a murder case in Ohio,
handling two prosecutions in Tennessee, two cases in Virginia, a
double handful of families being hounded in Massachusetts, new
regulations being proposed in Iowa, and so forth...
As I said, I supported your non-institutional private educator
proposal last spring. You, apparently, never noticed. I will
support it again this spring. You perceive this as a 180 degree
reversal, but I don't. End of discussion. They say it takes two
to make an argument, so I am ending the argument here. Have a
nice day.
Message 22
Subject:
Petition for Continuance
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:04:46 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Scott at HSLDA, responding to Doris for what really needs to be the
> last time. Honest, Doris, I think we are boring the rest of the list,
> and we are haggling over details of past hurt feelings that very few
> other people really care about. I also REALLY HAVE TO DO SOME WORK!
> I am assisting in a murder case in Ohio, handling two prosecutions in
> Tennessee, two cases in Virginia, a double handful of families being
> hounded in Massachusetts, new regulations being proposed in Iowa, and
> so forth...
I understand that Scott doesn't feel that he has the time to continue
this discussion. I am happy that he continues to work hard for those
clients who he is paid to represent. I never tried to prevent HSLDA
from performing its legitimate function, defending clients involved in
lawsuits.
My purpose was to demonstrate, via the precedents of the recent past,
the danger of allowing HSLDA to represent home educators at any
legislative hearings. I'm disappointed that Scott would prefer to
downplay the significance of the historical role HSLDA has played in
state politics to "personal squabbles of the past." Although I may be
wrong, I do not believe that this discussion is "boring the rest of
the list."
> As I said, I supported your non-institutional private educator
> proposal last spring. You, apparently, never noticed. I will support
> it again this spring. You perceive this as a 180 degree reversal, but
> I don't. End of discussion. They say it takes two to make an
> argument, so I am ending the argument here. Have a nice day.
I would like to encourage Scott to reconsider his decision to end this
discussion. I had hoped that we could clear up some confusion and put
a few issues to rest first. For instance, I would be interested in
seeing your letter of support to N.H. home educators last year. I
hope you aren't offended that I ask for substantiating text.
Perhaps, if Scott fought the urge to respond immediately and took more
time to respond, this discussion wouldn't interfere with his daily
responsibilities.
Doris Hohensee
Message 23
Subject:
Re: Petition for Continuance
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:53:06 -0400
From:
Tom Walker
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Doris...while I followed your discussions with Scott with interest, I
must agree with Scott...it has gotten boring and fruitless...I recommend
that you call a truce and agree to disagree. At the same time, I thank
both of you for and informational discussion. I find lots of middle ground
between the two of you that I can live with and I do not agree 100% with
either of you.
Message 24
Subject:
Re: Petition for Continuance
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:11:20 -0400
From:
"EDWARD GREER - GREERED@APPSTATE.EDU"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
In following message doris@mainstream.com (Doris Hohensee) said:
> > Scott at HSLDA, responding to Doris for what really needs to be the
> > last time. Honest, Doris, I think we are boring the rest of the list,
> > and we are haggling over details of past hurt feelings that very few
> > other people really care about. I also REALLY HAVE TO DO SOME WORK!
> > I am assisting in a murder case in Ohio, handling two prosecutions in
> > Tennessee, two cases in Virginia, a double handful of families being
> > hounded in Massachusetts, new regulations being proposed in Iowa, and
> > so forth...
>
> I understand that Scott doesn't feel that he has the time to continue
> this discussion. I am happy that he continues to work hard for those
> clients who he is paid to represent. I never tried to prevent HSLDA
> from performing its legitimate function, defending clients involved in
> lawsuits.
>
> My purpose was to demonstrate, via the precedents of the recent past,
> the danger of allowing HSLDA to represent home educators at any
> legislative hearings. I'm disappointed that Scott would prefer to
> downplay the significance of the historical role HSLDA has played in
> state politics to "personal squabbles of the past." Although I may be
> wrong, I do not believe that this discussion is "boring the rest of
> the list."
Your right. It started out as interesting and evolved to irritating. The
grinding of this axe is being handled in exceptionally poor taste - in
spite of the many legitimate points that have been made.
In any event, they have been made. (over and over again)
I for one, am interested in the progress you make and wish you well. If,
from this point on you can present the information and let go of the
editorializing, I will read your posts with great interest.
> > As I said, I supported your non-institutional private educator
> > proposal last spring. You, apparently, never noticed. I will support
> > it again this spring. You perceive this as a 180 degree reversal, but
> > I don't. End of discussion. They say it takes two to make an
> > argument, so I am ending the argument here. Have a nice day.
>
> I would like to encourage Scott to reconsider his decision to end this
> discussion. I had hoped that we could clear up some confusion and put
> a few issues to rest first. For instance, I would be interested in
> seeing your letter of support to N.H. home educators last year. I
> hope you aren't offended that I ask for substantiating text.
>
> Perhaps, if Scott fought the urge to respond immediately and took more
> time to respond, this discussion wouldn't interfere with his daily
> responsibilities.
>
> Doris Hohensee
>
These comments are mean-spirited and a drain on this list.
I astounds me that anyone with your obvious intellect would go so far out of
the way to insure the lack of cooperation with an attorney who, for better or
worse, is deeply involved with the homeschool movement.
Can it!
PLEASE
--
Ed Greer
greered@appstate.edu
Message 25
Subject:
Re: Scott's comment
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:36:05 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I am sorry if this post violates my cease and desist order. I wrote
most of this before Scott's cease fire notice. It isn't *viciously*
critical. ;-)
> David Hanson writes:
> THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH
> FAMILIES!!!!!! There are already laws which concern murder (except in
> the case of the unborn), rape, battery resulting in serious injury, etc.
> Does HSLDA believe that there must also be minimum standards for
> homeschooling (caused by an attitude that some "negligent" parents
> just must be controlled by the State - why you never know "they" might
> just not educate their children at home - we better make a law to make
> sure "they" don't violate our minimum standards)?
