Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Subcommittee Meeting, Legislative Office Building, Room 207
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM
House Education Committee Executive Session, Legislative Office Building, Room 207
Please attend and bring a friend!
|
|
If so, you are not alone.
In talking with others, I realized that at any given time there are people who are just getting on board. I don't have all the answers, but after years of watching these issues play out in the legislature, I certainly have my perspective. I hope this helps the discussion.
House Bill 1580 (HB1580) essentially provides the existing homeschool law to stay in place, allowing parents to decide if they need the guidance this law provides, OR parents may choose the option of acknowledging their parental rights to educate their children without interference from the state. That is it. The bill is not doing away with homeschool law, it is not allowing parents to abuse their children, it is not doing any of the things that legislators at the HEC executive session suggested on Tuesday. This bill is simply "acknowledging parental rights," while keeping the existing law for those who need or wish it. This is a bill that provides choices. In order to truly have a choice, one needs to be able to say yes or no. Legislators who are upset with this bill are being vetted out for their true opinion on parental rights. This is upsetting several legislators because this requires that they take a definitive stand on the issue.
This is where the politics begin. This is where having been in the rooms before is of ultimate value. Rather than start with the discussion about the merits of the bill, those opposed take the approach of first being confused. To those who have not watched these legislators before, or seen their capabilities to not be confused in the past, this confusion may seem real. To see these legislators in action with a bill that they do support is why I did not see Rep. Casey's, and others, confusion over HB1580 as sincere. I do understand that they would prefer not to have to vote on parental rights.
Rep. Casey, as chair of the subcommittee to review HB1580, has great latitude to see that the language of the bill is reduced to drivel, OR heightened to something we would beg to be killed. By changing the language, and then voting up or down, legislators can avoid the real question along with any backlash it could bring. In an election year you can be sure it will cause constituents to pause and think. If HEC members were confident that HB1580 would not be voted in the affirmative when it arrived on the House floor, they would have simply voted ITL on the bill in committee and gone on to new business. This bill is bothersome to them and I don't think it is because it is confusing. They are not sure what the House vote would be. This is why it is important for everyone to be at these meetings. Elected officials are less likely to play the confusion card, and such, in front of a lot of people. Each time we have a low showing, they have some latitude to drag the process out, as is now happening.
We need to be there next Tuesday to let each member of the subcommittee know that we want to clearly understand any confusion they may have, as well as any action they decide to take. The representatives selected to be on the subcommittee are smart individuals, hopefully they will not compromise their position by playing politics with this bill. Some already have with the letter they sent to the Board of Education. They will be taking care not to make any more mistakes – unless we stay home and let them get away with it. This bill is fine, as it was presented, to go for a vote in the House Education Committee. Even if it gets an ITL at HEC, where only 7 representatives are among the 34 who voted for greater regulation with HB368, that doesn't mean the bill will fail on the House floor, where legislators recently voted 324 to 34 in favor of less regulation for homeschoolers. HB1580 represents a profound question that we are asking legislators to make clear, and it is a great time to ask.
As this bill stands, it is a win-win for everyone. The current home education law stays in place for everyone in the legislature who wants it, for homeschoolers who want to continue to use it and for any person, or entity, who feels they have the time to argue endlessly over whether they can find the right regulations, and perfect language, to place into a law to oversee and supervise homeschooling. For those who don't want to live under the current homeschool law, this bill clearly protects your fundamental parental duty to instruct your children, without state interference.
The meetings on HB 1580 are as follows:
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM
HB1580 Subcommittee Meeting, Legislative Office Building, Room 207
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM
House Education Committee Executive Session, Legislative Office Building, Room 207
I hope to see folks there. Whether you are for or against this bill, there is much to be learned by listening to this committee discuss this important issue.
(on letterhead)
State of New Hampshire
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Legislative Office Building
33 North State Street
Concord, NH 03301-6328
TEL: (603) 271-3334
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Emma L. Rous
Chairman
J. Timothy Dunn
Vice Chairman
January 25, 2010
Dear (Chairman Lyons and Members of the NH State Bd. of Education)
The House Education Committee has been involved in a review of the home education statute for several years. During this period, many members of the Education Committee have grown concerned about the level of accountability for home education programs. We retained HB368 and every member of the committee served on a subcommittee to review the statute. On Nov. 19, 2009 the committee voted 10-10 on an amendment to strengthen the evaluation process for home educated students. Failing to get a majority, the committee rejected the original bill, which was also defeated without debate in the House.
