Dear Senator Bragdon,
My name is Chris Hamilton. I am a homeschooler in Brookline, NH, and I attended
the Senate Education Committee executive session yesterday where HB 406 was
discussed and dispatched. I wanted to thank you for your support of
homeschooling freedoms in NH, as expressed in your remarks and voting record
yesterday, and your shepherding of the bill. I am also pleased to see you
professing skepticism about the current attempt to raise the age of compulsory
attendance. One of the lessons homeschooling parents learn early on is how much
effort it takes to teach a child, especially a teen, if s/he does not want to
learn. I liken it to "pushing rope", and I am not sure why our
society wants to spend its precious tax dollars on such a useless activity. For
this and other reasons, such as the way it will degrade the education of those
students who want to be in school and the side effect of increasing reporting
requirements for homeschoolers, I intend to oppose it vigorously.
In 1996, RSA 193-A was amended to remove the requirement that notification of
intent to homeschool be submitted by August 1st. The bulk of the changes
occurred in RSA 193-A:5. At the time, the homeschooling community was not as
vigilant as it is today about legislative matters, and there was little input
from homeschoolers. After the fact, we discovered that the language chosen was
very confusing and difficult to understand. The intent of the change was made
clear to us by the sponsors; it was to clarify that parents have the right to
begin a home education program mid-year even if the child has been enrolled in
a public or non-public school for part of the year, and that when this happens,
parents have 30 days to submit the description of their curriculum. This intent
was clarified when the rules (Ed315 Procedures for the Operation of Home
Education Programs) were rewritten to reflect the change in the law. Unfortuantely,
people who are trying to read and interpret that section of the law without the
benefit of that explanation often have great difficulties.
Although I support HB406 as passed by the House, the compromise reached by the
committee is not unreasonable. However, the language of the amendment
recommended by the committee does not match the proposal discussed in executive
session yesterday. I suspect it is because the author of the amendment had
difficulty understanding the current law, especially the confusing language in
193-A:5. Under current law, homeschoolers can choose as their participating
agency either their resident district superintendent, a non-public school
principal, or the commissioner of education. We send our letters of intent,
including descriptions of curriculum, to the participating agency of our
choice. Statistics published by the DOE show that fewer than 1% of all
homeschoolers currently choose the commissioner of education. The amendment
voted on by the committee would require that all homeschoolers who have not
previously chosen the commissioner submit their curriculum to him (or his
designee at the DOE) this fall. There are about 4,000 homeschooled children in
this state, so that would mean increasing the workload at the DOE from the current
~160 programs to 4,000 in 2006, and in future years, at least 400 programs
(since programs can last 10 years, at least 10% of all letters of intent
initiate, as opposed to continue, home education programs). This would come at
a time when the DOE is requesting of the homeschooling community that they
dissuade homeschoolers from choosing the commissioner, as the DOE does not have
the staff to handle the current volume, and they wish to encourage
homeschoolers to develop relationships with their districts. This is a major
change to existing law, and one I suspect the committee did not intend to make.
Another issue which I would like to bring to your attention is the use of the
word "permitted" in the change to RSA 193-A:5 II (line 24 of the
amendment). This particular word has implications that trouble the
homeschooling community, namely that participating agencies can choose to deny
permission to intiate a home education program, even if it complies with
193-A:4 and 5. Under current law, the word "permit" only occurs in
language that applies to the situation where a participating agency has
forwarded the home education program to the commissioner because they believe
it is not in compliance, and the commissioner has determined that it does indeed
comply. Homeschoolers, myself included, will be very upset if that word appears
in language that deals with routine acknowledgement of home education programs.
A third issue is that in "replacing all after the enacting clause",
the amendment takes out a change that the House endorsed:
1
Home Education; Curriculum. Amend the section heading to RSA 193-A:4, and RSA
193-A:4, I to read as follows:
193-A:4
Home Education; Defined[; Curriculum Required].
I.
Instruction shall be deemed home education if it consists of [planned and
supervised instructional and related educational activities, including a
curriculum and] instruction in science, mathematics, language, government,
history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the history of the constitutions
of New Hampshire and the United States, and an exposure to and appreciation of
art and music. Home education shall be provided by a parent for his own child,
unless the provider is as otherwise agreed upon by the appropriate parties
named in paragraph II.
I raised all of these concerns in an e-mail to you on June 8, 2005. I know that
you prepared amendment 1824s only as an attempt to prevent a disaster, and I
realize that you have renounced ownership of the amendment, but I wonder if you
would be interested in participating in a solution to the problems I raised. My
preference, if the bill is to be amended at all (I prefer it as passed by the
House), is to rewrite RSA 193-A:5 completely and put language in place that is
simple and straightforward. I think we could get a group of veteran
homeschoolers to put this together on very short notice. If we do so, and if
you agree that our language implements the intent of the committee, would you
be willing to bring this amendment to the floor? Or, if you intend to oppose
any amendment, would it be better to approach another Education Committee
member who supports the compromise?
Thank you again for all you have done to make our lives as homeschooling
parents easier.
Chris Hamilton
Beaver Lodge Homeschool