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.
SOF need NOT lead to religious bigotry.
Many of the SOFs I have seen use terms and concepts that the average person
doesn't understand, at least in my neck of the woods. I was shocked when a
Catholic homeschooler I know did not understand the implication behind "66
books of the Bible" in a SOF. But she wasn't alone because most of the other
homeschoolers (Protestants) present didn't know that this was a stab at
Catholics and Latter Day Saints. I recommend that anyone asked to sign a SOF
run it by his/her clergy first. It amazes me (and shocks others) that I
often have a better understanding of different Christian creeds than many of
the Christian homeschoolers I know. I have a feeling that many a
homeschooler has unknowingly signed a SOF with which he/she really doesn't
agree. On the other hand, I know of Christian homeschoolers who have
knowingly signed SOF they don't agree with just to get in a CRS. They just
don't seem to understand why I don't do this also. (I am not be Christian,
but I do have principles!)
Freedom of association is one of the foundations upon which homeschooling is
anchored, IMO. I don't a CRS to be _forced_ to umbrella me or other
"heathens". But I sure wish they would set up some "seperate but equal" CRSs
here is TN. I can understand folks not wanting to rub elbows with the
others of different faiths. I understand the need for fellowship with one's
own people. But if you are a homeschooler in upper East TN and you are
umbrella-ed by a school in Memphis, you aren't likely to be going on many
field trips or be involved in other events where you are rubbing elbows with
anyone from that school. This is why I have a hard time being tolerant of
the way some of the CRSs use SOFs. Most of the homeschoolers I know who are
umbrella-ed by the various CRSs have little contact with their schools.
In the last few months a few of the "leaders" and many members of the state
exclusive organization have suggested that I rejoin the organization and run
for a restricted office. They disagree with the restrictive by-laws and feel
this would be a way to bring the issue before the general membership. While
I am honored that some people would want me in a leadership position, I can
not bring myself to do this. It is their organization and they need to be
the ones to change it.
Jacki
Message 37
Subject:
Re: TN, CRS & SOF
Date:
Thu, 4 Nov 1993 10:15:16 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Nov 4 02:51:20 1993
> From: j.willard4@genie.geis.com
>
> 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?
Boy is this complicated. Whatever happened to plain old freedom, as
opposed to narrowly defined freedom of religion? This situation
illustrates that the only real choice is freedom or not-freedom. Once
freedom is compromised, it is the government that decides where the
line will be drawn.
> 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.
This sounds like a BRILLIANT idea! Could it be so simple? I open a "school"
in TX and kids from all over the country enroll in my "boarding" school.
Then I send them on a field trip to thier homes . . . Can someone determine
the legal viability of this ?
> . . .
> 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!
I would imagine that the government will eventually have to create guidelines
on what constitutes a SOF - for example, would "we, the school and parents
agree that reality is absolute and reason is the human means of gaining
knowledge" qualify as a SOF? I have the impression that it wouldn't, but
I wonder what justification the government would use to reject a particular
statement as a legitimate SOF.
SR
Message 38
Subject:
Re: Vouchers...and basic premises
Date:
Fri, 5 Nov 1993 13:33:20 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Carrie Carolin:
> I'd like to see MORE state intervention...
> However ... I can't see that "the state" can do much better.
> Although at least most people working for the state are well educated...
> David Hanson:
> Who is capable of ruining more children, parents who make a bad
> decision or a government institution that makes a bad decision?
>
> This tendency to design a system to handle the worst conceivable cases
> and then subjecting everyone to it is ... dangerous ...
> Tom Walker:
> Our culture is addicted to the "PhD".
No matter how complex the problem, the "experts" always have a uniform
solution. It's guaranteed to be monolithic, de-personalized,
non-flexible and extremely costly.
Self-sufficiency in raising and educating children? That's fringe
behavior. The right to freely dis-associate from the group? That's
unhealthy too. Forget the Little House on the Praire: some parents
might abuse their children. Throw out Walt Disney movies where
grandpa talks about someone needing to be horse-whipped. Recently a
teenage girl committed suicide to escape repeated beatings and violent
harrassment from three known girls in her school: her death is being
mourned as a "community problem." Don't consider individual
accountability. Individualism is obsolete: it's anti-community.
Our government doesn't treat people with respect. Never assume that
people are responsible individuals. Problems are explained away with
the most absurd excuses. No one ever takes responsibility. It's a
refusal to think about underlying premises. That's too difficult.
Some say our problems stem from a moral decay of our culture. How
about compulsory church attendance? It would probably work as well as
compulsory school attendance. ;-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 39
Subject:
Judy's Thread on Parents' Wisdom
Date:
Tue, 9 Nov 1993 16:43:20 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Judy comments that parents are NOT always right, and provides
documentation. The problem with her position is that the state
often intervenes and does more harm than good. IF she could come
up with a means whereby the state knew when to intervene and what
to do in each case, her criticism of parents would be more
useful.
Doris has been beating me up for the phrase "minimum standards"
so I may as well tie that thread back into here. I accept, in
principle, criminal sanctions against parents who wound or starve
their children. Experts disagree on questions of medical care
educational philosophy, and child discipline, so I object, in
principle, to criminal or other sanctions against parents who
choose non-standard educational or medical care, or consistent
methods of discipline.
I think that Judy would permit or even encourage the state to
intervene in educational, medical, and disciplinary areas.
With Doris on this list, I may get in trouble for the next
paragraph. Let me preface it with a little personal disclaimer:
the ideas I am about to express are my own, and are subject to
change. I am on this list because it gives me a chance to
explore ideas about good government and personal liberty. If
Doris is going to shriek about HSLDA promoting every idea I take
the time to think through, then I am going to have to give up
this very useful sounding board.
I suggest the following legal rule: presume that parents are
acting in the best interests of their children in the areas of
health, education, and discipline. Before permitting the state
to coercively intervene in the family, require the state to prove
by clear and compelling evidence that the parents do NOT have the
interests of the children at heart. If the state cannot prove
that, then make the state use _persuasion_ instead of _coercion_
to accomplish its ends.
I would appreciate comments. Would the rule that I have proposed
work better than the current system? Is there something else
which would work better yet? Doris, I genuinely do want your
comments. Don't let my gentle teasing keep you from contributing
-- I just don't want HSLDA to suffer because of my philosophical
bent.
Message 40
Subject:
Somerville/Hohensee Peace Treaty
Date:
Tue, 9 Nov 1993 18:03:22 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Please ignore this if you are bored by the subject! I have
invited Doris to discuss this stuff privately, but she has
declined. So join in if you want or ignore this with abandon.