In the course of committee discussion, many questions were raised about the role of the State Board in setting rules. RSA 193-A:3 empowers the Board to “adopt rules…relative to administering the home education program.” HEAC is charged to “recommend…changes in rules…” but serves in an advisory capacity rather than a decision-making capacity. As a current member of HEAC, I do not believe the department violated appropriate process in recommending changes to the board. While the laws cannot be changed by the rules process, the board can and should clarify and further specify how the laws are implemented.
Based on discussions in committee, testimony from superintendents and home educators, and a review of home education regulations in other states, I recommend the following rules changes in bold (references are to DOE’s initial proposal dated 10/14/09):
Ed315.02 Definitions
(1) “Teacher means a teacher other than the parent who holds NH certification….
Currently parents who are certified or teach in a private school can and do write their own evaluations. The consensus of the Education Committee is that this is not appropriate evaluation.
Ed315.04 Notification
(c) (1) The commencement date of the home education program contained in the written notification shall be on or before the date that the education will replace public school attendance;
“Written notification” is not currently specified in statute and should be clarified in rules. Superintendents testify they sometimes have trouble getting timely notification, resulting in ambiguity regarding truancy.
Ed315.07 Annual Evaluation
The department recommended eliminating (a) which requires that “No evaluation shall be used by the participating agent as an annual evaluation unless approved by the parent” and recommended instead that the evaluator shall:
315.07 (b) (1)
a. Sign the evaluation
b. Submit the evaluation to the participating agent; and
c. Give a copy to a parent
315.07 (c) (5)
The department also recommended revising (c) (5) to require “The signature of the teacher” (eliminating “and the parent.”)
I urge the Board to adopt the Department’s original recommendations. If the evaluation is to have any validity, parent should not be allowed to shop for an evaluation until they get a favorable one. EHAC argues the evaluator may not understand the parent’s program, but parents can screen evaluators before hiring them. Under the current system, parents choose and pay the evaluator, and evaluators are the only ones to see the student portfolio. There is no requirement to meet with the student. Evaluators have no incentive to be thorough or to give a critical evaluation.
Members of the Education Committee eventually dropped the idea of collecting data on numbers of home education students on probation because we do not believe, and superintendents concur, that superintendents have enough information to determine probation. We believe probations are only assigned for test scores under the 40th percentile and rarely, if ever, for negative portfolio evaluations. Only if the portfolio evaluation process is significantly strengthened would we encourage accurate data collection on probation by the department.
Ed 315.07 (c) (3) and (4)
Evaluations are currently brief and cursory (see attached example). Developing a DOE sample model for appropriate, thorough portfolio evaluations and referencing that model in rules should be a high priority for this round of rules revision. The department recommends making the following addition to (c) (4): and the facts the teacher relied on to develop the concluding statement. This is a good starting point, but should be much more specific and complete. Current (c) (3) asks for “a description of the work reviewed,” but what should be in that description? Similarly, parents need guidance regarding what should be included in a portfolio.
If parents have chosen not to teach all of the subjects listed in RSA 193-A:4, the portfolio and the evaluation summary should include a rationale for leaving subjects out. (See Ed 315.08 (a) (2). [sic]
Ed 315.17 Grievance conference
The department has added language stressing that a conference may be requested by “parents or participating agents.” This is an important clarification because HEAC should not only act as advocates for home education parents with grievances against school systems, but as facilitators and problem solvers for struggling or challenging home school programs.
