|
|
Here's what NYHEN members have said about
S4767 / S3641. Note: these opinions
were written when S4767 was before the legislature, so that's the bill number they refer to.
This year, the bill's designation is S3641. It is exactly the same bill.
From Linda Dobson:
Wow. Doesn't it sound great - a New York Senate bill (S. 4767) that would actually do away with many of the
paperwork burdens the state's homeschoolers have tolerated since 1988? Ever heard the saying that if it sounds
too good to be true, it probably is? That's when it's time to look past the sizzle and examine the meat.
Right now everyone from the President to the local principal is jumping on the educational reform bandwagon of
the day - accountability. Can we really believe that while the nation races toward increased testing and
"proof" of education, New York home educators will be the only ones granted less accountability? It is
extremely naive to believe that S. 4767 would make it to a vote without any changes, and any changes would
likely reflect the current testing craze climate.
Do we want homeschooling issues addressed by the legislature instead of by the Commissioner? The Commissioner
is one man who has stated he doesn't want to make regulatory change, at least not right now. Hand the ball over
to the legislature, and we could face new bills - and new threats and new fights - each and every time the
legislature convenes. Additionally, at some point all the words used in laws need to be defined. Do we really
want to let loose the state legislature to define homeschooling for us? Do you think their definition will match
yours?
Finally, there remain serious, unanswered questions as to the constitutionality of state jurisdiction over homeschooling.
Supporters of educational freedom are now studying the issue and gathering the materials to support their case. If we concede to
state supervision via legislation now, the argument for true educational freedom is compromised, possibly destroyed.
The introduction of S. 4767, especially at this moment in time, is not in homeschoolers' best interests. Senator Kuhl
introduced this bill at the request of a small minority of homeschoolers over the objections of many others. He has played deaf,
dumb, and blind when presented with reasoned requests to simply delay its introduction. Why? Some speculate he's in a power play
with Commissioner Mills. Others have noted he has a large homeschooling constituency he'd like to have vote for him. Still others
note the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality that emanates from Albany.
Whatever the reason, you can bet political games are afoot, and I resent homeschoolers being used as pawns. Educational freedom is
too rare - and far too precious - to allow Senator Kuhl to give it away on a whim via S. 4767, which is why I cannot support its
passage in any form.
From John Munson:
Government by cut-and-paste. A paperwork reduction act, not a harassment reduction act.
I'm not one who usually thinks in sound bites. But after I studied S4767, the above two sound bites popped into my head. And they're related - S4767 fails to reduce the potential for government harassment of homeschoolers because it's the result of a simple cut-and-paste job on the current homeschooling regulation.
Here's why I call it a cut-and-paste job. The people who wanted this bill advocated for a list of several changes they want made in the current homeschooling regulation. Then, the people who created the bill made a copy of the regulation, made the requested changes in a simple, paint-by-number fashion, added a couple of sentences of legalese, and filed it as S4767. It's clear that they zipped through the regulation's text and made the changes while paying almost no attention to the final result. I say this because the final result includes text that doesn't even make any sense - it's not good, it's not bad, it's just incoherent. This bill qualifies only as a rough draft, not a final product.
And because it's a quick cut-and-paste job, it doesn't accomplish some of the things that its supporters have claimed or implied it does. Below are three examples. The overall point of these examples is that the bill enables the government to put us on probation in some circumstances (i.e. the circumstances in which we try to exercise the most control over the required paperwork); and once we're on probation, the government can do anything it wants to us. That's why the bill is not a harassment reduction act.
Now, here are the examples I mentioned.
Example 1: The bill eliminates the regulation's language that gives the superintendent the power of consent over the person who administers a standardized test. But getting rid of that language doesn't really get rid of the power. That's because, if you choose to have your child take a test elsewhere than at a school (for example, at home), the bill still requires the person administering the test to be a "qualified person". And the bill never defines what a "qualified person" is - government officials would be free to define it any way they want. So, for example, if you were to administer the test yourself, the government could then decide that you're not qualified to administer it.
And what would happen then? Here's what the bill says: "If a child's annual assessment fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision, the home instruction program shall be placed on probation for a period of up to two school years." So, a hostile superintendent could simply say that your assessment failed to comply because the test wasn't administered by a qualified person, and the superintendent would then be not only authorized but required by the bill to put you on probation. More about probation later.
So the upshot is that the bill really doesn't eliminate the superintendent's consent power. In fact, it gives us a very powerful incentive to seek consent ahead of time, because if we don't, we risk the "qualified person" objection and probation as described above.
Example 2: The bill changes the regulation's language about written narrative assessments so that we could write our own assessments without the superintendent's consent, and we could do so in any year, not just in K-4 and in alternate years from 4-8 as the current regulation specifies. But in hostile districts, these changes could end up being meaningless. That's because the bill says: "In the event that such child has failed to make adequate progress, the home instruction program shall be placed on probation pursuant to paragraph C of this subdivision." (By the way, here's one example of the inattention to detail during the bill's creation. That sentence mentions paragraph C, but paragraph C has nothing to do with probation. The probation paragraph should have been labeled as paragraph D, but they forgot to give it any label at all.)
