Tuesday, January 24, 2006
2-HONDA Re-Introduced
Bulletin #48 HONDA Re-Introduced - Examining Section 4(b) 01/24/06
This is the third of a series of bulletins NHELD is preparing detailing, section by section, the exact language of HR3753/S1691, the “Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005”, or “HoNDA”, as proposed in the House and Senate. The bulletins will provide the exact language from the bill, along with the exact text of the existing federal law that the bill proposes to amend. The bulletins will also include NHELD’s comments on those provisions. The first bulletin was Bulletin #44 - HONDA Re-Introduced Examining Sections 1, 2 and 3 issued 10/17/2005, and the second bulletin was HONDA Re-Introduced Examining Section 4(a) issued 01/23/06.NHELD is opposed to passage of any and all parts of this legislation. NHELD believes the entire bill should be killed and all previous federal laws already adopted having anything to do with the rights of parents to instruct their children at home should be repealed. NHELD believes that there can be no compromises on any federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home. NHELD believes all federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home, no matter how beneficial the legislation appears, is wholly unconstitutional, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the
Section 4 of HR3753/S1691 provides:
“SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL AND STUDENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.
(a) Clarification of Institutional Eligibility- Section 101(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by inserting `meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3) or’ after `only persons’. (b) Clarification of Student Eligibility- Section 484(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(d)) is amended by striking the heading and inserting `Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards’.”This bulletin examines the second part of Section 4 of the HoNDA bill, subsection (b), and that subsection purports to amend another portion of the Higher Education Act. That portion is Part F, of Section 484(d) entitled “General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs.” It is codified in the law as 20 U.S.C. Section 1091(d). It can be found at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title20/chapter28_subchapteriv_partf_.html andhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+20USC1091The portion of 20 U.S.C. Section 1091 as it reads today is reprinted here with the portion to be amended underlined:TITLE 20–EDUCATIONCHAPTER 28–HIGHER EDUCATION RESOURCES AND STUDENT ASSISTANCE
SUBCHAPTER IV–STUDENT ASSISTANCE
Part F–General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs
Sec. 1091. Student eligibility
As can be seen, if Congress adopts Section 4, subsection (b), of this bill, HR3753/S1691, then only the heading of 20 U.S.C. 1091 would be changed. The current heading would be stricken and another heading would be put in its place such that the statute would read as follows:
TITLE 20–EDUCATION
CHAPTER 28–HIGHER EDUCATION RESOURCES AND STUDENT ASSISTANCE
SUBCHAPTER IV–STUDENT ASSISTANCE
Part F–General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs
Sec. 1091. `Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards’.
Of course, the reasons why only the heading of this law would be changed are not given by the sponsors or promoters of this legislation. What is NHELD’s opinion of this section of the bill?This is an example of an amendment of a law that already as it exists is clearly unconstitutional and unnecessary. Students who were educated by their parents at home were always “eligible” to be admitted as college students, and as admitted college students, were always “eligible” for receipt of federal student loans. As it always does, the federal government placed certain restrictions on students and on the colleges in order to receive federal funding. A student was required to be attending a college of some kind. The money was to be used strictly for educational expenses and to obtain further federal funds, a student was required to maintain a certain grade point average. A college was required to admit students who received a “certificate of graduation” or “the recognized equivalent” of such a certificate. Before very recently, the federal law made no mention of how the student was educated prior to acceptance in the college. Now with this change, however, it does. Before, the language in the statutes were sufficiently ambiguous to allow colleges to accept “homeschooled” students based either on what the college deemed appropriate credentials or what the state deemed appropriate. Since HSLDA’s involvement in the adoption of these new federal laws, the federal law now specifically refers to students as those who have “completed a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under State law.” This phrase now appears in Sec. 1091 d(3) regarding students who are not high school graduates regarding their eligibility for student assistance, as well as in other statutes unrelated to this one. The problems associated with that language are many. First, let’s take the phrase, “completed a secondary school education”. What is a secondary school education? Is that one that is identical to the curriculum provided in a public school? If so, is it the curriculum provided in the public school in