HSLDA's affiliated 'leaders,' you know, the ones that Scott has
promised to contact on my behalf, have stood before the N.H.
legislature and publically testified that we need state laws and
regulations because some homeschooling parents are not properly
educating their children. They want "minimum standards" for home
education which many parents cannot tolerate. Now, Scott wants some
"minimum standards" too.
> Ed Greer writes:
> I have been observing this dialogue for some time and have
> appreciated your concerns and efforts. Looks like Scott is
> trying to mend a fence. Might be wise to cut the negatives
> at this point and try to move on with constructive dialogue.
Sure, *Scott* wants to move on. Considering the political damage that
he and HSLDA have inflicted upon New Hampshire, saying: "What can I do
to help?" lacks credibility. Until the past is acknowledged, what
assurance do I have that it won't be repeated? The fence is not yet
mended, and the flock is out in left field.
I am sorry if my attitude is sometimes negative. That's because my
freedom, not Scott's, is still at risk. My biggest opposition to date
has not been the legislature (the House Education chairman agrees that
our current law is inequitable: she's willing to repeal it); it has
not been the Department of Education (they haven't had to lift a
finger); it has been my fellow home educators, who have been
repeatedly misinformed by HSLDA, that have opposed *all* of our bills.
Mike Smith labeled the PRA as "misguided;" our efforts for equity were
opposed in HSLDA's legislative bulletins as "a hostile attack;" and
even last year's effort for a private education option was still
opposed despite the fact that it would have had NO impact on the
current law. The political reality is that if HSLDA really wants to
help at this point they have to eat crow.
In Scott's defense though, based on what he's said here, he's not been
part of my opposition recently.
> Gregg Wolff writes:
> I think that you are mis-interpreting this comment. When a lawyer
> says that he would rather have a criminal statute, he is not making
> the kind of statement that you think he is making. He is rather
> saying that "it is much easier to defend against a criminal case than
> other kinds of legal attack." It is much harder, for example, for
> social workers to take custody of your kids if they are held to the
> same legal accountability as the police.
I'm well aware that there are different standards of evidence needed
for conviction in civil versus criminal prosecution. I am familiar
with the problems of parents falsely accused of child abuse. I too
can recount horror stories of needlessly destroyed lives in these star
chambers. That is not my issue here: I don't want to have to choose
between compromises (civil v. criminal court). I do not want "minimum
standards" for acceptable behavior to end up being discussed in *any*
court at all.
> Scott writes:
> Minimum standards of adult parents towards dependent children: food,
> shelter, clothing. Use of parental force against a child limited to
> legitimate disciplinary needs. Medical and educational needs of child
> are the parents' responsibility; however, these are areas where
> experts disagree, and parents should be rebuttably presumed to be
> acting in the best interest of the child.
Granted, the civil prosecution of child abuse and neglect is a
nightmare. But what crime is it when a parent doesn't provide
"adequate" food, shelter, clothing? The crime of poverty? What
constitutes sub-standard housing, clothes or nutrition? Who decides?
A child has no more rights than any other individual. Which means
that if an adult has no right to appropriate another's property,
neither does a child, even through intermediaries. In particular, a
child has no inherent right to coerce food, shelter or clothing from
anyone, including his parents.
Sounds pretty brutal, no? But wait. There's this thing called a
marriage *contract*, which, if you got a marriage license from the
state, you're subject to. It gives you specific authority and taxes
you with specific duties, all of which are subject to change at the
whim of the government. To my knowledge, it's a relatively new thing
in the West: I'm not sure when it was introduced, though the French
certainly set it up as a byproduct of the 1789 Revolution. Before it
existed, all there were were Church-sanctioned and common law
marriages. The first was entirely a *private* contract, while the
second only came into force if a man and woman represented themselves
as married, not if they just lived together. In the latter case,
people occasionally produced children absent *any* contract. In that
case, the biological parents had no duties whatsoever wrt those
children. They had no authority over them either, of course, *unless*
they provided for them, in which case a child owed the parent a
reciprocal duty (common law has a lot to say about implied contracts).
But this was true of anyone who provided for a child: it didn't have
to be the biological parents. Thus, common law adoption.
Anyway, under state marriage contracts, children may have *claims*,
but not rights. It is unfortunate that legislatures have lately taken
to inflating the possible size of those claims and reducing the
authority of parents subject to those contracts. Even worse, the
government presumes to sovereignity over those who aren't parties to a
state marriage contract (but probably *are* parties to a religious
one), something entirely illegal at common law. Even worse, the
government presumes to be able to enforce a contract whose terms can
change out from under you, something also illegal at common law. Such
government presumption is moreover probably illegal under the U.S.
Constitution's contract clause, but I doubt anyone's ever contested
e.g., child support or divorce laws on that basis.
I think perhaps Scott is confusing rights with claims. He assumes
that the state has the *right* of unilateral contract overhaul. I
disagree (no surprise there ;-)). He is certainly correct is his
assumption that it has the *power* to do so.
What he appears to be advocating differs only in degree from the U.N.
Children's Bill of Rights. He can't advocate government enforcement
of *any* particular standard of child-rearing without ceding to the
government the power to do anything it desires, up to and including the
U.N. version. If he does so, all we're talking about is details.
Fact is, "minimum standards" for good behavior can never be objective.
Which is why, until recently, the state limited itself to what common
law (i.e., *tradition*) allowed.
What Scott advocates can also be interpreted as a form of prior
restraint. The *potentially* "injured party" is the child. Parents
are guilty until proven innocent: they must show that they did (or are
going to) perform "minimally."
People used to recognize this. At common law, failure to act absent a
contractual obligation is no crime. Restricting individual rights a
priori based upon hypothetical victims and "crimes," not of action,
but inaction, is a travesty of justice. Law exists to enforce
legitimate contracts and punish criminal behavior: i.e., acts of
*commission* against persons or property. Laws that require "minimum
standards" for good behavior deny individual rights and are extremely
dangerous.
> Judy Tyrer writes:
> Sounds good to me, so long as they are objective physical standards.