Doris: you list several points of resolution before we can work
together. Three of them are easy, so let's get those out of the
way in this post.
(1) You ask me to "prevent HSLDA from misrepresenting the facts
regarding legislative efforst in all future HSLDA bulletins to
your affiliated groups." I promise to never intentionally
misrepresent facts (to home schoolers, anyway), and I hope that
our communication on this list will keep me from accidentally
misrepresenting anything.
(2) You ask me to "encourage HSLDA, and their affiliated groups,
to demonstrate more tolerance towards home educators with
divergent religious and educational philosophies." I will do all
that I can on this point.
(3) You ask me to agree to "absolute toleration." I don't know
what you mean by this, but it sounds good. If you can define
that a little better, I think I am probably all for it.
Can we resolve these three issues? If we work at this one step
at a time, we may get somewhere.
Message 41
Subject:
RE: Judy's and David's and Scott's Thread on Parents' Wisdom
Date:
Tue, 9 Nov 1993 18:17:24 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: David L. Hanson
>
> Scott Somerville writes:
>
>
> Child rearing is not a matter for experts, God has given the responsibility
> solely and completely to families. I am shocked (and I try to remember not
> to implicate HSLDA) by your view in light of your employment.
I realize you believe in this idea strongly, but in terms of dealing with
other people, it leads nowhere. If they don't share your particular faith,
then you're at a complete and unresolvable impasse because there's no
debating issues of faith. I think what you are looking for is some
objective criteria for judging when the govt. should intervene. Such
critera make it possible for the religious and non-religious to co-exist
in harmony with each other, and the state.
> >I think that Judy would permit or even encourage the state to
> >intervene in educational, medical, and disciplinary areas.
>
> Judy wants the public schools to be "inspection" points to make
> sure that children are being taken care of up to her standards.
>
> >With Doris on this list, I may get in trouble for the next
> >paragraph.
You might get in trouble, even without Doris on the list. I would
concentrate on what I have to say, rather than worry about getting
in trouble with anyone - just a bit of advise.
> >I suggest the following legal rule: presume that parents are
> >acting in the best interests of their children in the areas of
> >health, education, and discipline. Before permitting the state
> >to coercively intervene in the family, require the state to prove
> >by clear and compelling evidence that the parents do NOT have the
> >interests of the children at heart. If the state cannot prove
> >that, then make the state use _persuasion_ instead of _coercion_
> >to accomplish its ends.
Unfortunately, matters of the heart are not open to objective proof
or disproof. Presumption of innocense is a good idea, and state regulation
is certainly based on a presumption of guilt. I think the criteria
must be based on physical evidence to be fair and not subject to
continuous revision and regulatory creep. Such a standard would
need to be based on the parent causing physical harm to the child
through abuse or neglect. Normative issues, essentially how *well*
the parent takes care of the child, are not the proper basis of law.
If the state cannot make a case, the both coercion and persuasion
would be out of the question. What would "state sponsored persuasion"
consist of? A team of megaphone and spotlight wielding social workers
outside your home 24 hours a day?
SR
| Steven Rogers MCC/ESL 3500 West Balcones Center Drive
| srogers@mcc.com Austin, Texas 78759-6509 (512) 338-3691
<
Message 42
Subject:
The Experts Agree...?
Date:
Wed, 10 Nov 1993 17:06:03 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott at HSLDA again:
First, thanks for NOT associating my thought processes with
HSLDA's position on anything. As I have noted before, all
musings herein are my own, and subject to change.
I suggested that the "minimum standards" be very limited, and
that we should specifically prevent the state from setting
"minimum standards" on education, medicine, and discipline. The
reason that I gave was that "the experts disagree" on these
matters. This raises the next question: what if the experts
agree?
I am not ready to let the "experts" dictate matters of education,
medicine, or discipline until I know who defines what an "expert"
is. One obvious area of concern is the conflict between secular
science and revealed truth. The Bible says specific things about
child training, miraculous healing, and so forth. If all the
"experts" agree that the Bible is wrong, I will respectfully
request new experts.
This means, I guess, that this business about "the experts
disagree" is really only a first line of defense. I will never
concede state authority to force Christian families to violate
Biblical principles. (I may have to concede state power to
persecute such families, but that is not the same thing.)
Having acknowledged, therefore that my proposed rule is just a
first line of defense, I would like to go back to it. In these
areas where "the experts disagree," is there anyone on this list
who thinks the state should have coercive power over families who
are trying to act in the best interests of their own children?
Message 43
Subject:
Re: Somerville/Hohensee Peace Treaty
Date:
Wed, 10 Nov 1993 21:47:02 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott:
Thank you for responding and agreeing to points #2 and #3. This is
unexpected progress. I'll try to clarify point #4 and I'll await your
response on the most important, point #1.
>> 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.
>> 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.
> You ask me to agree to "absolute toleration." I don't know
> what you mean by this, but it sounds good. If you can define
> that a little better, I think I am probably all for it.
Absolute toleration. I'm asking for complete respect to be given to
any conscientiously held belief of parents. This would cover areas
such as, religious beliefs, educational philosophies or child rearing
practices. As a practical matter, requiring "minimum standards" as
you had defined them a while back would be prohibited. However, your
more recent definition (below), while not totally acceptable, is quite
improved. ;-)
> Scott Somerville writes:
> I accept, in principle, criminal sanctions against parents who
> wound or starve their children. Experts disagree on questions of
> medical care educational philosophy, and child discipline, so I
> object, in principle, to criminal or other sanctions against parents
> who choose non-standard educational or medical care, or consistent
> methods of discipline.
> I am on this list because it gives me a chance to explore ideas about
> good government and personal liberty. If Doris is going to shriek
> about HSLDA promoting every idea I take the time to think through,
> then I am going to have to give up this very useful sounding board.
I'm all for your exploration of *new* ideas. You know how I feel
about your old ones. ;-) But, Scott, do I really shriek? In any
case, it is comforting to know that you are listening.
> I suggest the following legal rule: presume that parents are
> acting in the best interests of their children in the areas of
> health, education, and discipline.
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty.
> Before permitting the state
> to coercively intervene in the family, require the state to prove
> by clear and compelling evidence that the parents do NOT have the
> interests of the children at heart.