What is a “home school setting”? Is it the “setting” in the home of the parent or is it the “setting” in a “public school at home” setting? Who will determine whether the child was educated in such a setting? Or, how about the phrase, “that is treated as a home school or private school under State law.” What does “that is treated” mean? and “treated” by whom? Treated by the local public school superintendent, the principal, the state Department of Education, or the parents? And what about “treated as a home school or private school”? What is the definition of a home school? Is it a definition as yet to be determined by the Congress or the Secretary of Defense (thanks to HSLDA’s insertion of section 591 into hr1815 Defense Bill ), or is it the definition in
Finally, we come to “under State law.” The plain fact of the matter is that parents in several states instruct their children at home legally but the state law does not talk of “home school” and does not consider what the parents do to be a “private school”. In other words, the parents in these states instruct their children freely without having any state statute interfere with that right or describe the education as a “home school” or a “private school.” With all of these differences from state to state, ultimately, the federal government, likely still at the behest of HSLDA, will adopt one definition of “home school” that will apply to all fifty states effectively rendering null and void the state law applicable to the rights of parents to instruct their children at home as it exists now, thanks to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. HSLDA cited the “need” for insertion of language in the federal law regarding the “eligibility” of homeschooled students and the “eligibility” of institutions of higher education and their ability to continue to receive federal funding because certain individuals in a particular college told parents of certain homeschooled children they were not “eligible” to attend that college without a diploma lest the college lose its federal funding. There were and are other solutions to such a problem. (1) Educate those denying access as to what the law actually says or said at the time; (2) Advocate for less specific language in the law leaving it to the discretion of the institution; (3) Advocate for language in the law preventing denial of federal funding to institutions that admit homeschooled students; or(4) Have the homeschooled students being denied access to one institution simply apply to another institution willing to admit homeschooled students. Instead of doing any of these alternatives, HSLDA advocates the insertion, into still more laws, of language directly affecting the rights of parents and students who homeschool. Even a law that purports to “help” homeschoolers ultimately may, and will, have such consequences as to deny parents their ability to remain free of government interference and/or to affect legislation at the state level that will assist them to remain free. The change in the heading of that portion of the Higher Education Act from “Student Eligibility” to “Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards” is ominous. If the federal government is going to provide students with loans and grants, it is quite natural for the government to determine who is eligible for that money. To change the heading of that section to “Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards”, one has to ask, does this foretell of more government intervention in the future? Does this mean that the government will demand that students “satisfy” certain “standards” in their curriculum as homeschooled students before they are able to obtain federal funding? One also has to ask, why would HSLDA actively promote such a change? Help us defeat this bill and to repeal all other federal statutes that refer in any way to the rights of parents to instruct their children at home. Distribute this information to others, inform your Congressmen and Senators and ask them to defeat this bill and all others that come before them on these issues.Attorney Deborah Stevenson - Executive Director of National Home Education Legal Defense. – www.nheld.com or email : info@nheld.com Judy Aron - Director of Research, NHELD – imjfaron@sbcglobal.net
==============================
Monday, January 23, 2006
HONDA Re-Introduced
Bulletin #47 HONDA Re-Introduced - Examining Section 4(a) 01/23/06This is the second of a series of bulletins NHELD is preparing detailing, section by section, the exact language of HR3753/S1691, the “Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005”, or “HoNDA”, as proposed in the House and Senate. The bulletins will provide the exact language from the bill, along with the exact text of the existing federal law that the bill proposes to amend. The bulletins will also include NHELD’s comments on those provisions. The first bulletin was Bulletin #44 - HONDA Re-Introduced - Examining Sections 1, 2 and 3 issued 10/17/2005.NHELD is opposed to passage of any and all parts of this legislation. NHELD believes the entire bill should be killed and all previous federal laws already adopted having anything to do with the rights of parents to instruct their children at home should be repealed.NHELD believes that there can be no compromises on any federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home.NHELD believes all federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home, no matter how beneficial the legislation appears, is wholly unconstitutional, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must be defeated and/or repealed immediately.
====================================================Do you know what Section 4(a) of the HONDA bill does? Let’s go through it and decipher the substitution language requested.
Section 4 of HR3753/S1691 provides:
“SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL AND STUDENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.