>
> Okay, so now all we have to do is agree on what does and does not constitute
> objective physical standards. I say the ability to perform a skill is an
> objective physical standard.
The ability to read a particular book is definable skill. Who is the
criminal when a child doesn't read on time? The child for lack of
ability or refusing to try? Or the parent for malicious and negligent
intent? How are you going to prove this one? Whose concept of the
correct way to educate a child are you going to rely upon?
> Individual rights are always held in balance with community rights. Your
> individual right to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.
How does my child's mind impact my neighbor? Or is the impact in the
child's ability to earn and pay taxes for the neighbor's benefit? As
Steve Rogers says, communities have no rights, only individuals.
Forced education justified by community rights is an oxymoron. Given time,
the only *possible* outcome is the one we now see in public education.
Summary: Given Scott's support of our current home education law, it
should be no surprise that he favors "minimum standards" for all
parental behavior. He is, at least, consistent.
Doris Hohensee
Message 26
Subject:
Re: Petition for Continuance
Date:
Sat, 30 Oct 1993 11:17:04 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Ed Greer writes:
> Your right. It started out as interesting and evolved to irritating. The
> grinding of this axe is being handled in exceptionally poor taste - in
> spite of the many legitimate points that have been made.
I get the feeling you dislike politics, Ed. "Exceptionally poor
taste" despite "the many legitimate points that have been made?"
This is politics. You know, that messy, nasty, emotional,
*confrontational* form of *conflict* resolution. The one that gets
people really riled and brings on the occasional overload. The one
that a lot of people look down on as somehow "beneath" them and refuse
to participate in. The one where the field has been left to the enemy
because people like you won't get *personally* involved.
Politics is the art of CONFRONTATION. Politics should not be confused
with courtship rituals: Scott and I are not developing a relationship.
Hey Ed, Rush does it, Newt does it, Sarah Brady does it, even Slick
Willie does it. You don't get to a resolution of conflict by refusing
to confront the issues, papering over differences and failing to call
a spade a spade. Or by punking out with "I haven't got time for
this." Ignore these things too long and you end up with a pressure
cooker leading to revolution. And I don't mean what the planet does,
I mean the one fought with real weapons.
> In any event, they have been made. (over and over again)
Repetition bothering you? It bothers me, too. However, until Scott
decides to put an issue to rest, by answering or addressing it, I must
keep his "feet to the fire," so to speak. That's what I meant by "Get
with the program, Scott." Face facts, or refute them if you can.
> I for one, am interested in the progress you make and wish you well. If,
> from this point on you can present the information and let go of the
> editorializing, I will read your posts with great interest.
Let me get this straight. I can post, with your blessing, if I stick
to third party texts and eliminate my comments. Then you'll read my
posts with great interest? Gee, what's the point? I have no great
desire to be your private secretary.
> > I would like to encourage Scott to reconsider his decision to end
> > this discussion. I had hoped that we could clear up some confusion
> > and put a few issues to rest first. For instance, I would be
> > interested in seeing your letter of support to N.H. home educators
> > last year. I hope you aren't offended that I ask for substantiating
> > text.
> > Perhaps, if Scott fought the urge to respond immediately and took more
> > time to respond, this discussion wouldn't interfere with his daily
> > responsibilities.
> > Doris Hohensee
> Ed Greer continues:
> These comments are mean-spirited and a drain on this list.
What is your problem *here*? My request for substantiating text? I
posted *more* than enough to substantiate all my claims. Is Scott
above reproach? I meant it when I suggested that he take more time,
if that was a problem for him.
> It astounds me that anyone with your obvious intellect would go so far
> out of the way to insure the lack of cooperation with an attorney
> who, for better or worse, is deeply involved with the homeschool
> movement.
In case you hadn't noticed, there would be no point in *me* relying
upon HSLDA for my defense, should I ever need one: HSLDA does not
defend "unschoolers." Scott is never going to cooperate with me:
his world view is too different from mine. See my previous post on
children's rights. I knew this going into the discussion.
Is HSLDA the *only* party "deeply involved with the homeschool
movement?" Does that mean they can do anything they want and be
thanked for it?
> Ed Greer continues:
> Can it!
> PLEASE
And "Can it!" is *not* in "exceptionally poor taste?" or does your
"PLEASE" set things straight?
My major disappointment with your post is what it *may* indicate about
my audience. I don't mean to sound condescending but, I would hate to
think that the whole point of this political exercise went straight
over the heads of everyone on this list. My points are: (1) to warn
people about HSLDA, (2) to educate people about the political
situation in an unfriendly state and (3) to get an HSLDA
representative to address the issues. I have failed in the latter.
If Scott is willing to continue the discussion, perhaps he can
convince me that my concern is for naught. So far, he has not made
his case. Recall that *he* started this thread by his somewhat
overwrought response to the protection racket allegory.
A good politician doesn't leave the field to his opposition.
Doris Hohensee
Message 27
Subject:
Silver linings & TN
Date:
Sun, 31 Oct 1993 01:41:39 -0400
From:
j.willard4@genie.geis.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
-=-=-=- To: Scott -=-=-=-
> Scott at HSLDA, responding to Doris for what really needs to be the
> last time. Honest, Doris, I think we are boring the rest of the list,
> and we are haggling over details of past hurt feelings that very few
> other people really care about.
I signed up for this mail list because I heard about this particular
discussion. I just wanted you to know that my opinions about HSLDA have
soften somewhat. No, I'm not ready to part with $100 but I am resovled to be
more open-minded about HSLDA in the future. (Those who know me from other
online services may now resume breathing.) So some good has come from your
time spent in this discussion.
> I also REALLY HAVE TO DO SOME WORK! I am assisting in a murder case
> in Ohio, handling two prosecutions in Tennessee, two cases in
> Virginia, a double handful of families being hounded in Massachusetts,
> new regulations being proposed in Iowa, and so forth...