I would accept "beyond a reasonable doubt" (98% sure) to "clear and
convincing" (72% sure) evidence. Current child abuse statutes rely
only on a "preponderence of the evidence" (only 51% sure). If we are
talking about *criminal* charges, I would like the state to be
*certain* before conviction.
A *crime* against a child is the same as one against an adult, e.g.,
assault, murder, etc. Those are *already* illegal according to statute
law: there is thus no need for laws prohibiting "child abuse". Common
law holds that a child owes those who support him, i.e., his parents,
obedience. Common law allows a parent to use such minor force as may
be necessary to prevent him from hurting himself and/or others. In
more serious cases where parental discipline isn't enough to maintain
the respect or obedience of the child, a parent can choose to disown
the child and refuse further responsibility for his actions or
maintenance.
> If the state cannot prove
> that, then make the state use _persuasion_ instead of _coercion_
> to accomplish its ends.
Persuasion doesn't require a law, ie, the consent of the people or the
legislature. There's no *use of force* as long as there's no penalty
for non-compliance. However, any state attempt to "persuade" children
against the wishes of their parents would be totally unacceptable.
> Steven Rogers writes:
> What would "state sponsored persuasion" consist of? A team of
> megaphone and spotlight wielding social workers outside your home
> 24 hours a day?
Isn't SR entertaining these days? :-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 44
Subject:
RE: TN, CRS, & SOF
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 04:33:12 -0500
From:
j.willard4@genie.geis.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Scott at HSLDA, on the subject of Tennessee church-related schools.
> First of all, I am happy to report that my court appearance in
> Tennessee this Monday went well.
Most Excellent! Next time your near here let's do lunch.
> The school was unprepared to take our motion to dismiss seriously, so
> the judge gave the school five weeks to write a brief arguing against
> our motion.
I'm confused ... do you mean the school district or the school of zone or
the state?
> The question of general interest to the group is the odd relationship
> of church-related schools (CRS) to home schools. Tennessee permits any
> "bona fide church or denominational organization" to run a CRS, as long
> as it can "meet the standards of membership or accreditation" in one of
> six associations. All the little church basement schools are members
> of TANAS, TACS, ACSI, or are affiliated with ACE. Each of these
> requires its members to sign an orthodox Christian statement of faith
> (SOF).
There is (IMO) a solution to this odd problem in TN. CRSs are not required
to require their enrolled families to sign a SOF. It is true that the board
of directors of a CRS are required by the agencies Scott listed to sign a
SOF. My solution would be for some folks who can sign the SOF required for
the BoD of CRS to set up some CRSs across the state to provide shelter to
those of us who can not sign a SOF. Those who don't want any association
with people who do not share their beliefs would have their CRSs. There is
one CRS that does not require a SOF, but they don't have year around
enrollment. They are also at the eastern end of the state.
> The question is, what do minority religious groups do?
We lie, register with the state, go underground or just don't homeschool.
Not very appealing options.
> HSLDA takes the position that it is unconstitutional to condition
> government benefits on a statement of faith.
I'm lost here ... maybe I missed something ... the state of TN doesn't
require anyone to sign a SOF to be exempt from the homeschool law. The CRSs
are the ones requiring the SOF, even though they are not required to do so
by all of agencies listed in the CRS law.
> We support minority religious groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses. I
> won't go into any detail on what we intend to do about this, but we
> hope to preserve the freedoms of CRS's while expanding the freedoms of
> minority home schoolers.
While I understand your not wanting to discuss this in a public arena, I
think HSLDA should make every effort to talk with and get input from as many
minority religion homeschoolers in TN as possible about any actions you
might take that will have direct bearing on us. Minority religions were not
taken into consideration when the CRS law was written. Minority religions
were not taken into consideration when the homeschool law was written.
Jacki
Message 45
Subject:
Math testing (those crazy educ
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 05:01:49 -0500
From:
j.willard4@genie.geis.com
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Why change the test, of course! (Homeschoolers need to be concerned
> about this, since as this report says, what is taught is determined by
> what is tested - another reason why State mandated tests are an affront
> to freedom.)
David,
I just wanted you to know that because David Olive (my husband) and I will
not lie and sign a SOF (as some of our Christian homeschool friends have
suggested) to get into a CRS, our son is required to take a state mandated &
state commissioned (can you say Lake Woebegone?) standardized test. TN uses
the scores from these tests to regulate homeschooling, that is for those of
us who for one reason or another register with the state. We will not lie
and sign a SOF for two reasons - (1) it is against our principles to lie and
(2) the SOF are meant to insure freedom of association. Contrary to rumors
that suggest otherwise, we not only uphold the right to free association,
David, I, and most importantly our son are paying a great price (gov't
regulation, supervision, and intrustion into our home and homeschool) so as
not to infringe on others' right to free association. Enuf said.
Jacki
Message 46
Subject:
RE: TN, CRS, & SOF
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 09:28:04 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> > Scott writes:
> > The question is, what do minority religious groups do?
> Jacki writes:
> We lie, register with the state, go underground or just don't
> homeschool. Not very appealing options.
Your options aren't appealing. But you are correct not to compromise
yourself by lying.
You were also correct in not joining home education support groups
requiring SOF's which you could not sign even when they sought your
membership in their groups. We have had several incidents here where
such groups sought the advise of "heathens." The latter were rejected
with much ill-will at the first hint of controversy.
> > HSLDA takes the position that it is unconstitutional to condition
> > government benefits on a statement of faith.
> I'm lost here ... maybe I missed something ... the state of TN doesn't
> require anyone to sign a SOF to be exempt from the homeschool law. The
> CRSs are the ones requiring the SOF, even though they are not required
> to do so by all of agencies listed in the CRS law.
> > We support minority religious groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses. I
> > won't go into any detail on what we intend to do about this, but we
> > hope to preserve the freedoms of CRS's while expanding the freedoms of
> > minority home schoolers.
> While I understand your not wanting to discuss this in a public arena,
> I think HSLDA should make every effort to talk with and get input from
> as many minority religion homeschoolers in TN as possible about any
> actions you might take that will have direct bearing on us. Minority
> religions were not taken into consideration when the CRS law was
> written. Minority religions were not taken into consideration when the
> homeschool law was written.
We would all benefit from a discussion of this issue *in detail* over the
net. What better forum than "home-ed-politics?"
BTW, truant officers were sent to the homes of several families using
the private school "umbrella" this school year here in Nashua, N.H.
Apparently the local school district wasn't satisfied that the private
school had filled out "enough" paperwork.
