Comparison of 2011 Legislative Proposals

Comparison of 2011 Proposals
	NH Parent’s First Proposal HB 595	HSLDA’s Proposal HB 301	Amending Compulsory Attendance law HB 542
Sponsors (* home schoolers)	*Rep. Laura Jones *Rep. Andrew Manuse Rep. Seth Cohn Rep. Al Baldasaro Rep. Carol Vita Rep. Harry Accornero Rep. Kevin Avard Rep. Stephen Palmer Rep. Tyler Simpson	*Rep. Jim Parison Rep. Paul Mirski Rep. Charles Sova	*Rep. J.R. Hoell
	Sen. Jim Forsythe Sen. Ray White Sen. Jim Luther	Sen. Ray White Sen. Sharon Carson
Parental duty to instruct child	Recognizes “parental-directed” instruction	State approval required to “home educate” a child -------------------------------- Notification & Acknowledgement process to obtain state approval	Recognizes parental instruction
Compulsory education	Not required; duty to instruct similar to public and private schools	Inequitable Compulsory Education requirement; unlike public or private schools; proof of educational progress can be required of parents	Not required; duty to instruct similar to public and private schools
Compulsory attendance law	Compulsory Attendance requirements do no apply to parents instructin their children Parent-Directed Instruction	No change	Voluntary attendance 6-16; ------------------------------ Education is a privilege, not a right
Subject listed	Subjects list provided to “encourage” instruction as designated in NH Const. Pt. II Art. 83, but does not limit parents to any particular curriculum or methodology. It provides reassurance that parents understand the broad scope of the task they undertake.	None specified, yet criminal penalty for “failure to educate,” not just “instruct” the child like public or private teachers.	None specified
Home Education law	Eliminates	Amends	Ignores
Due Process	Equal treatment with public and private schools -------------------------------- Innocent until proven guilty	Requires “affirmative defense” compromising due process -------------------------------- Parent is guilty until proven innocent	Equal treatment with public and private schools ------------------------------ Innocent until proven guilty
Inequitable requirements	None	Inequitable treatment: parents held to a higher standard than public or private school teachers, including criminal prosecution -------------------------------- Requires “affirmative defense”; parent is guilty until proven innocent -------------------------------- Ways to demonstrate “progress towards literacy and self-sufficiency commensurate with the child’s age or ability”: -------------------------------- 1. 15th percentile on standardized achievement test -------------------------------- 2. Letter from “credentialed” teacher -------------------------------- 3. Educational materials -------------------------------- 4. Other relevant evidence	None
Prosecution	Superior Court	Superior Court	Unspecified, implies Superior Court
Jurisdiction	Civil	Criminal	Civil
Burden of Proof	Highest standard: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Reasonably close to 100%	None specified	None specified
Discovery Requirement	Parents are innocent until proven guilty	Parent are required to provide evidence of their innocence using the four options suggested under “affirmative defense.”
Charges	Violation	1st offense is a violation; 2nd offense is a class B misdemeanor	Violation
Fines	None specified	$1200 fine on the second offense	None specified
Endangering the Welfare of a Child or Incompetent	No change	Criminal offense: “purposefully fails to provide” an education for the child -------------------------------- Any curriculum that doesn’t meet state standards will be construed as “purposefully” failing to provide an education. The curriculum establishes intent; a lack of curriculum establishes criminal intent. -------------------------------- Unschoolers will need to remain underground.	No change
Truancy	Exempt	Exempt	Exemption for parents instructing their children; ------------------------------ Truancy: requires a warrant to take and place a child in a pubic school.
Child Protection Act: Educational neglect	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Statement of Purpose	It is the natural right and duty of parents to determine and direct the instruction of their children for their education.	It is the natural and fundamental right and duty of parents to determine and direct the education of their children.	No statement
	The general court acknowledges that the primary and natural instructor of a child is the parents, and the general court guarantees the right and duty of parents to provide for the instruction of their children.	The general court acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of a child is the family, and the general court respects the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide for the education of their children.
	Parents shall be free to provide this instruction in the manner and at the location of their choosing, including their homes or in private schools or in schools recognized or established by their resident school district or by the state or in other places where instruction can be given.	Parents shall be free to provide this education in the manner and at the location of their choosing including their homes or in private schools or in schools recognized or established by their resident school district or by the state.	.
Unschoolers And Learning Disabled Children	No problem	Unless these parents “prove their innocence,” they are guilty of a criminal offense.	No problem
Underground Families	No Problem	Unless these parents “prove their innocence,” they are guilty of a criminal offense.	No Problem