As a homeschooler in TN I am interested in knowing about the two cases you
are involved with here in TN. There are growing numbers of individual
homeschoolers and groups of homeschoolers (such as Catholic, Jewish and non-
Christian homeschoolers) who are not involved with THEA. While THEA
membership is open to all homeschoolers, the leadership restricitions make
many of us feel uncomfortable as well as excluded from representation. Not
being within that organization we are not always informed about court cases
(among other things) that may effect us also.
One of the main problems I have here in TN is finding church-related schools
(as defined by TN Code Annotated 49-50-801) that are willing to umbrella
homeschoolers who can not sign a Protestant Christian Statement of Faith.
Any family who decides to homeschool after the state Aug. 1st deadline must
be umbrella-ed by a CRS (to be legal). If you happen to know of any CRSs in
TN that have open and year-round enrollment please let me know so I can get
some people above ground. Or if you happen to know of any other options let
me know.
Some of us have explored the possibility of opening our own CRS. While it is
relatively easy for Protestant Christian groups to obtain accreditation from
or membership with some of the agencies listed in the CRS law, it would be a
herculean accomplishment for us. It is our understanding that we would have
to get our accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools which is costly not to mention takes years.
Of course, if the homeschool law allowed private schools to supervise
homeschoolers this would help. TN seems (49-6-3001) to divide non-public
schools into CRS, homeschool and private. I am fearful (at this time) of
attempting to amend our current homeschool law to include private schools.
Last year's attempt to change one word in the law almost (IMO) resulted in
more gov't regulation.
Some folks have suggested that we challenge the CRS law. Again I am fearful
of doing that because if the law were thrown out, I doubt the replacement
legislation would be as free of gov't regulation as the current CRS law is.
While the CRS law and the CRS clause of the homeschool law is of little help
to us, they do, at least, provide shelter to many homeschoolers. I would not
want to deny them this shelter just because we do not have same access to
it.
I do feel that sooner or later someone is going to make a ruckus about this
in the courts and/or capitol. However, if we did have better access to
shelter via those who can easily setup a CRS then the perhaps this may not
happen, at least not if I can help it.
This year our family registered with the state. As Libertartians you can
imagine that this is not what we wanted to do. We did find one school that
would register us. But it is 3 hours from us and we would have to spend a
week on campus in the spring for standardized testing. My inlaws have
serious health problems and we felt we should not commit ourselves to a week
away from home in the spring given the demands of caring for both of them.
I'm sure for others the cost of spending a week in a motel would be a factor.
But if we had CRSs across the state that had open and year round enrollment
what a great service this would be for =ALL= homeschoolers. The CRS that
would umbrella us has a cut off date and is not an option for folks who
decide to homeschool later in the year.
My hopes are that by bringing this matter to your attention, you might in
turn bring it to the attention of folks who could work with the CRSs to
address this problem.
If there are other TN homeschoolers reading this I would welcome your
feedback about this matter. Heck, I welcome anyone's feedback.
Thank you,
Jacki (co-author of the following disclaimer attached to our state forms)
We do not acknowledge a governmental right to regulate how we choose to
educate our child. We are complying with this requirement, UNDER PROTEST,
merely to avoid the possibility of more serious governmental intrusion
in our home.
PS- I seem to be leaning toward bold and outright civil disobedience
everyday. jsw
Message 28
Subject:
Silver linings & TN -Reply
Date:
Mon, 1 Nov 1993 08:24:40 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
To Jackie, in Tennessee,from Scott at HSLDA...
I was very intrigued by your post. We are currently working
towards a challenge to the way that the Department of Education
applies Tennessee's church-related school law. The Jehovah's
Witnesses have formed an umbrella school called the "New System
School," but the Department absolutely refuses to accept it as a
church-related school, because they cannot sign the statement of
faith of any of the evangelical groups. We argue that the law
only requires a church-related school to "meet the standards of
accreditation or membership" of these groups, not to actually be
a member. (This is because the Department's interpretation is an
obvious constitutional violation.)
The Jehovah's Witnesses have been thinking, for quite some time,
about forming the "Tennessee Association of Minority Religious
Schools." This would give us another legal leg up. Perhaps we
should talk.
Message 29
Subject:
Scott's basic premise
Date:
Mon, 1 Nov 1993 16:10:47 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
com
"Resist the beginnings."
"Consider the ends."
Roman maxims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Scott won the hearts of many of the people posting in
the wake of our long debate. I will cease and desist in my efforts to
persuade and convince this list if interest has truly dwindled. I had
my chance. For whatever reason, the results speak for themselves.
However, I do want to explain why it is very difficult for me to lay
down my axe, so to speak. I'd like to take you for a short walk
in my shoes, as many of the readers on this list live in free states
where it is difficult to fully understand my plight and bitterness.
You need to feel the fear that families live in lest the state should
discover that they homeschool *underground,* out of compliance with
state law. Despite my somewhat cavalier attitude, not everyone in New
Hampshire is willing to risk state confrontation, or even HSLDA
confrontation, for that matter.
Let's call her Mary because, even though she's called me repeatedly
and trusts me personally, she won't endanger her family by giving me
her real name, let alone her phone number. Mary returned a few years
ago from western Europe (I'm not allowed to say exactly where, she's
afraid someone might trace her whereabouts). She and her family had a
long legal battle over there about her right to educate her children
at home. After several appeals she won her case, but decided to bring
her children home to a place where they could experience more freedom,
to New Hampshire.
But the laws changed here by the time she returned home. Now Mary
teaches her children underground with the shades pulled down. She
refuses to comply with the law: it violates everything she believes
in. She is afraid when the phone rings or some one comes to the
door during school hours. The children can't play outside or go
anywhere during school hours lest the suspicions of an unfriendly
neighbor or aquaintance are raised.