But how would the locals know anything about paperwork? It all goes
to the state commissioner of education. The rules don't *allow* the
local school districts to get the paperwork. And I thought Scott said
that "notifications" were automatic? Only an *application* can be
denied, even temporarily. I thought due process was supposed to
*precede* the truant officer.
Funny that they left me alone. ;-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 47
Subject:
SOFs and lying
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 09:40:44 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From: doris@mainstream.com (Doris Hohensee)
>
> > > Scott writes:
> > > The question is, what do minority religious groups do?
>
> > Jacki writes:
> > We lie, register with the state, go underground or just don't
> > homeschool. Not very appealing options.
>
> Your options aren't appealing. But you are correct not to compromise
> yourself by lying.
I don't see lying as a compromise in this situation, so long as the
school knows and agrees. The govt. has no right to demand that you
sign an SOF as a condition to leaving you alone - so lying to them
is the same as lying to maniac with an axe at the front door saying
"where are the kids?". Integrity does not demand that you place
yourself in jeopardy by telling the truth to criminals (even if the
criminals are the govt.)
> You were also correct in not joining home education support groups
> requiring SOF's which you could not sign even when they sought your
> membership in their groups. We have had several incidents here where
> such groups sought the advise of "heathens." The latter were rejected
> with much ill-will at the first hint of controversy.
This may be sound advice from a strictly practical point of view.
I think it would depend a lot on the group you were dealing with.
But I do not think you would be compromising your integrity to
sign a SOF if the purpose is to get the govt. off your back.
SR
Message 48
Subject:
Re: SOFs and lying
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 20:46:24 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> > > > Scott writes:
> > > > The question is, what do minority religious groups do?
> >
> > > Jacki writes:
> > > We lie, register with the state, go underground or just don't
> > > homeschool. Not very appealing options.
> >
> > Doris Hohensee writes:
> > Your options aren't appealing. But you are correct not to compromise
> > yourself by lying.
> Steve Rogers writes:
> I don't see lying as a compromise in this situation, so long as the
> school knows and agrees. The govt. has no right to demand that you
> sign an SOF as a condition to leaving you alone - so lying to them is
> the same as lying to maniac with an axe at the front door saying
> "where are the kids?". Integrity does not demand that you place
> yourself in jeopardy by telling the truth to criminals (even if the
> criminals are the govt.)
First, Jacki already said that the government does NOT require the SOF.
The CRS requires a SOF.
Second, are you now saying the government is a "maniac at our door"?
Please, no melodrama. ;-) The government is what we make it. If enough
people simply refused to obey idiotic laws, they would be practically
unenforceable.
Third, living under false pretenses (lying) is a compromise. This
probably isn't a life or death issue where one needs to lie or the
state will destroy your family. If it was, go ahead and lie. Jacki
is apparently unwilling to pretend to be something she is not.
Meanwhile she wants in on the legislative process to improve things.
Heck, I could lie in N.H. and improve my current *short-term*
situation too. I could make up a false curriculum and comply under
the home education law. Or I could pretend that I was starting a
private school and submit some wonderful sounding proposal to the
state. But what are the *long-term* benefits? Lying would just
reassure the state that all their laws are tenable.
> > You were also correct in not joining home education support groups
> > requiring SOF's which you could not sign even when they sought your
> > membership in their groups. We have had several incidents here where
> > such groups sought the advise of "heathens." The latter were rejected
> > with much ill-will at the first hint of controversy.
> This may be sound advice from a strictly practical point of view.
> I think it would depend a lot on the group you were dealing with.
All you need is *one* member of the group to get upset and protest.
You will always be the outsider.
> But I do not think you would be compromising your integrity to
> sign a SOF if the purpose is to get the govt. off your back.
It will always be personally compromising to *sign* something you
don't support. The government does not require the SOF, the group
does. You have to either fake support of the SOF to the group, or
rely upon their good favor.
Doris Hohensee
Message 49
Subject:
Scott's Farewell
Date:
Fri, 12 Nov 1993 09:55:33 -0500
From:
Scott Somerville
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Folks, I can't sustain this pace. I must bow out of this list,
not because I am uninterested or unhappy, but because I just
can't keep up with the pace.
Feel free to contact me directly at
scott+amember%HSLDA@mcimail.com
Message 50
Subject:
Re: SOFs and lying
Date:
Fri, 12 Nov 1993 10:41:30 -0500
From:
srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Fri Nov 12 08:50:49 1993
>
> First, Jacki already said that the government does NOT require the SOF.
> The CRS requires a SOF.
> [ . . . ]
> It will always be personally compromising to *sign* something you
> don't support. The government does not require the SOF, the group
> does. You have to either fake support of the SOF to the group, or
> rely upon their good favor.
The government requires you to be affiliated with the CRS, no?
I thought we were talking about a situation where the statement would
be signed to join the CRS (fulfilling state requirements) with full
knowledge of the CRS. If that is not the situation, then "never mind".
The second point is that it is not "always be personally compromising
to *sign* something you don't support". There is no compromise in signing
or otherwise making commitments you don't intend to keep when you are
under duress. Government requirements and threat of force in this
realm put the homeschooler in a state of duress. I would not consider
it proper to lie to the CRS, only to the govt.
SR
Message 51
Subject:
Re: SOFs and lying
Date:
Fri, 12 Nov 1993 15:51:26 -0500
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
> Steve Rogers writes:
> [I]t is not "always be personally compromising to *sign* something
> you don't support". There is no compromise in signing or otherwise
> making commitments you don't intend to keep when you are under duress.
> Government requirements and threat of force in this realm put the
> homeschooler in a state of duress. I would not consider it proper to
> lie to the CRS, only to the govt.
I'm sorry to be insistent. But, does your word mean so little?
It *is* compromising to sign a SOF that you don't support. For example,
should the state discover that you fraudulently signed the SOF, how
credible will *anything* further you have to say in your defense be?
Your word will be for all practical purposes: worthless. Your case will
be jeopardized.
When home educators feel that they must comply with law against their
better judgement, simply *state* on the document that you are "signing
under duress." This may give you *some* added protection in court.
At least the issue of sovereignity won't be compromised. You will be
able to hold that the state had no business requiring such regulation
and maintain your credibility.
I know it's a lost virtue, but it's a matter of *honor.* The less it's
practiced, the easier it's to forget entirely. The same with freedom.
