Dear Senator,
I am writing to ask you to vote against the amendment to
HB406, the act which revises certain provisions of the home education
statutes. This amendment, dated Dec. 15, 2005 is bad for homeschoolers.
In particular this language is bad for a couple of reasons:
> II. [Notification made by the parent pursuant to
paragraph I shall include a list of the names, addresses, and birth
dates of all children who are participating in the home education
program and] For any parent who has not previously received
acknowledgement from the commissioner of the department of education
that the parent is permitted to initiate a home education program for
any child, such acknowledgement shall be contingent upon the program
meeting the minimum definitional and educational requirements provided
in RSA 193-A:4, I....
Under the current homeschool law, a homeschool parent notifies the
Participating Agency of choice of their intent to homeschool. This can be
either the local superintendent, DOE, or non-public school. This PA of
choice is who sends the acknowledgment back to the homeschool family.
This acknowledgment acknowledges that the family has complied with RSA 193-A,
and that a home education program is now in progress; which satisfies the
requirement of the Compulsory Attendance law that a child between the age of 6
and 16 be in some sort of educational program, where home education is defined
as one of those programs. There is no "permission" granted
here. It is legal to homeschool in the state of NH, but by law, a
homeschool family needs to declare itself as homeschooling their children in
order to be in compliance with the Compulsory Attendance law. The two
glaring problems in this section is the word "permitted" and the
words "...acknowledgment from the commissioner of the department of
education...". The DOE can barely keep up with the 200 families who
notify through them now, and if they had to handle acknowledgments for all
homeschool families in NH (and there are about 2-3,000 of them), they would
need a serious change to their resources. Also, I don't understand how
they could know who to send acknowledgments to since homeschoolers can use
their local superintendents or a non-public school instead.
I think the reason why this language got so muddled is due to the way the
current homeschool law was originally written. If you look at the current
law in RSA 193-A:5 I, you'll find the following wording:
Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:7, I, the
commissioner of education shall acknowledge in writing that the parent shall be
permitted to initiate a home education program for a child enrolled in a public
or nonpublic school if the program meets the minimum definitional and educational
requirements as provided in RSA 193-A:4, I and paragraph II of this section.
This language, from my understanding, was put in to handle the case where there
had been a grievance toward a home education program, and a hearing had been
held. At that point the commissioner of education becomes involved, but
only at that point. Otherwise, the language that effects homeschoolers
with respect to a notification that is the normal, non problematic case, is
found in RSA 193-A:5 IV:
IV. Subject to the provisions of RSA
193-A:7, I, the commissioner of education, resident district superintendent, or
nonpublic school principal shall acknowledge receipt of notification within 21
days of such receipt.
This clearly states that whoever the homeschool parent notified with will in
fact be the PA who acknowledges the letter of notification. Notice the
word "permitted" is NOT present here. Why? because the
home education program was not put on hold since there is no grievance hearing
in a normal non problematic notification.
Another problem with this amendment is that it puts language back in that was
passed by the House in the original bill since it replaces everything after the
enacting clause. This language had removed a requirement that homeschooling
parents provide "planned and supervised instructional and related
educational activities, including a curriculum and" which homeschoolers
wanted removed.
With respect to the original bill passed by the House, I am in favor of passing
this bill, except that I am concerned that the stripping out of RSA
193-A:7, leaves room for the case where a homeschool family notifies of their
intent to homeschool, and someone has a problem, for some strange reason, with
the letter of notification.
The language, which causes major confusion in the amendment above, has been
stripped out in RSA 193-A:5 I:
This is in the original bill voted on by the House:
I. Any
parent commencing a home education program for a child, for a child who
withdraws from a public school, or for a child who moves into a school district
shall notify the commissioner of education, resident district superintendent,
or principal of a nonpublic school of such within 30 days. [Subject to the
provisions of RSA 193-A:7, I, The commissioner of education shall
acknowledge in writing that the parent shall be permitted to initiate a
home education program for a child enrolled in a public or nonpublic school if
the program meets the minimum definitional and educational requirements as
provided in RSA 193-A:4, I and paragraph II of this section.]
