Dear Senator Bragdon,
Well, I greatly underestimated my ability to get a group of homeschoolers to
work together in a short period of time. Attached are two files that contain
proposed amendments to HB406 that could be used to replace the one the SEC voted
to recommend. Both of them attempt to implement the policy change that the
committee discussed.
The first one was proposed in an informal Home Education Advisory Council
meeting (at the regularly scheduled time and place, but there was not a quorum
present) by homeschooling members of HEAC. It is exactly the amendment passed
by the SEC which you forwarded to Christine Mukai with the words to be deleted
in red. The reasoning behind this proposed amendment was to leave as much of
the amendment intact as possible, so as to make it palatable to the SEC, and
make it actually implement ONLY the policy changes discussed in executive
session. I believe the suggestion has been made to Senator Green, but I don't
think he has been very responsive.
The second one is from me. The reasoning behind this proposed amendment was to
rewrite 193-A:5, without touching any other section of the law, and make the
language a clear reflection of existing policy, then introduce the policy
change proposed by the SEC. It also introduces one additional policy change -
each child would have his or her own home education program. This fixes a
technical problem we have had when one child's evaluation is fine, but another
in the same family would warrant a program be put on probation. I don't think
any participating agency wants to jeopardize the educational continuity of the
child who is making adequate progress, but if the parent specified that both
children are covered by the same program, technically the participating agency
must.
There was to be a third one, and it was supposed to be in my Inbox this
morning, but I can't wait any longer for it. The reasoning behind the third
proposed amendment was to completely rewrite 193-A:5 using plain English as
much as possible, then introduce the policy change proposed by the SEC, then
move some items that are currently in the rules into the law. It would also
modify 192-A:1 by adding some definitions.
There is nowhere near unanimity among homeschoolers about this bill, except
that noone likes the SEC amendment.
I was in the first group, but I now support killing the
bill. I attended a meeting last Tuesday night where I finally heard a flaw in
the House version that I think justifies killing the bill. I was not pleased
with the fifth provision of the bill, which removes the due process for
homeschoolers when there is a disagreement between the district and the family.
I had focused on the removal of paragraph I, which is in the case of a dispute
over the notification, and which I continue to think can be fixed during the
rule-making process. What I did not realize was that paragraph II, which is the
case of a dispute after notification, has such dire ramifications. This
paragraph gives the DOE the statutory authority to investigate claims of
educational neglect during the operation of an existing program. If that is
taken away, the only body with statutory authority to investigate these claims
is DCYF. I (and many others) would much rather have the DOE perform such an investigation
than DCYF. Hearings officers at the DOE are much more knowledgeable about
education matters, and parents have more rights in DOE hearings than in DCYF
investigations. Just the thought that the DCYF would become the first step in
such investigations gives me the willies.
The amendment I wrote will leave intact the DOE's authority to investigate
claims of educational neglect, and would eliminate most of the other objections
of the group pushing to kill the bill, but I still support killing the bill
because I believe that it is time to rewrite the entire home education law,
even if the result is just to make the language state existing policy clearly.
This would not only benefit homeschoolers, it would benefit participating
agencies which administer the law. We are seeing about a 20% annual turnover in
personnel at the district level, and each time that happens, there is a steep
learning curve with so many opportunities for misunderstandings. Angie LeBel at
the DOE offers a course for participating agencies called The ABC's of Home
Education, which is very generous of her and the DOE, but really one shouldn't
have to take a course to understand how to administer this program. I do
subscribe to the maxim that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However,
the difficulty you and I have had in agreeing on what the existing law says so
that policy changes can be enacted means that something is broken.
I realize it is a little late to be giving you all this information. I meant to
wake up bright and early the day after the meeting and write this letter, but I
came down with the flu that night. I can only hope that the amendments I am
offering are so "camera ready" that it would not take much work on
your part to formally introduce either of them.
Thank you again for all you do.
Chris Hamilton
Beaver Lodge Homeschool
PS I would love to hear how your efforts are going to persuade your fellow
members to vote for the House version, if that is still what you are doing.
PPS. Please feel free to drop by my website that tracks legislation that
affects or has the potential to affect homeschoolers. You might be surprised to
see how many bills have the potential to affect us in indirect ways:
http://webpages.charter.net/beaverlodgehs/legislation/legislation2006/index.html
And I would love to know if you from your inside position see any initiatives
that you think have the potential to affect us.