(a) Clarification of Institutional Eligibility- Section 101(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by inserting `meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3) or’ after `only persons’.(b) Clarification of Student Eligibility- Section 484(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(d)) is amended by striking the heading and inserting `Satisfaction of Secondary Education Standards’.”First and foremost, the Higher Education Act of 1985 has multiple parts.
Section 4(a) of HR3753/S1691, or HoNDA, amends Section 101(a)(1) of the Act.
Section 101(a)(1) is codified in the federal statutes as 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1) where
20 U.S.C. 1001 is the section, (a) is a subsection of that section, and (1) is a subsection of subsection (a). 20 U.S.C. Section 1001 includes three subsections – (a), (b), and (c).
For a clearer understanding of the law, all of 20 U.S.C. Section 1001 as it reads today is reprinted below. The underlined section is the section that is to be amended, after which we have inserted the proposed amendment:TITLE 20—EDUCATIONCHAPTER 28–HIGHER EDUCATION RESOURCES AND STUDENT ASSISTANCESUBCHAPTER I–GENERAL PROVISIONS
Part A–Definitions
Sec. 1001. General definition of institution of higher education
(a) Institution of higher education
For purposes of this chapter, other than subchapter IV, the term
“institution of higher education” means an educational institution in
any State that—
(1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate
of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
( would be replaced with:(1) admits as regular students only persons `meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3) or’ having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate; )(2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program
of education beyond secondary education;
(3) provides an educational program for which the institution
awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year
program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;
(4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency
or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has
been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or
association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the
granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has
determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution
will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or
association within a reasonable time.(b) Additional institutions includedFor purposes of this chapter, other than subchapter IV, the term
“institution of higher education” also includes–
(1) any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of
training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation and that meets the provision of paragraphs (1), (2), (4),
and (5) of subsection (a) of this section; and
(2) a public or nonprofit private educational institution in any
State that, in lieu of the requirement in subsection (a)(1) of this
section, admits as regular students persons who are beyond the age
of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the
institution is located.(c) List of accrediting agencies
For purposes of this section and section 1002 of this title, the
Secretary shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting
agencies or associations that the Secretary determines, pursuant to
subpart 2 of part G of subchapter IV of this chapter, to be reliable
authority as to the quality of the education or training offered.
The problem is, Section 4(a) of the bill does not specify what “meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3)” means. It does not specify whether “section 484(d)(3) is referring to a section in the Higher Education Act of 1965 or a section of another federal law.Aides in the office of the sponsors of the bills are not even certain as to what law “section 484(d)(3)” refers to, but “assume” it refers to a section of the Higher Education Act.That section, “section 484(d)” of the Higher Education Act as it currently reads is reprinted below. The underlined section is the section to which the amended Section 4(a) of the bill refers:“(d) STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES – In order for a student who does not have a high school certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such certificate, to be eligible for any assistance under subparts 1, 3, and 4 of Part A, and Parts B, C, D, and E of this title, the student shall meet one of the following standards:(1) The student shall take an independently administered examination and shall achieve a score, specified by the Secretary, and demonstrating that such student can benefit from the education or training being offered. Such examination shall be approved by the Secretary on the basis of compliance with such standards for development, administration, and scoring as the Secretary may prescribe in regulations.(2) The student shall be determined as having the ability to benefit from the education or training in accordance with such process as the State shall prescribe. Any such process described or approved by a State for the purposes of this section shall be effective 6 months after the date of Submission to the Secretary unless the Secretary disapproves such process. The Secretary shall take into account the effectiveness of such process in enabling students without high school diplomas or the equivalent thereof to benefit from the instruction offered by institutions utilizing such process, and shall also take into account the cultural diversity, economic circumstances, and educational preparation of the population served by the institutions.
(3) The student has completed a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under State law.”