This confusing language was the provision for the case where
there was a problem with a letter of notification in the current law.
There is now not provision in RSA 193-A:7, in the original bill voted on
by the House, to have a hearing in the case of a strange grievance during the
notification process without curriculum:
This is in the original bill passed by the House:
5
Home Education; Hearing; Notice and Procedure. RSA 193-A:7 is repealed and
reenacted to read as follows:
I.
A parent shall be entitled to a due process hearing [pursuant to paragraphs
I and II] which shall be conducted by an impartial hearing officer
appointed by the commissioner of education. Notice of such hearing shall be
provided within 10 days of the request for such hearing, shall include a brief
summary of the material facts, and shall be sent to each parent and each
instructor of the child known to the commissioner. The hearing shall occur
within 30 days of the date of such notice. Upon request, the hearing officer
shall conduct the hearing at a location near the site of the home education
program.
II.
In order to terminate a program, the hearing officer shall find at the hearing
at least one of the following:
(a)
The parent has failed to comply with the requirements of this chapter; or
(b)
The parent or the home education program has substantially failed to or cannot
provide a child with the minimum course of study as required by RSA 193-A:4, I.
Sections I and II are what was stripped out of RSA 193-A:7 for the, above,
original bill voted on by the House version:
193-A:7 Hearing; Notice and
Procedure. –
I. Prior to the acknowledgment of notification as provided
in RSA 193-A:5, I, if the commissioner has written and substantiated
information which strongly implies that a home education program will not meet
the requirements of RSA 193-A:4, I and RSA 193-A:5, II and that, based on such
information, the commissioner decides to withhold acknowledgment, he shall
immediately schedule a due process hearing as provided in paragraph III. In
order to be granted acknowledgment of notification by the commissioner, the
parent at such hearing shall establish, and the hearing officer shall so find,
that both the parent and the home education program will comply with RSA
193-A:4, I and RSA 193-A:5, II.
II. After acknowledgment of notification as provided in RSA
193-A:5, I, if the commissioner has written and substantiated information which
would justify an order of termination pursuant to paragraph IV, and, based upon
said information he intends to seek termination of such program, he shall
request a hearing as provided in paragraph III.
III. A parent shall be entitled to a due process hearing
pursuant to paragraphs I and II which shall be conducted by an impartial
hearing officer appointed by the commissioner of education. Notice of such
hearing shall be provided within 10 days of the request for such hearing, shall
include a brief summary of the material facts, and shall be sent to each parent
and each instructor of the child known to the commissioner. The hearing shall
occur within 30 days of the date of such notice. Upon request, the hearing
officer shall conduct the hearing at a location near the site of the home
education program.
IV. In order to terminate a program, the hearing officer
shall find at the hearing at least one of the following:
(a) The parent has failed to comply with
the requirements of this chapter; or
(b) The parent or the home education
program has substantially failed to or cannot provide a child with the minimum
course of study as required by RSA 193-A:4, I.
As a homeschooler I would like to see the original bill put forward with an
amendment to put this "grievance provision" back into both RSA
193-A:5 I and 193-A:7 I and II.
Homeschoolers have proven that homeschooling works, and that we know how to put
curriculum together for our children with successful results in their academic
progress commensurate with age and ability. There have been many studies
done on how well children learn in the home environment. It's time to let
homeschoolers enjoy a little bit more freedom with such understandings.
Homeschoolers will still need to perform an end of the year evaluation, which
will not be effected by the fact that a curriculum outline is not being sent in
to a participating agency, and the PA will still be able to verify that
academic progress was made commensurate with age and ability at the end of each
home education program year.
Thank you for considering my viewpoint.
Respectfully,
Christine Mukai
Amherst NH