Your intentions are good. I merely question you means. ;-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 52
Subject:
NH 94 Legislation: HSLDA rsvp requested
Date:
Mon, 15 Nov 1993 10:04:20 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Scott Somerville and HSLDA:
You have mentioned that your commitments at HSLDA prevent you from
continuous interaction on this list. I apologize for my intrusion into
your daily routine, but I must ask an important question.
Senator Dave Wheeler, R-Milford, would like to know *exactly* where
you and HSLDA stand politically with regard to his upcoming bill (as
previously posted on this list). As HSLDA has historically been
involved in N.H. politics, he would prefer to know *in advance* what
HSLDA's plans are for the fast approaching session. Sen. Wheeler is
in the process of lining up support for his bill. He personally asked
for HSLDA's *commitment* by Tuesday evening which coincides with his
filing deadline.
Sen. Wheeler would like to know *how* HSLDA plans on handling this
issue. Are they prepared to admit that their previous analysis of our
legislative situation was short-sighted or incorrect? Are they
willing to support an alternative that would help to correct the
current unconstitutional situation? Do they plan on testifying at the
hearings personally, send out bulletins of support, etc.?
Sen. Wheeler's bill will go before Sen. George Disnard's education
committee. If you recall, Michael Smith from HSLDA flew to N.H. to
help write and pass Sen. Disnard's 1990 home education bill. This law
is posing serious problems for many families in our state. It would
certainly be helpful if HSLDA would acknowledge the potential
shortcomings of the current law and suggest that an alternative is
genuinely necessary.
While I have your attention, I would like to ask what type of
information HSLDA has been sending to N.H. lately. The reason I ask
is that there have been some very troubling rumors of late. I really
hope that they are unfounded considering the progress I had assumed we
had made over the past few weeks. It appears people are being told of
our internet discussion. They're apparently being instructed to
'ignore' comments which have placed HSLDA in 'a bad light.' They were
not told that it was a debate which was progressing towards
resolution. I hope you realize that it's important that homeschoolers
are *fully* informed.
I hope that we can have *open* communication throughout the 1994
legislative session.
Doris Hohensee
Message 53
Subject:
Re: Scott's basic premise (Hanson)
Date:
Mon, 15 Nov 93 20:39:29 WET
From:
Doris Hohensee
To:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
> 1. Putting down conservative Christian organizations - I was ready
> to jump to HSLDA's defense when you did this.
I'm sorry you misunderstood my intentions. I generally have nothing
against conservative Christian organizations. I have noticed the flak
on the net when you post material from conservative Christian groups.
Many do good work and I support their efforts.
> 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.
I have no problem with up-front statements of faith and up-front
organizations. HSLDA has *never* presented itself in this fashion.
I believe that at least the leadership of HSLDA is using their
"conservative Christian religion" to further their own personal power
and political ends. I have very serious problems with their *agenda,*
not their Christianity. Unfortunately, many Christian home educators
*automatically* assume that HSLDA can do no wrong because they are a
"conservative Christian group."
> 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.
I am not suggesting that Christians need to embrace the ideas of other
religious groups. I am encouraging only "religious toleration."
HSLDA's intolerance should be offensive to anyone regardless of their
religious orientation. They deliberately attempt to degrade people
who hold beliefs different from their own by labelling those religions
as "cults." If nothing else, this sort of thing can rebound dangerously:
the Romans considered Christians a "cult."
The term "cult" conjures up terrible images in the mind of the average
person today. Thanks to the media and the BATF that term equates them
with the fringe elements of society. These home educators might be
political allies if not alienated in such an intolerant fashion. Add
to that their dangerous agenda and IMO HSLDA has *no* redeeming value
outside defending the particular clients that pay for legal
representation.
> 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)
I respect the right to associate freely with whom ever we choose. And
to be as exclusive as we want: e.g., I believe *all* the federal civil
rights laws since 1964 violate freedom of association and contract.
What I *don't* respect is HSLDA's attempt to misrepresent themselves
before state legislatures as a large all-inclusive organization
representing the views of *all* home educators. HSLDA has repeatedly
done this in my state, and, by all accounts, in many other states as
well.
Their narrow agenda totally disregards the needs of unschoolers and
will eventually be the undoing of the rest of the homeschooling
community.
> 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).
Their lack of scholarship is near legendary in New Hampshire.
> Another problem, which Scott would
> not admit, is a willingness to legislate, using the power of the State
> in bad ways.
Scott refuses to think about or acknowledge the consequences of
his or HSLDA's actions. This makes him dangerous indeed.
> 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.
Agreed.
>
> 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.
The media is the most explicable in their reason for keeping mum: it's
not in their best interest to let you in on ideas of freedom and
liberty. As to belief in absolutes such as God, that would undermine
their pragmatism: everything needs to be relative.
Scott says: You have a good law in N.H. What Scott really means is:
You have a relatively good law pragmatically speaking. But don't try
to change it because it's not time. What's more, we'll oppose all
efforts but our own. Let HSLDA be the judge of the correct time and
method of change. After all, we're the experts. Trust me, I'm a
friendly guy. To paraphrase someone I don't remember, they aim to be
benevolent masters, but they *will* be masters.
Your parents perhaps don't know any better. They were educated in the
reigning idea of the culture:
In Government We Trust.
As a matter of philosophic curiosity, are you a *pre* or *post*
millennialist Christian?
Doris Hohensee
Message 54
Subject:
Retry: Compliance vs. lying
Date:
Mon, 15 Nov 1993 18:06:55 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Due to mailer problems, this is a re-post. Please ignore if you have
received this before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Rogers writes:
> The govt. has no right to demand that you
> sign an SOF as a condition to leaving you alone - so lying to them is
> the same as lying to maniac with an axe at the front door saying
> "where are the kids?".
> I replied:
> . . . are you now saying the government is a "maniac at our door"?
> Please, no melodrama. ;-)
> Steve persists: :-)
> If you would lie to a maniac at the door, then either you are willing
> to compromise the "always improper to lie" principle (or commandment),
> or you are living by some other principle.
> If you would not lie, then the purpose of the exaggerated example is
> to lead you to question your premises; to question exactly what
> integrity you would be preserving. I don't see the situation as
> choosing the lesser of two evils. There is no shame or impropriety
> whatsoever in defending yourself. A lie, like a hit or a gunshot, can
> be used in self defense, or it can be used as an offensive weapon.
The point I was trying to make concerned *compliance with the law*, ie
acknowledgement of the authority of government, not the moral
justifications for lying. Unless the truth places you or your family in
*imminent danger* the preferred course of action IMO is to 'engage
your backbone' and *confront* bad laws head on. The danger of
lying, ie circumventing the law, is that it implicitly acknowledges
the authority of the state over the individual. Without the approval of
the people, the state has no legitimacy.