The entire section 484 (20 USC 1091) should be read in context at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+20USC1091After reading that entire section, one can glean the following information:
“In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance” from the federal government “a student must” be enrolled in an “eligible institution”; if already enrolled, must maintain satisfactory progress (a C average); must not owe a refund or be in default on other government loans; must sign a form saying the money will be used for educational purposes; must provide your social security number and verification of citizenship or legal status; etc., and:“In order for a student who does not have a high school certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such certificate, to be eligible for any assistance under subparts 1, 3, and 4 of Part A, and Parts B, C, D, and E of this title, the student shall meet one of three standards.The question is, in order to be eligible for what kind of assistance under “subparts 1, 3, and 4 of Part A” and all of “Parts B, C, D, and E”?What are those Parts? They appear to be parts of the Higher Education Act, Title 20, Chapter 28, entitled, “Higher Education Resources and Student Assistance.”You can find the text of those parts at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title20/chapter28_subchapteriv_.html
Part A is “Grants to Students in Attendance at Institutions of Higher Education”
Subpart 1 is “Federal Pell Grants”
Subpart 3 is “Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants”
Subpart 4 is “Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program”
Part B is “Federal Family Education Loan Program”
Part C is “William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program”
Part D is “Federal Perkins Loans”
Part E is “Needs Analysis”
In other words, in order to be able to receive any of the grants, loans, or assistance cited in those parts and subparts of the law, the student shall:
(1) take an independently administered examination and achieve a score to show that the student can benefit from the training offered;
(2) be determined as having the ability to benefit from the training in accordance with any procedure the State prescribes; or
(3) complete “a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under State law”.
This is what the law currently reads. NHELD has often reported during the last few years that Congress has adopted several laws already, at the behest of HSLDA, that affect the rights of “homeschoolers”, all of which are unconstitutional and all of which should be repealed.It appears that HLSDA is asking Congress to make the amendment listed in Section 4, subsection (a) of this bill, in order to make the other parts of the federal law conform appropriately. Section 4, subsection (a) of HoNDA, purports to “clarify” the “eligibility” of “institutions” of higher education by saying that those institutions are “eligible institutions” (to receive federal funding) if they admit students “meeting the requirements of section 484(d)(3)”. That is, they are eligible institutions only if they admit students who take an independently administered exam, are determined to have the ability to benefit from the training according to whatever procedures the state prescribes, or they complete “a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under State law.”This legislation puts the undefined phrase ”home school” in federal statute unnecessarily, and we point you to our very first bulletin to further explain why: http://nheld.com/articles.htm#bln1Attorney Deborah Stevenson - Executive Director of National Home Education Legal Defense. – www.nheld.com or email : info@nheld.comJudy Aron - Director of Research, NHELD – imjfaron@sbcglobal.net
|
==================================================
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Stillwater Homeschool Alliance
Fwding from Unschooling Blog (and HEM Networking):
This is an open invitation to join a discussion list for a new
national effort for promoting and defending homeschooling rights and
freedoms. This preliminary mission statement appears at the
discussion list site:Stillwater Homeschool Alliance
~Building Understanding and Perspective~The primary goals of the Stillwater Homeschool Alliance include
working for a greater understanding of homeschooling issues and
concerns, thereby promoting a more informed, cohesive, and effective
homeschooling community.The long term goals of the Alliance shall include encouraging
grassroots homeschooling efforts, providing homeschool-specific
information to groups and individuals, and advancing the rights and
responsibilities of parents who wish to educate their children at
home.As a first step in achieving these goals this Alliance will work
toward developing a coalition of individuals, support groups,
businesses, organizations and other entities which support the
long-term interests of the homeschool movement.This Alliance will also work toward the development of The
Stillwater Institute for Homeschooling Research and Studies, which
will seek to inform legislators, educators, media reporters, legal
professionals, researchers and others with a bona fide interest in
homeschooling via position statements, news releases, white papers,
opinion pieces and more.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There are two options for joining the new discussion list. Visit the
list website or subscribe via email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StillwaterHomeschoolAlliance/You can also join by sending a blank email to
StillwaterHomeschoolAlliance-subscribe@yahoogroups.comThank you for your interest and your support!
Helen Hegener
Stillwater Homeschool Alliance
|
================================================
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Charter schools are public schools
Alice posted THIS from HEM-Networking
DLC | New Dem Dispatch | January 6, 2006
Idea of the Week: Public Accountability for Public Education
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Florida struck down Gov. Jeb
Bush’s taxpayer-financed private school voucher program on grounds that
it violated a state constitutional provision making it a “paramount
duty” to maintain a “uniform, safe, secure, high-quality system of free
public schools.”