Neighbors reported me, otherwise I too would probably still be
underground. I had no choice, but Mary still does. So she refuses to
go to the legislature to lobby for better laws even though I've asked
repeatedly for her help. My state representative was going to seek
*immunity* for her when she testified. She decided it still wasn't
worth the risk of losing her children. She knows, after all, that our
efforts are opposed by hundreds of aboveground home educators rallied
together by HSLDA each year. She knows that even though she is a very
religious and God-fearing woman that HSLDA will not defend her, not
because of her lack of curriculum (like myself), but because she
doesn't comply with the law. She knows she doesn't have the money or
the emotional strength to put her family through a legal battle and
emotional ringer again. I can't blame Mary for staying underground:
she's already fought very hard for the cause.
Then there's Reverend Jones, one of the many pastors that I met
campaigning for the Parental Rights amendment. He can't risk going
public either. He's got a congregation to think about. I really
can't blame him either for staying underground: he has good reason.
Until we manage to somehow change things in N.H., the underground must
constantly look over their shoulders. They realize that according to
state law their children are "truants." Thus, by definition they are
"children in need of services", or CHINS. You want real horror? Look
at the child abuse, neglect and CHINS laws, while keeping in mind
Scott's "need" for "minimum standards" for raising and providing for
ones children. We are currently submitting over a dozen bills to the
legislature to restore parental rights in "alleged" child abuse,
neglect and CHINS cases. You thought there were problems with home
education? You don't need to be a lawyer to see mega-problems here.
Let me tell you about Marty, that's her real name. Marty is pretty
desperate. She's the mother of three and a God-fearing woman (I don't
mean to discriminate for or against religion, but I also realize that
some people can only relate to their Christian brethren). She went
public with her story. I've met Marty in person and tried to help.
Unfortunately, no one, not even lawyers, can help Marty.
Five years ago Marty went to the state to seek help for her daughter.
Marty's daughter was "acting out" due to several stressful family
problems. Marty's little boy had severe medical problems and nearly
died a number of times. Marty had to be away for long periods of time
due to his condition in order to be close by during critical medical
procedures. Marty's husband didn't help as he couldn't deal with the
stress himself and finally left the family completely. These were
very trying circumstances.
The state social workers lured Marty's daughter away from her family
into state custody with promises that they could provide her with
so much *more* than her family. The "crime" of poverty overcome once
again by social workers on a "mission from the State."
Bucolic life in foster care turned quickly into a nightmare. She and
another girl were raped by the son of her foster family. The state
immediately tried to cover the whole thing up. She was placed in
shackles in a youth detention center until she consented to remain
silent about the rape.
Shortly afterwards Marty was asked to consent to a trip to Mexico for
her daughter. Marty refused but her daughter was taken out of the
country anyway. Speculation is that her daughter needed a late term
abortion.
Was Marty allowed to talk with her daughter at this time to give her
advice? No. Even Marty's letters to her daughter were opened and
censored before they got to her daughter. She was never allowed to
ask questions like "do you want to come home?"
Marty has been threatened to the point where she moved out of state.
The state wanted her to relinquish her rights to her daughter. She
was told that the state would take her little boy if she didn't
cooperate. Marty moved over the state line to protect her son.
Does Marty have any hope of getting her daughter back? No. The state
officially misplaced or lost her daughter's entire case file. This is
convenient as there are felony charges that should be filed. Marty
sent her copies of the case abroad, lest the state try to obtain them
under false pretenses. She has been told by the state in front of
witnesses, including a member of the state house of representatives,
that she will never get her daughter back now regardless of what she
does. Her case is beyond hope.
Then there's Elena Katz's case. She's from Russia. The state took
her five month old first-born baby daughter based on an anonymous and
unsubstantiated report from an angry woman. She was living in a
shelter at the time while looking for a job. The woman running the
shelter did not like Elena because she stayed in her room and did not
socialize with the others in the group. Elena was composing resumes
to find a job as a paralegal. Elena also committed the crime of singing
lullabies to her baby in Russian. For these "crimes" the state took her
baby. Her "crimes" were obviously poverty-induced also.
These cases are *not* isolated incidents. The shear number of them is
overwhelming. It's too late for legal beagle heroes now. But Scott
wouldn't have helped anyway. These moms wouldn't have met "minimum
standards." I guess they didn't "deserve" to keep their kids.
Scott has accepted the *principle* of State mandated ends. He and
HSLDA have never resisted the beginnings in the political arena,
regardless of their efforts in the judicial one: they always go along
to get along. And it's highly unlikely they've ever considered the
ends to which their compromises and concessions are leading.
Ending thought:
As a small child I always wondered why the people of the free world did
nothing to help the people of Russia, who everyone acknowledged to be
captives of the Soviet government. Did not the adults tell us that we
fought WWII to help make the world free? Why didn't we try to free
the poor Russian people?
As an adult I know that my freedom is my own responsibility. Yet I
sometimes still hope that others out there might try to *understand*
once in a while.
Doris Hohensee
Message 30
Subject:
CHINS and Home Education
Date:
Mon, 1 Nov 1993 16:45:06 -0500
From:
craig@osf.org
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I appreciated Doris' remarks. She hit one of my hot buttons in re the
Child Abuse industry.
I'd also like to point out something that perhaps she didn't make
clear enough...
As "CHINS", her "truant" children could well be taken from her by the
state. Once in the state's custody, they risk the chance of being
treated in a fashion similar to that of the young lady who was raped
while in a foster home. Foster homes are not pleasant places. It is
not the kind of place where you would want to risk your children
spending any time.
I'd imagine that its easier to keep your children out of state "care"
through fighting in the legislature, than to get them back once in
this "care". I know of good families which have been torn apart by
the state in its over-zealous attempts to impose their contemptuous
concepts. Once a child has been exposed to this, it could well be a
long time (if ever) before they return to "normal".
About a year ago I read an excellent book called "Compromise and
Concession". It is an excellent treatise concerning many early
Christians, and their fight for righteousness. Many have died in
defense of the truth. Unfortunately many more have accepted
mediocrity in their lives, rather than make waves.
I think that the following quote of Thomas Jefferson goes far in
expressing my sentiments regarding people who want to establish laws
governing my life:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others?"
-- Thomas Jefferson
Oh well, there goes my healthy distrust of government again.
