Comparison of 2011 Amended Legislative Proposals

Comparison of 2011 Proposals
	Parent-Directed Instruction HB 595	Home Education HB 301
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
	Sen. Jim Forsythe Sen. Ray White Sen. Jim Luther	Sen. Ray White Sen. Sharon Carson
Constitutional	Yes	No
Parental duty to instruct child	Recognizes “parental-directed” instruction	State approval required to initiate “home education” program -------------------------------- Notification & Acknowledgement procedure to obtain approval
Compulsory education	Not required Equitable Duty to instruct similar to public and private schools	Required Inequitable Exceeds public or private school requirement Proof of educational progress can be required of parents
Compulsory attendance law	Not applicable to parents instructing their children Parent-Directed Instruction	No change
Subject listed	Subjects provided to “encourage” instruction as designated in NH Const. Pt. II Art. 83, not to restrict parents to any particular curriculum or methodology. It provides reassurance that parents understand the broad scope of their undertaking.	Subjects required: reading, writing and mathematics.
Home Education law	Repeals	Amends
Due Process	Innocent until proven guilty	Requires “affirmative defense” compromising due process -------------------------------- Parent is guilty until proven innocent
Inequitable requirements	None	Parents held to a higher standard than public or private school teachers, including criminal prosecution -------------------------------- Requires “affirmative defense”; parent is guilty until proven innocent -------------------------------- Specifies 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
Jurisdiction	Superior Court	Superior Court implied by repeated use of the term “prosecution,” which most commonly is used in criminal law
	Civil law	Criminal law
Burden of Proof	Highest standard: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Reasonably close to 100%	None specified
Discovery		Parents have to provide their affirmative defense in advance of the proceedings
Charges	Violation	Violation, after two warnings
Fines	None	Up to $250 for 1st offense; Up to $1000 for 2nd offense
Termination of program	Failure to instruct results in termination and parent chooses public or private school alternative.	Never terminated; without judicial remedy additional charges may be added to protect the child, such as “Endangerment” or “Neglect”
Endangering the Welfare of a Child or Incompetent	Not applicable under civil law.	Applicable under criminal prosecution for “failure to educate” or “knowingly” violates a provision in the law, such as “notification” -------------------------------- Any curriculum that doesn’t meet state standards can be construed as “knowingly” failing to provide an education. A curriculum establishes intent; a lack of curriculum establishes criminal intent. -------------------------------- Unschoolers will need to remain underground.
Truancy	Exempt	Exempt
Child Protection: Educational neglect	Exempt	Exempt, but charges may be used to find judicial remedy
Privacy	No need to disclose private information	Explicit privacy, which is moot under “affirmative defense”
DOE Rulemaking	Allows Prevents district misinterpretation and rule by court decree	Eliminated Will result In increased litigation and require more frequent legislative remedy
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.
	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 parents can “prove their innocence,” they are guilty of a criminal offense. Will need to remain underground
Underground Families	No Problem	Unless parents can “prove their innocence,” they are guilty of a criminal offense. Will need to remain underground.