Non-confrontation *guarantees* the passage of more bad laws. If you
don't confront now when it is easier, you certainly won't do it later
when confrontation is more difficult. Leave it until tomorrow, for my
children, to deal with. You are attempting to escape your moral
responsibility. The government is *us*, not just them. Have you no
honor?
If you would like to lie to the "maniac at you front door," by all means
be my guest. Better you deal with maniacs than me. Statists keeps me
busy enough these days. :-)
Doris Hohensee
Message 55
Subject:
Re: NH 94 Legislation
Date:
Fri, 19 Nov 1993 08:30:20 -0500
From:
Doris Hohensee
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
To:
doris@mainstream.com
Scott:
Thanks for contacting Sen. Wheeler and committing HSLDA's support for
our N.H. bill last night. I'll e-mail the text of the bill you
requested.
Doris
Message 56
Subject:
1994 NH Legislation -Reply (fwd)
Date:
Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:35:30 -0500 (EST)
From:
Karen Peterson
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Fri Nov 19 11:05:22 1993
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 10:41 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: KAREN PETERSON
Subject: 1994 NH Legislation -Reply
Message-Id: <32931119154123/0006047481ND4EM@mcimail.com>
Karen, thanks so much for the bill. I have already talked to
Sen. Wheeler by phone, and have already recruited one very able
supporter for the bill. This is Richard Kohn, who has been
engaged in a battle with his school district for the last year
over special needs services.
***Suggested NIPE Strategy***
My basic battle plan for this bill is to rally 193A home
schoolers behind the new bill, not because it will help them, but
because it will open doors for home schoolers who have children
with special needs. I think everyone can envision what it would
be like to have a child who suddenly becomes a quadriplegic (this
almost happened to my little brother). Communications devices,
motorized wheelchairs, and so forth are prohibitively expensive.
We have to make sure that home schoolers are not utterly shut out
of special needs services.
As you probably know, NH has decided that home schoolers are not
eligible for special needs services, because they are neither
"public" nor "private" schools. (Federal law requires special
needs services for public and private schools.) The vast
majority of home schoolers are THRILLED to be out from under the
special needs laws, but there are some (like Mr. Kohn) for whom
it is a real hardship.
***Clearing the Air***
There have been some misunderstandings about HSLDA's stance on
the Non-Institutional Private Educator (NIPE) bill. At least
some of this has been the result of some possibly false and
certainly malicious gossip. To clarify: I personally have
supported the NIPE bill since I first heard of it. I also
opposed the effort to repeal 193A, since the vast majority of
HSLDA members are happy with it. When folks put the two
initiatives together in one bill (implement NIPE and scrap 193A),
I opposed it, and suggested separating them.
Last spring, I thought that there was an agreement to drop the
effort to repeal 193A, and so advised those HSLDA members who had
contacted me that the NIPE initiative was a good idea. Something
happened during the coalition-building process to derail this. I
wasn't there; I have no idea who did what to whom. With all due
respect, although I honestly think Doris is an amazing person,
she has not mastered the art of coalition building -- yet. I
remain hopeful that home schoolers in NH can all come together to
expand our liberties.
Love covers a multitude of wrongs. In dealing with Doris, I
manage to resist the urge to lash out at her. I honestly believe
she wants the best for NH home schoolers. She and I agree on so
much, and disagree on so little. I just have learn to be more
thick-skinned and tender-hearted.
***Conclusion***
I still have to read through the NIPE bill again, and talk it
over with Sen. Wheeler. I expect to send out a letter to all
HSLDA members as we get closer to the legislative action. PLEASE
stay in touch -- bad communication has done us in before!
Message 57
Subject:
NH 94 politics - information only
Date:
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 08:01:02 -0500
From:
Karen Peterson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This is a post from Scott at HSLDA to karen peterson concerning our
94 legislation which scott said he would support. To keep all
of the list aware as to the progress that we are making in the
coalition building process and the status of our legislation.
I hope you find this information interesting and informing.
karen
karen@mainstream.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott:
I was pleased that you took the time to answer me. You are welcome.
We also have discussed our bill in depth with Sen. Wheeler. He never
mentioned anything about seeking federal funding for our bill. Janet
and Richard Kohn, of Goffstown, are good people. They have supported
our legislation in the past. Janet was particularly well-spoken at the
Parental Rights amendment hearing in 1991. There are some problems
with your analysis of our bill which is explained below. I discussed
this with both Doris and Senator Wheeler over the phone and this is
a unified compelation. We are sincerely trying to work on building
a coalition this time.
> Karen, thanks so much for the bill. I have already talked to
> Sen. Wheeler by phone, and have already recruited one very able
> supporter for the bill. This is Richard Kohn, who has been
> engaged in a battle with his school district for the last year
> over special needs services.
However, all of our efforts are based on principle. Your suggestion
to attach federal funding to our bill will reduce us to just another
special interest group. We are seeking state recognition of our right to
educate our children *unfettered by regulatory strings.* As private
educators, we should be required to meet only the same statutory
requirements that private schools in this state meet. But, we are
*not* schools. We are *not* institutions. We are Non-Institutional
Private Educators, or NIPEs.
I have received current information on private schools in this state.
There are 126 private schools in N.H.:
77 are approved for attendance only
31 are awaiting curriculum approval
18 are approved for attendance & curriculum
It is interesting to note that 31 schools are *still* waiting approval
since 1990, that's nearly four years. There are actually 108 private
schools in this state that are approved *for attendance only.* We are
seeking the *same* for NIPEs.
The state would be hard pressed to justify burdensome regulations on
us, and not private schools. This would violate our civil rights,
equal protection under the law. We are on defensible ground. We
don't want the regulatory strings that are inevitable with federal
money. This is the same problem that you had re: vouchers. Control.
> ***Suggested NIPE Strategy***
> My basic battle plan for this bill is to rally 193A home
> schoolers behind the new bill, not because it will help them, but
> because it will open doors for home schoolers who have children
> with special needs.
Scott, we're afraid that your analysis of this situation is incorrect.
Our bill does not propose to ask for and will not qualify parents for
federal funding for children with special needs.
> I think everyone can envision what it would
> be like to have a child who suddenly becomes a quadriplegic (this
> almost happened to my little brother). Communications devices,
> motorized wheelchairs, and so forth are prohibitively expensive.