Craig.
Message 31
Subject:
Re: Scott's basic premise
Date:
Mon, 1 Nov 93 18:55:01 CST
From:
David L. Hanson
Mrs. Hohensee,
Your writings have been very informative and I wish to thank you for sharing
them with us. As someone else has pointed out, you are obviously quite
gifted intellectually. I basically agree with your view of government.
You did lose my support in several areas (and I think some others for
similar reasons). These include:
1. Putting down conservative Christian organizations - I was ready to jump
to HSLDA's defense when you did this.
2. Implying that there is something wrong with conservative Christian
organizations which have statements of faith - when the statement faith
are the fundamentals of historic Christian faith.
3. Saying that conservative Christians whose authority for what is right and
what is wrong is the Lord of God should embrace cults such as Mormonism.
4. Writing that conservative Christians should not form exclusive homeschool
organization (the freedom to associate with whom we wish is just as much
a right as the right to educate one's children).
(Number three is the Word of God - the Bible)
After having written this, I will say that conservative Christians (and I
am a fundamentalist - which to some is an extreme conservative Christian)
have several problems. One is in the area of scholarship, both Biblical and
cultural (including the heritage of the nation, our legal system, and our
government). Another problem, which Scott would not admit, is a willingness
to legislate, using the power of the State in bad ways. I think that too
many people with Christian beliefs similar to mine would want laws to keep
children from being unschooled. I, personally, don't think that they understand
the implications of what they support (testing, oversight, etc). That these
same laws could be used to take away their freedom, if not immediately then
later down the road.
One of my "hobbies" since I was saved 2-1/2 years ago is to try to understand
where we as a nation have come from. I deplore the immorality and the
disbelief in the Lord Jesus Christ which I see in this country. And I am
upset that my parents, the public schools (including the university), and
the media never told me the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ first of all,
and the freedom and liberty that we are supposed to have in this country.
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
Message 32
Subject:
CHINS reply
Date:
Tue, 2 Nov 1993 10:06:35 -0500
From:
"EDWARD GREER - GREERED@APPSTATE.EDU"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
One does not have to be in the homeschooling arena very long to hear horror
stories. Most of us have a common bond at that level.
Many try desperately to be true to what they believe is right.
We all have our own basis for what we do. For some it is the circumstances of
life. Others combine that with prayer and seeking the will of God for their
life. Others will readily admit they are in confusion and do not know where to
begin. Still others act out of anger, or pride, or selfishness, etc.
I have grown in the awareness that it is wrong for me to judge anyone. If I
believe in my heart I am faced with a cause for which I am to act, so be it. If
I do not know what initiative is proper for me to take, I try to avoid taking
any, even if I really lean toward doing so. Frankly, I would often be more
comfortable on the front end, stepping out with an initiative, even if it was
wrong.
Not to offend - I pray God give not only the courage, but also the clarity to
initiate and/or respond to each situation in the correct way.
Ed
--
Ed Greer
greered@appstate.edu
Message 33
Subject:
Scott's basic premise -Reply
Date:
Tue, 2 Nov 1993 11:57:38 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
To:
doris@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA, moving forward into a new and warmer relationship
with Doris...
Thank you, Doris, for burying the hatchet. I appreciate it.
I am surprised, however, to discover that you sincerely believe
that HSLDA won't accept people who refuse to comply with their
state's law. I don't know where you heard this, but it is simply
untrue! I spent hundreds of hours last years working on cases in
Tennessee and Pennsylvania for families who refused to comply
with their laws. I spent dozens of hours working with families
in Massachusetts and Iowa who are underground. I represent a
number of member families in New Hampshire who are not complying
with RSA 193A.
Our membership is open to any family that is sincerely committed
to family-based education, regardless of religious belief,
tolerance for unconstitutional laws, or educational philosophy.
On that last point of educational philosophy, I lean in the
unschooling direction myself. I read and reread "Summerhill"
four times between 1965 and 1972. My first exposure to home
schooing in 1982 was to Ray Moore's "Better Late Than Early"
concept of delayed formal instruction, and I immediately went for
it. Our home school program today is a hybrid of my left-wing
leanings and my wife's Prussian drill sergeant instincts. My
children wind up "schooling" in the morning and "unschooling" in
the afternoon and evening.
Here's to a more constructive relationship in the years to come,
Doris! I'm looking forward to working with you, rather than
opposing you.
Message 34
Subject:
Re: What do you think?
Date:
Wed, 3 Nov 1993 10:00:02 -0800
From:
arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com (Alan R. Fiebig
)
To:
karen@n1mep.mainstream.com (Karen Peterson)
>This is just a query as to what you think of what has been posted as of late
>on the "NH situation".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karen,
As a foundation, let me state that I am NOT an unschooler, nor do I
agree with their philosophy (many of my good HS friends are though, we have
learned to enjoy each others company). Therefore, I am not biased against
HSLDA for this reason. I first found out about this list and got interested
via a comment on the Home-ED list that mentioned the HSLDA thread. I have
found the entire thread extremely interesting, and have filed many of the
posts for future reference.
I find myself strongly on Doris's side on this discusion. She has
done a much better job of defending her point. In addition, many of her
issues are backed up by personal observances I have viewed in Wisconsin. It
does appear that HSLDA is waffling on the issue by stating on the top that
they agree with her pending legislation, but disagreeing with her
foundation.
If Scott does not have the time to defend his points anymore, I can
understand this. It is a shame, as I was hoping to see him, or any other
representative of HSLDA at least once respond to our mutual comments
regarding state politicing. On a number of occasions it has been discussed
that we wish HSLDA would limit their activity to individual member cases,
and every time they have ignored these comments.
In any case, it is exactly these kinds of threads that I joined the
list for. It is not a win or lose issue, is is not just to determine who
might be right, and it is not to try and change minds. The purpose is to
openly discuess and DEBATE political issues for the benefit of all.
On a couple of occasions I had to agree with posts that indicated
Doris was somewhat mean spirited in replies, but it goes with the turf.