The problem with that sentence about "adequate progress" is that it doesn't define what adequate progress is or how a child would fail to make adequate progress. The bill's supporters say that adequate progress is determined by the written narrative, and that's one way to interpret the bill. But it's not the only way to interpret it, because it's not what that sentence says. That sentence doesn't spell out specific, concrete actions that lead to probation - it doesn't say, "If and only if person X performs task Y, the home instruction program shall be placed on probation." Instead, it refers to "the event that such child has failed to make adequate progress" as an abstract concept, which the government would be free to interpret as it wants. So, a hostile superintendent could simply say that the child didn't make adequate progress, and once again, off to probation you go.
So, whether you choose to test at home or whether you choose to submit a written narrative, the government can put you on probation. Either way, they've got you. And then they can do anything they want, as shown in the last example...
Example 3: The bill eliminates the regulation's language about home visits while a family is on probation. But once again, getting rid of that language doesn't get rid of the power. That's because, when you're on probation, you have to submit a "plan of remediation", and the bill says: "The school district may require the parents to make changes in the plan prior to acceptance." There are no restrictions on what those changes can be. That means that the district can require anything it wants: IHIPs, quarterlies, tests, home visits, and any other sorts of torture they might dream up, such as monthly or weekly reports, portfolios, etc.
In sum, then, S4767 doesn't provide any help to those who need it most - homeschoolers in hostile districts. It provides the government with loopholes which it can use to put us on probation and then reinstate all of the nasty things that are specified in the current regulation. This bill is a waste of an opportunity, because it doesn't explicitly limit the government's power. Let's throw it out, start over, and get it right next time.
From Mary O'Keeffe:
S4767 is a Trojan horse.
It looks good on the surface--but appearances can be deceiving. I believe that Senator Kuhl has good intentions but S4767 would
not serve the interest of New York homeschoolers.
S4767 merely codifies certain parts of the existing CR 100.10 regulations into statutory law--and it does so without setting any
clear limits on the authority of SED or public school officials to impose additional burdens.
Even if the bill somehow miraculously survives intact without onerous amendments, the passage of S4767 would establish a precedent
for legislative oversight of homeschoolers. Once that precedent has been established, future legislatures will surely be tempted
to add even more burdens on homeschoolers. Such future legislatures might well be even less friendly towards homeschoolers.
Given the political clout of the institutional education lobby in New York, I do not believe that good things for homeschoolers
will come out of this or future legislatures.
Moreover, the very sloppy language in S4767 leaves open the possibility that SED and/or school districts could still impose
additional regulatory burdens on homeschoolers. In essence, this bill just regulates homeschoolers; it does not clearly limit the
authority of other public officials to impose additional burdens. Nothing in this bill explicitly limits the power of SED or
school districts to require homeschoolers to submit quarterly reports (or monthly reports or daily reports, for that matter) or
Regents Exams or other SED-created exams. S4767 regulates homeschoolers but it does not contain any language clearly and
explicitly limiting the discretionary authority of SED or school districts to impose additional burdens on homeschoolers.
Right now, under the existing CR 100.10 regulations, homeschooling families are in a position to argue that SED does not insist
that compliance with CR100.10 is the ONLY way to homeschool legally. SED simply states that the CR100.10 regulations provide "a
basis for an objective determination of substantal equivalence." Note the use of the term "a basis"--not "the only basis" or
"the basis" but "a basis". The SED statement of purpose says the regulations are designed "to assist" school officials and
homeschooling families. This kind of cautious hedging language in SED documents shows that SED itself is not entirely sure of
its legal authority to regulate homeschoolers--because the legislature has never explicitly given it such powers.
However, the tone in S4767 is very different--it has no such hedging language anywhere. Unlike SED officials, the legislators
are very confident in asserting their authority. The language of S4767 does not waffle. It opens with the words: "HOME
INSTRUCTION OF A MINOR SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ..."
The existing CR100.10 regulations are not wonderful, but at least SED's waffly language and tenuous legal authority give
homeschoolers a stronger legal/negotating position in any conflicts that arise. The passage of S4767 even in its current form
would weaken that legal hand. The onerous amendments which would surely be needed to get the Assembly to pass the bill would only
make things still worse for homeschoolers.
From Sheila Stone:
My opinion regarding New York State Senate bill S.4767 is that it should not be passed. The passing of this bill does nothing
to alleviate the state's jurisdiction over homeschoolers. It still leaves the power in the school superintendent's hands.
A superintendent can still decide that he thinks you are educationally neglecting your children and hot-line you to DSS. This
bill also still dictates curriculum -- again, leaving the power in someone else's hands, not the parents'. I believe that the
current regulations are unconstitutional and I believe S.4767 is unconstitutional. I think once S.4767 gets promulgated into
law, it will be much more difficult to change. We shouldn't make it any harder on ourselves in the long run just to get a
little relief right now. Any relief we would get would be very temporary.
From Victoria Barrial Velazquez:
I am opposed to the homeschooling bill S4767 because it does nothing to protect the fundamental right of homeschooling without
government intervention. You can believe that every citizen belongs to the state or that each citizen has inalienable rights. You
can not believe at the same time and in the same respect that a proposition and its opposite are true. (In logic this is the
principle of non contradiction) The result of believing that both propositions are true is what makes the present New York
homeschooling law possible and also the idea that S4767 is an improvement of that law.
We need a new homeschooling law. But definitely not the one we have nor the one that is proposed. As New Yorkers always elect
senators and assemblymen who believe the life of the individual belongs to the state, New York will never get a better
homeschooling law. So the best we can do is stop them from making that law worse.
|
|