Prompted by the Home School Legal Defense Association, home educators have asserted that changes in home education laws and rules would be unnecessarily burdensome and make us the most regulated state in the country. HSLDA currently ranks NH among the less regulated home school states. Over 4,000 students home school in NH, and we know that families move from more regulated states like MA and NY to home school here. While there are states with very little regulation, there are also states that require much more than NH. For example, requirements that:
-the parents have at least a high school diploma (or in some cases a BA)
-curriculum parallel that taught in public schools
-home schooled students study an equivalent number of hours as public school students
-home education cannot be initiated to avoid disciplinary action or to drop out early
-portfolios be submitted to superintendents
-all home educated students take the statewide achievement tests
-home education program report quarterly
-tests cannot be administered by the parent
NH has none of these requirements. I believe the rules changes suggested above are important, appropriate, and well within the jurisdiction of the State Board of Education. I hope you will support these changes.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rep. Emma Rous (signed)
Rep. Emma Rous
Rep Rick Ladd (signed)
Rep. Roderick M. Ladd (hand-printed)
Rep. Claire Clarke (signed)
Rep Judy Day (signed)
Rep Judy Day (hand-printed)
Rep. Rachel Burke (signed)
Rep Rachel Burke (hand-printed)
Rep. Judith Reever (signed)
Judith Reever (hand-printed)
Charles B. Yeaton (signed)
Philip R. Harvey (signed)
Rep. Philip R. Harvey (hand-printed)
Rep Kim Casey (hand-printed)
Kimberly Casey (signed)
It is pretty incontrovertible that one should not demonize a whole group just because certain individuals from that group might do something wrong. Yet, for one reason or another, whether it’s fear, or ignorance, or the well-meaning intention of protecting children, people frequently support unwarranted restraint of a group based upon the potential abuse of these individual wrongdoers.
This type of action is morally wrong. It causes harm to both the individual members of the group and society as a whole. There are many who feel that collective blame is a necessary evil in society, since it might increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. However, the problems it causes outweigh any potential benefit.
It is wrong to criminalize somebody who is innocent and who has shown no evidence to the contrary simply because they are part of a certain group of potential wrongdoers. All individuals have an equal right to freedom. Legislation that conflates responsible parents with negligent individuals is overt, collective discipline and punishment. This attitude is harmful to many individuals.
Harm of this type, perpetrated by authorities such as governments and police, is insidious, because these organizations are supposed to be impartial and non-discriminatory. Collective punishment by those in positions of power is particularly problematic, as those groups of parents that suffer the most at the hands of authorities tend to be socio-economically less well off than the majority, and have less access to sources of power. Thus there is less they can do to protest against unfair treatment.
Not only is collective punishment problematic in a legal sense, but it can have a very negative personal influence on those involved. There are lasting, adverse effects on citizens. There is a significant toll on individuals’ emotional well being as well. This is, of course, the case with all forms of discrimination. Emotional harm manifests itself in a number of ways. Individuals discriminated against often internalize that discrimination. These individuals might start to take on the persona they are accused of, through alienation and resentment. It is wrong to implicate all parents, when the vast majority is entirely innocent. It is certainly alienating. It creates a ‘siege mentality.’ It’s wrong for any parent to have to suffer in such a manner.
Not only does collective punishment have harmful effects on individuals at the receiving end, but it’s detrimental to society as a whole. Creating an ‘us and them’ mentality does not lend itself to the maintenance of a pluralistic society. In an environment in which social integration has not always been smooth, the perceptions that entire groups are guilty of crime has very damaging effects.
This issue is particularly problematic, since the problems that many parents face may be overlooked through a failure to see complexities and differences, and through ‘one size fits all’ policies. In order to create a society that ‘cherishes both unity and diversity,’ it is fundamental that every attempt be made, especially on the part of the institutions of government, to reject the concept of collective blame, and to pursue an approach where a criminal, or even a group of criminals are viewed as exceptions and not representatives of the group as a whole.
HB 1580 would restore the "presumption of innocence" (of educational neglect) for all parents who instruct their children at home.
NH parents are tired of legislators and others presuming … without any evidence or due process of the law… that all parents are irresponsible.
On its face their presumption is illogical... as well as unconstitutional. A child wouldn't fall for their line: "Please be responsible, but don't ever expect us to treat you as such."
It's primarily the parent's duty to instruct his child, not the state's.
This bill would provide an option for parents instructing their children at home, which is safe from unprovoked attacks like HB 368. The old regulations under RSA 193-A will remain in place for those who prefer that option. Having two options will allow parents greater flexibility and liberty.
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes that parents have a natural, fundamental right to determine and direct the education of their children. The bill also exempts children who are receiving educational instruction from a parent from the compulsory attendance requirements.
January 9, 2010