>as many of the readers on this list live in free stateswhere it is
>difficult to fully understand my plight and bitterness.
It was her familiy's freedoms that were effected, and HSLDA was a big part
of the problem. Civility should always be practiced, and these FEW
instances were the only minor problems I had concerning the thread.
Thanks for asking...
P.S. I hope you don't mind, but I am taking the liberty of CCing this to
Doris. After her post that many have been won over to Scott, I felt this
was a good opportunity to show her where I stand. Doris, I would appreciate
it if this post was not used as ammo on the list. I wish you the best on
your endeavors. On a couple of occasions, I almost wish I could find work
in NH (I love the state) just so I could help in the battle. I love a good
scrap when the cause is just.
~~~~
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 35
Subject:
Re: Scott's basic premise -Reply
Date:
Wed, 3 Nov 1993 22:23:25 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
For those who want the bottom line without wading through all of my
"brutal" sarcasm, I've posted my suggestions for our truce at the end
of this message.
> Scott at HSLDA, moving forward into a new and warmer relationship
> with Doris...
Does everyone at HSLDA jump to rash conclusions? A "warmer
relationship?" Where did that come from? Did I miss something?
> Thank you, Doris, for burying the hatchet. I appreciate it.
I believe I used the term "lay down my axe." As far as I can tell,
that means it's still in plain sight. I'm just trying not to swing it
around anymore.
> I am surprised, however, to discover that you sincerely believe
> that HSLDA won't accept people who refuse to comply with their
> state's law.
Well, I took another look at your application form. If I were to fill
it out, HSLDA would have more than enough information to comply with
just about *any* state home education law in the country without me
doing anything further. Seems to me state education departments might
want to deal directly with you and save a bit of red tape.
In addition, your membership agreement requires that I permit HSLDA to
"visit my home" and "cooperate fully in the defense of any legal
action (threatened or otherwise)" and "provide any and all information
and assistance to the legal counsel who are appointed" to defend me.
Once the legal engagement begins, HSLDA determines the outcome and I
must "cooperate." If it were easier and quicker for HSLDA to defend me
by complying (since you would already *have* all the information) I
don't think I could object under your membership contract.
IMO, unschoolers who don't comply with the law would *not* be defended
by HSLDA. Your requirement to "use an organized curriculum and a
clearly recognizable program of education" eliminates them completely,
as far as I can tell.
> Our membership is open to any family that is sincerely committed
> to family-based education, regardless of religious belief,
> tolerance for unconstitutional laws, or educational philosophy.
I simply don't understand how this could possibly be true. Doesn't
HSLDA reserve the right to refuse any membership application it
pleases? Your comments confuse me.
> On that last point of educational philosophy, I lean in the
> unschooling direction myself.
> My children wind up "schooling" in the morning and "unschooling" in
> the afternoon and evening.
Isn't this like saying you're a carnivorous vegetarian?
Correct me if I'm wrong: schools require six hours of instruction and
your wife requires three. The difference appears to be only a matter
of degree.
Unschooling, on the other hand, implies that you have dropped the use
of force, or *required* instruction, in the education of your children
at all times (not just in the afternoon). I think you need to read a
bit more on the subject. Just about any of John Holt's later works
are quite comprehensive.
> Here's to a more constructive relationship in the years to come,
> Doris! I'm looking forward to working with you, rather than
> opposing you.
How you *do* test my resolve. Perhaps it's your training. Always
play the role of the benevolent good guy while evading the central
issues. That provokes anger and forces your opposition to remain
continually on the defensive, right?
Or perhaps you intend to continually confuse the issue so much that
the only thing people can remember is that "Scott was always polite
and Doris was always argumentative?"
Or maybe the whole thing's unintentional and you are what you seem to
be. I don't know that I can figure you out, Scott.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what I'd like you to do in order to work *with* me.
1. We can't be *political* allies unless HSLDA and CHENH make a public
retraction, explanation and apology for their past actions. The way
things work in this game, I can't afford to be "affiliated" with HSLDA
without such a quid pro quo: it would associate me with and legitimize
your past record in N.H. state politics. I would lose quite a bit of
political credibility.
2. You can prevent HSLDA from misrepresenting the facts regarding
legislative efforts in all future HSLDA bulletins to your affiliated
groups.
3. You can encourage HSLDA, and their affiliated groups, to
demonstrate more tolerance towards other home educators with divergent
religious and educational philosophies. If some home educators can't
*support* legislative efforts due to divergent educational or
religious philosophies, then passive tolerance should be the
recommended course of action as long as the proposed legislation
doesn't negatively effect them. This is where I *thought* we'd gotton
to last spring.
4. You can, as a corollary, agree to "absolute toleration ... having
been inspired by the love of liberty and absolute freedom of
conscience to all men," as Beckner proposed at the 1890 Kentucky
constitutional convention.
IMO, this means that requiring "minimum standards" for raising or
educating children is prohibited. Such would certainly violate my
rights of conscience.
Doris Hohensee
Message 36
Subject:
TN, CRS & SOF
Date:
Thu, 4 Nov 1993 03:52:11 -0500
From:
j.willard4@genie.geis.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott,
>Perhaps we should talk.
Yes, I would love to talk. I had heard various stories about the plight of
the JW in Wilson County. But I thought I had been told by a highly respected
source that the case had been resolved in the favor of the JW. However, same
source suggested that I challenge the CRS law on behalf of "my heathens"
. How I wish there was a better information network for (and among)
homeschoolers here in TN.
I don't understand why being willing (able?) to sign the SOF wouldn't be
considered (by the state) one of the standards the school would have to
meet. Or is it just meeting the academic and campus standards of one of
agencies listed? Couldn't the state just say the JW (or any other group)
have the option of SACS accreditation which does not require a statement of
faith. This is what has been throw in my face more times than I care to
remember. FWIW: One person I know said she contacted SACS was told by them
that they will not accredit a school as a CRS. This may or may not be
accurate.