In holding that Florida’s voucher program in effect created an
alternative system of publicly-financed private schools, the Court
relied heavily on the fact that private-school beneficiaries were exempt
from most of the state laws and regulations providing for public
oversight of schools, and accountability for the quality of instruction
received and results achieved. And totally aside from its interpretation
of the Florida Constitution, the ruling helpfully underlined the crucial
difference between voucher programs and the charter public schools that
are often confused with them.
Charter schools are public schools precisely because they are
accountable to the public bodies that authorize them. Indeed, a
“charter” is basically a performance contract that outlines the school’s
responsibilities for achieving publicly defined educational results,
and, at least in jurisdictions with good charter laws, such schools lose
their authorization if they fail. Certainly charter public schools enjoy
a lot of flexibility in terms of detailed regulations, and many of them
are actually owned and operated by private entities, but public
accountability defines them entirely.
Generally, voucher programs go in the opposite direction, waiving
accountability for ends as well as means. And despite the tendency of
both voucher fans and defenders of traditional public schools to treat
this as a trivial distinction, it’s actually a huge one, representing
the difference between independently operated public schools and schools
that cannot be described as public in any meaningful way.
Although the Florida decision was important, it would be a mistake to
treat it as some sort of final disposition of the subject. For one
thing, other states do not necessarily have the kind of constitutional
provisions that formed the basis of this decision. And more importantly,
anyone who cares about public education must stay focused on the
political impetus for voucher programs like Florida’s: the failure of
traditional public schools in so many locations, particularly those
serving the neediest students. The proper response to demands for
voucher programs is not to demonize them, but to make a commitment to
transform public schools so that they can achieve the publicly defined
results that parents and taxpayers rightly expect. And that means
liberating the charter public school movement so that it becomes central
to public education, instead of a marginal experiment alongside
traditional public schools and with voucherized private schools.
What can and should define “public” education, aside from the
fundamentals of making it available to all students on a free and equal
basis, is the achievement of the crucial public goals that justify use
of taxpayer funds in the first place: giving American kids the skills
and knowledge they need for success in life, especially in an
information age.
|
================================================
Local-Businesses target home-school activities
Toni ran across THIS ONE.
“Offerings for home-schoolers have certainly increased,” said Kim Hudson, who has maintained a local Web site for home-schoolers for two years. She believes catering to home-schoolers makes sense for all concerned.”The business has an opportunity to make some money during school hours and the home-schooler has more choices,” Hudson said.
The North Carolina Division of Non-Public Education reports that the number of students home-schooled in Wake County rose from 3,131 in the 2000-01 school year to 5,801 in 2004-05, the last school year for which complete data is available.Among the businesses taking notice is Lee Brothers Tae Kwon Do on Strickland Road, which added a class for home-schoolers at the start of the current school year after getting requests for it.
“At first, I didn’t do anything,” said owner Jung Ho Lee, “but I got more and more requests, and I wanted to be able to accommodate them. With the home-schooling community getting so big around here, I started to see the potential for it.”
(snip)
Opportunities to socialize abound as well. Rhonda Balser, a home-schooling parent in Wake Forest, takes her kids to Borders Bookstore on Six Forks and Strickland once a month for a game day.”There is so much out there for home-schooling kids to do that it is easy to get caught up in too much “socialization” if you’re not careful,” Balser said.
**Of course, this has been the case all along. (grin)
|
=================================================
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Valerie has the HR 1815 update
Valerie at News and Commentary has the HR 1815 update:
Section 522 of HR 1815 poked its head up again. It may be temporarily ‘forgotten,’ but it’s got legs. My colleague, Mary, blogged an update on The status of HR 1815 this morning. The legislation will go to President Bush for his signature, and the chances that Mr. Bush will not sign the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006, are probably an exponentially large negative number.
|
================================================
HR 1815 status
HR 1815 was presented to the President on January 3, 2006. For more check out:
http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/groupnews/?p=48