> We have to make sure that home schoolers are not utterly shut out
> of special needs services.
> As you probably know, NH has decided that home schoolers are not
> eligible for special needs services, because they are neither
> "public" nor "private" schools. (Federal law requires special
> needs services for public and private schools.) The vast
> majority of home schoolers are THRILLED to be out from under the
> special needs laws, but there are some (like Mr. Kohn) for whom
> it is a real hardship.
Our suggestion is that you have Richard Kohn draft legislation that
specifically addresses the problems of special needs children. Please
don't cloud our issue. If you are interested in having a bill
introduced, contact Sen. Baldizar or Sen. Pignatelli. They would be
more willing to support such a bill, than Sen. Wheeler. Federal
funding is a misnomer for blackmail. We don't need to be blackmailed
any further with our own money.
1. A NIPE (non-institutional private educator) is neither a public or
a private school. Therefore, by your own standard, a NIPE would *not*
qualify for federal funding. If the bill were changed to include such
funding, *state regulatory control* would be inescapable. This will
gain you nothing, while damaging us severely.
2. To suggest such a change of intent would initiate massive
opposition from the special education lobby. Why would they allow a
diversion of their *limited* revenue to *untrained* parents? This
would sink our current effort and taint us *permanently* before the
legislature. We will no longer be seen as principled parents seeking
to be left alone. Rather, we will become just another special interest
group looking for a handout.
3. You seem unwilling to support *our* right to home educate our
children without state interference. If our bill is untenable to you,
then you should not pretend to support it.
4. The only way to support our measure is to acknowledge the
*problems* with the current home education law. It's the only way to
"clear the air."
> ***Clearing the Air***
> There have been some misunderstandings about HSLDA's stance on
> the Non-Institutional Private Educator (NIPE) bill. At least
> some of this has been the result of some possibly false and
> certainly malicious gossip. To clarify: I personally have
> supported the NIPE bill since I first heard of it. I also
> opposed the effort to repeal 193A, since the vast majority of
> HSLDA members are happy with it. When folks put the two
> initiatives together in one bill (implement NIPE and scrap 193A),
> I opposed it, and suggested separating them.
> Last spring, I thought that there was an agreement to drop the
> effort to repeal 193A, and so advised those HSLDA members who had
> contacted me that the NIPE initiative was a good idea. Something
> happened during the coalition-building process to derail this. I
> wasn't there; I have no idea who did what to whom. With all due
> respect, although I honestly think Doris is an amazing person,
> she has not mastered the art of coalition building -- yet. I
> remain hopeful that home schoolers in NH can all come together to
> expand our liberties.
I am concerned as to what the misunderstandings could be.
It is absolutely necessary for us to explain in our testimony the
shortcomings of 193-A, so we can *build a case* for an additional law.
We aren't asking to repeal 193-A by speaking out against it. If the
other homeschoolers perceive that we are misrepresenting 193-A,
perhaps it's *their perception* which is the problem.
In our opinion, most home educators, who are in compliance with 193-A,
will switch once NIPE is an alternative. They will take the path that
offers them the most security for their families. NIPE would do just
that. They would no longer have to be concerned about *termination.*
There is a difference between coalition building and selling out on
our principles, which is what you are suggesting. We don't see how
you intend to "expand our liberties" by asking for federal funds and
denying our right to home educate our children without state
interference.
> Love covers a multitude of wrongs. In dealing with Doris, I
> manage to resist the urge to lash out at her. I honestly believe
> she wants the best for NH home schoolers. She and I agree on so
> much, and disagree on so little. I just have learn to be more
> thick-skinned and tender-hearted.
It is true that love does cover a multitude of wrongs. We sincerely
want to work on building a coalition between CHENH, HSLDA and NHHC (NH
Homeschool Coalition). However, we will not compromise our principles
nor our unwavering belief in our God-given rights. We must be free.
We must be allowed to raise and educate our children under God's law,
which respects *parental rights,* not under the current statutory
rhethoric of the educational establishment which has been instituted
as law, with HSLDA's help.
Sitting on differences is bound to get us in trouble, if only because
both of us won't know exactly where the other stands. Neither of us
can predict what the other is going to do if we don't understand the
reasons behind what we do.
The reason we posted this debate on the net is to keep the entire
thing above-board. Nobody, but *nobody* is going to accuse us of
operating covertly this time. *Everybody* is going see *exactly* what
goes down.
> ***Conclusion***
> I still have to read through the NIPE bill again, and talk it
> over with Sen. Wheeler. I expect to send out a letter to all
> HSLDA members as we get closer to the legislative action. PLEASE
> stay in touch -- bad communication has done us in before!
Are you attempting to take over our legislative effort? We sincerely
hope that this is not the case. Sen. Wheeler should be contacted *in
advance* as to any change in the intent of *his* bill, out of respect.
(Sen. Wheeler can be reached at: dave@mainstream.com.) To overlook him
is breach of legislative protocal. News travels fast in a small
state. Even contacting *one parent* can start rumors flying. Can the
damage be undone at this point?
Your support is of no help if you try to undermine our efforts by
taking control of the legislation from out of state again.
Establishing a group of supporters for your ideas of what the bill
should accomplish, without even discussing it with us or Sen. Wheeler
will certainly do more damage than good, IOHO. :)
If we seem touchy about this, remember, we have the most at stake
here. It's our bill and *our* kids on the line. We've written the
bill, asked Sen. Wheeler to introduce it and continue to keep him
updated on the subject. Let N.H. parents handle it.
Coalitions work well when both sides understand the issues at hand.
We appreciate your input but would prefer that you discuss with us any
stratagies before you "rally the troops." We want to assure that
*everyone* understands the issue. It is important that the N.H
parents make the decisions. We have to live with the results. We
need to agree on the solution.
We appreciate your willingness to help. We are trying to come to an
understanding of each others tasks. While we may appear as "Protective
Mother Bears" we are only trying to get the VERY best for our children.
Your help is greatly appreciated, so long as it does not undermine
the initial purpose of the introduced legislation.
Parents who are satisified with the current law do not need to contact
the legislature in any way regarding this bill. However, you need to
seek out who was responsible for the "possibly false and certainly
malicious" gossip that was brought to your attention previously. If
it was engaged in it innocently, it can be corrected. If knowingly,
then our problems are more serious indeed.
We would appreciate that HSLDA informs their members in N.H. that we
are *concerned* home educators. We are not seeking to undermine
anyone. This bill won't effect on them, unless they so *choose*.