If a secular non-public school has SACS accreditation but does not call
itself a CRS could it umbrella homeschoolers? Could a SACS school outside of
TN umbrella TN homeschoolers if it was church related?
I've always wondered but never researched how (if) the complusory attendance
law (and other education laws) applies to out-of-state boarding schools.
Someone suggested that the child would be considered in-residence in the
state (country) of the school and the complusory attendance laws of that
state (country) would apply. This doesn't sound quite right to me for some
reason. I wonder what would happen if you enrolled your child in a boarding
school that had an independent study program that the child could do at home
or else where.
Back to the CRS law and clause... I've always wondered why the homeschool
law didn't include the private schools along with the CRSs as possible
umbrella schools. It doesn't strike me that the state would have had any
objection to private schools umbrella-ing homeschoolers, since the state has
more control over private schools than it does CRSs. So why such a short-
sighted clause? Someday when I get the time I'm going to go downtown (I live
in Nashville) and read the notes Betty Long says she took in the meetings
when the homeschool law was being ironed out. Shouldn't such notes be
available to the public for the cost of photocopying? I even offered to
doing the copying myself. She told me I could come read them and take my own
notes but that is all.
One wonders how our new Commissioner of Ed will handle homeschool issues.
Alan,
>Nice to see you on the net!
Nice seeing you again too. I LOVE it here! We've missed you at the RTCs.
BTW: Mary Pride is online in the ERT!
>If you could, would you give me any breif descriptions on the CRS law.
TN Code Annotated
49-50-801 Church Related Schools. (a) As used in this section, unless the
context otherwise requires, "Church related school" means a school operated
by denominational, parochial or other bona fide church organizations, which
are required to meet the standards of accreditation or membership of the
Tennessee Association of Christian Schools, the Tennessee Association of
Independent Schools, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, or
the Tennessee Association of Non-Public Academic Schools, or a school
affiliated with Accelerated Christian Education, Inc.
(b)The State Board of Education and local boards of education are prohibited
from regulating the selection of faculty or textbooks for the establishment
of a curriculum in church-related schools.
(c)The State Board of Education and local boards of education shall not
prohibit or impede the transfer of a student from a church-related school to
a public school of this state. Local boards may, however, place students
transferring from a church-related school to a public school in a grade
level based upon the student's performance on a test administered by the
board for that purpose. In local systems where the local board of education
requires tests for students transferring to that system from another public
system, that same test shall be administered to students transferring to
such system from church-related schools. Provided, however, church-related
schools shall be conducted for the same length of term as public schools.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting church-
related schools from voluntarily seeking approval by the State Board of
Education, nor prohibitng the State Board of Education from extending such
approval when it is voluntarily sought.
-=-=-=-=
The CRS bill was passed in 1976. In some circles it is called the white
flight schools bills as it coincides with forced busing here.
One of the odd things about this law is that the Catholics who have had
"church-related" schools in the state for a looooooong time where
left out. Maybe they wanted to be left out, I don't know. But I do know that
the state recongizes accreditation from agencies within the Catholic school
system for parish and parochial schools. The Seventh Day Adventists are also
absent from the CRS law, yet the state recongizes the 7DA accreditting body.
Like the Catholic schools, the 7DA schools are listed as private as opposed
to CRS.
Okay now for the CRS clause in the homeschool law.
-=-=-=-=
49-6-3050 (a)2 Home schools which teach grades kindergarten through eight
(8), whose parents are associated with an organization that conducts church-
related schools as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-50-801,
which are supervised by such organization through the superintend of such
organization's department of education, and which adminster standardized
achievement tests at the same time such tests are given in their regular day
schools, are exempt from the the provisions of this section.
-=-=-=-=-
A year or so ago I got a list from the state of all non-public schools. Very
interesting list, I might add. While the vast majority of schools on this
list are religious schools, not many elected to be classified as CRS. I have
not surveyed these schools but I would guess there are two main reasons why
they don't want to be listed as CRSs. They probably couldn't sign the SOFs
the agencies require. And the other reason .... hmmm... errr.... well the
perception seems to be that CRSs have lower academic standards. Note I said
the perception. But the state puts CRS at almost the bottom of the list,
with only "recognized for operation" ranking lower, which I am sure serves
to re-enforce this perception.
My personal feeling is that the state has begun to regret the "freedom" it
gave CRSs in 1976. Given an opening they will try (IMO) to amend the CRS law
to their advantage. I also feel that a few CRSs are bogus schools that
mostly exist on paper. One would think a campus is necessary for a school.
These schools seem to be drawing negative attention to themselves and in
turn to homeschoolers.
I don't think it was the wisest move on the part of those who lobbied for
the CRS law to have cut themselves off from the private school community.
There is safety and strength in numbers, as the saying goes.
As I said earlier in this post to Scott, the CRS exemption in the homeschool
law is IMO short-sighted. I am sure it was not the state's idea to include
this exemption. If there is a move afoot in Wis. regarding CRS umbrella-ing
I would suggest that y'all not limit umbrella-ing to ONLY CRSs. I would also
suggest that you NOT let the state define what is and is not a CRS.
One of my favorite CRS story is about a CRS that has open enrollment (no
SOF) for their day school (which has a hefty tutition and attracts many of
the Country Music stars' children) but to be umbrella-ed by them (at a mcuh
cheaper rate) one must sign a SOF. Clear as mud!
Karen,
>The characterization of religion having to fill a specific set of
>guidelines is going to be more detrimental to our cause than any other.
>We as homeschoolers could see our cause divided to the point of absolute
>destruction.
I just thought that needed to be repeated. While (for some) religion has
been a dividing line, we need to be aware that educational style
(structured vs unschooling) also divides many homeschoolers.
>I am suggesting that we tolerate each others beliefs so that the government
>will not misinterpret our cause.
For the last three years I have considered starting an inclusive state
organization here in TN to deal primarily with legislative matters. One
reason I haven't done so (yet) is that I don't want the state to think we
are a divided house.
>The statements of faith are becoming a gate to religious bigotry.