Our major concern is that HSLDA does *not to oppose us* one more time.
If HSLDA wishes to *support* our effort, HSLDA *must* acknowledge the
problems with our current law.
Those problems constitute the entire justification for our bill. If
you don't, the legislature will correctly conclude that there's no
need for it, and won't pass it. The obvious problem of this
requirement is that CHENH will consider any criticism of current law
as an attack on that law and oppose the bill, *even though this bill
doesn't touch current law*. That appears to be what happened last
session. How do you suggest we circumvent this problem?
We will keep in touch - BUT, please, do not lose sight of our *goal* by
adding distractions.
Thank you for your input.
Karen Peterson
Doris Hohensee
Message 58
Subject:
HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Date:
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 20:35:52 -0500
From:
Richard Wasserman <70673.3010@CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
I mainly lurk on this list, but do read it with great interest and even
save some of the gems
I put together the HEAR, formerly HEWR. It started as an idea two years
ago at the National Homeschool Assoc. conference. The idea is to put out
news and resources over the electronic highway (see I know buzzwords too
)
Anyway, the idea was to make it non-sectarian, take no sides and just
present any news that others in the homeschool movement might find
interesting or useful. I get news from here, various BBSes, and
newsletters such as Allpie.
I read of the HSLDA fax and legal alert line here on home-ed-politics. I
had never heard of it and, like some of you asked, wanted to know if their
legal information could be put in the HEAR.
The answer was no. Reasons? I am not sure. I spoke to Inge Cannon. She
said that the information was sent to leaders and newsletter editors of
state-wide organizations. Since I do both, on paper for Illinois and the
HEAR, I thought I qualified. Ms. Cannon said no. I said why. It seemed to
boil down to the fact that they would have no control over the information
once it was sent out over the bulletin boards and Internet. She was
especially adament against Internet. Ms. Cannon also said that, while she
personally didn't mind my getting the news, various state organizations
want to restrict the legal news to those people they want to see it.
To sum it up, Ms. Cannon gave me the distinct impression that legal news
from the hotline was restricted. And there the matter sits.
And since she wants it restricted, I thought that the best thanks I could
give them for their time was to air their viewpoint. Which I don't agree
with and which is why I started the HEAR. Information should NOT be
restricted. Information should be available to all regardless of faith,
schooling method or anything else. Divisness (sp?) will not help anyone.
anne in chicago
Message 59
Subject:
Re: HEAR\HEWR and HSLDA
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:26:54 -0500
From:
Karl Pearson
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Unfortunately, some of those who believe themselves to be the most
Christian show tendencies which are the least Christ-like.
I wonder if the story of the Good Samaritan has a message for them.
Shouldn't sharing what we know be similar to sharing what we have?
Please! Christians Unite! If there are many roads to Rome, aren't there
many sects that are Christian? Can we not overlook our differences and
embrace our similarities? Is our pride so great that the differences grow
to impassable chasms? Is this pride that same pride which preceedeth the
fall?
-=> Karl L. Pearson, President, Utah Home Education Association
-=> No Success Can Compensate For Failure In The Home - David O. MacKay
-=> The Greatest Work We Will Ever Do
-=> Will Be Within The Walls Of Our Own Home - Harold B. Lee
Message 60
Subject:
Illinois situation
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 10:50:03 -0500
From:
"David L. Hanson"
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Thanks to a little reminder from Mr. Hohensee that I should check into what
is going on in the Illinois legislature, I called State Senator Petka yesterday
to discuss the PTA proposed legislation (they want the state to control
homeschooling) and homeschooling in general. I knew about the Illinois PTA
proposed legislation since last spring but I never followed up on it before.
Senator Petka told me that there was absolutely no chance of homeschooling
laws getting through the Illinois State Senate. The Senate is controlled by
fairly conservative Republicans who will not let a homeschool law pass. He
also told me that the Senate President, Pate Phillips, would not allow a
homeschooling law to come to the floor of the Senate.
We just need to work to keep senators in office. (I already thought that
Senator Petka was a "good guy" since about three weeks ago he wrote a letter
to the editor of the Naperville Sun complaining that public school textbooks
have been censored such that our country's Christian foundations are ignored.)
Note: in Illinois, a homeschool is the same as any other private school, we
have minimal requirements with no enforcement mechanism AND the Department
of Child and Family Services is prohibited by law from involvment in truancy.
The minimal requirements include teaching in the "branches of education" for
so many days per year in the English language; but no testing, no reporting of
any kind (other than voluntary), no oversight by the State or local district
of any kind.
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
(correction to above: to keep these good senators in office.)
Message 61
Subject:
Reply to Strategy -Reply (fwd)
Date:
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 12:04:07 -0500 (EST)
From:
Karen Peterson
Forwarded message:
>From SCOTT+aMEMBER%HSLDA@mcimail.com Tue Nov 23 11:31:53 1993
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 11:10 EST
From: Scott Somerville
To: KAREN PETERSON
Cc: Other Users <+d+lREMS/WHEELER/INTERNET/"david+amainstream+pcom"+r%HSLDA@mcimail.com>
Subject: Reply to Strategy -Reply
Message-Id: <80931123161008/0006047481ND1EM@mcimail.com>
Just a quick note in response to your long message - I have
hearings today and tomorrow, and then Thanksgiving comes.
Sorry for any confusion about the "federal funding" issue: it is
essential, first, to get a "private school" version of a home
school before one can then try to qualify an individual private
school for federally funded special ed. services. If you want
NIPEs to not be eligible, I applaud you, but this does
necessitate dropping the entire strategy I had suggested.
This puts us back to your strategy, which is to show how 193A is
failing. Unfortunately, that is hard to build a coalition with.
A lot of families would be able to testify that 193A is working
just fine for THEM. Can we identify a very specific group of
people for whom 193A is NOT working? (I imagine you have been
doing this for the last three years, but please be patient with
me.)
I can see you are concerned about me contacting Sen. Wheeler
without you being involved. I don't know what to do about this
problem. I don't know what information he has about my motives,
so I would be much more comfortable dealing directly with Sen.
Wheeler. If this is a problem, please suggest a better method.
Perhaps we could conduct discussions by E-mail, with a CC to each
interested party.
I reiterate: "love covers a multitude of wrongs." Let's keep
overcoming our misunderstandings and difficulties. I'm sure we
could both list a lot of offenses we have each taken over the
last few years, but "love keeps no account of wrongs." Let's
work together for the good of home schoolers.