HEIR Briefing to HEC, December 10

December 10, 1997
Honorable Dubose Porter, Chairman
House Education Committee
State Capitol / Room 417
Atlanta, GA  30334

RE:  December 10 Hearing on Substitute HB586

Dear Chairman. Porter:

Our organization is pleased to be able to work with the Georgia Home Education Association and the Home School Legal Defense Association to provide a homeschooling perspective on the substitute bill offered by Rep. Hugley to the House Education Committee.

I hope that our message is clear--homeschoolers in Georgia oppose the bill. Our opposition primarily is based on the fact that the changes proposed in this bill will do little to protect Georgia's children, but will do much to disrupt the practice of homeschooling and the privacy of homeschooling families. In addition, homeschoolers are concerned because of what we know of the process and activities leading to the bill, what we believe about the motivations of the bill's authors, and the systematic violations of the current code.

I have enclosed a detailed white paper addressing these issues, and would appreciate having it become a part of the record of the hearing. My comments to the Committee will be drawn from this white paper, and augmented by brief statements from individual homeschoolers.

Thank you again for your efforts on behalf of all Georgia's children.

Sincerely,



Leon F. McGinnis
Chair

Enclosures:     White paper
                Copy of SSWAG memorandum
                Point-by-point analysis of substitute HB586

Copy:   House Education Committee Members

Brief Review of the Current Law. In 1984, the General Assembly adopted SB504, which modified the compulsory education law in Georgia to provide legal status for home study programs, or homeschooling. Under the current statutes, O.C.G.A. 20-2-690, -691, -696, -697, -698, and -701, homeschooling has grown to over 16,000 students, and there is ample evidence that it has proved to be an excellent educational option for those Georgia families choosing to homeschool.

In considering any change to the current code, it is appropriate first to understand the current code. It seems clear that the authors of SB 504 were concerned about the ability of homeschooling parents to freely practice homeschooling, in all its diversity, without undue interference from the State. The current code clearly addresses the jurisdiction of attendance officers and visiting teachers: O.C.G.A. 20-2-696 specifically limits their jurisdiction to public schools and O.C.G.A. 20-2-697 specifically exempts private schools and home study programs from cooperating with or assisting attendance officers and visiting teachers.

At the same time, the authors of SB 504 recognized the need for accountability, and for the State to have appropriate means to insure that children receive an adequate education. The requirements for home study programs spelled out in O.C.G.A. 20-2-690 allow homeschooled children to be identified to the State, allow the State to track their attendance, specify the basic curriculum, and provide the same standardized testing requirements as the public schools.

The current code provides legal penalties for parents who violate the law (O.C.G.A. 20-2-690(d) and O.C.G.A. 20-2-690.1(b)), and it specifies that the local school superintendents "shall have authority and it shall be their duty to file proceedings in court to enforce" the compulsory attendance law (O.C.G.A. 20-2-690.1 and O.C.G.A. 20-2-701). Finally, code section O.C.G.A. 20-2-698 permits the State to take into custody children who are absent from a home study program without permission.

The current code clearly and adequately addresses the issue of truancy as it might pertain to children in home study programs. It is ludicrous to suggest that the State lacks the power to enforce the compulsory attendance law as it applies to home study programs.

The Origins of Substitute HB586. The prime movers behind this bill include members of the School Social Workers Association of Georgia (SSWAG). HEIR obtained a copy of a memorandum sent by the chair of SSWAG's Legislative Committee to its district coordinators. A transcription of the memo is included as attachment #1. Key relevant points from this memo are:

1. SSWAG takes credit for drafting the bill, with assistance from a Georgia Association of Educators consultant.

2. SSWAG requested local school social workers to collect information about homeschoolers and forward it to Rep. Hugley.

3. SSWAG specifically requested "letters, case documents, etc" to be forwarded to Rep. Hugley.

4. SSWAG has a clearly stated goal for the bill that "it might be the vehicle that will help us get more [school social workers] in the schools".

Homeschoolers have every right to be concerned about the activities of SSWAG. In the first place, the current law clearly places homeschooling outside the jurisdiction of the school social workers. We are not aware that the school social workers have exhausted the opportunities for meaningful work within their existing jurisdiction. We are not aware that there has been a call from the homeschooling community for more "help" from school social workers. We are quite concerned when government employees lobby so aggressively for changes to the law that will increase the number of government employees, in the face of opposition from the citizens they purport to "serve."

Furthermore, the activities of SSWAG appear to be a clear violation of O.C.G.A. 20-2-690 (c) (6), which states, "attendance records and reports shall not be used for any purpose except providing necessary attendance information, except with the permission of the parent or guardian." Homeschoolers are rightfully outraged to learn that their information has been made available to SSWAG members for purposes completely unrelated to compulsory attendance. In addition, to the extent that SSWAG members have used existing case documents or information without the permission of their clients, they have acted in violation of their own code of professional conduct.

Motivation for Changing the Law. In several discussions with the chairman of SSWAG's Legislative Committee, and in a meeting with the SSWAG Executive Board, homeschoolers have been told that the motivation for the substitute HB586 is "to protect children who are falling through the cracks" in the existing law. The situations that are described typically involve a child in public school who becomes truant, who is investigated by the school social worker, and who then becomes a "homeschooler," thereby passing out of the jurisdiction of the school social worker. Other suggested situations involve children whose parents "clearly are not competent" to teach their children, or situations in which incest or child abuse is being "hidden" by claiming to homeschool the child.

If these were widespread, systematic problems, then perhaps they would be appropriate targets for legislation. But it is not clear that they are widespread or systematic, and it is particularly far-fetched to identify incest and abuse as homeschooling problems.

Furthermore, it is appropriate to question the competence of the school social workers to make the judgement that there are problems, based only on the fact that some children do pass from public school into homeschooling. A full understanding of each case would require one to discover what it was in the public school environment that led a child to become a truant. For those who moved into homeschooling, one would need a longer term study of the child's progress. Perhaps what the school social workers perceive as a problem is, in reality, an opportunity for a child to rediscover the joy of learning, and the satisfaction of self-realization.

Analysis of the Proposed Substitute HB 586. The substitute HB586 contains seven specific changes to the existing code. Attachment #2 presents a detailed commentary for each of the seven changes.

Not one of the proposed changes to the compulsory attendance law directly address the truancy problems described by SSWAG. What the provisions do accomplish is the creation of additional paperwork, the reduction in the range of options available for learning, and the reduction in the amount of time parents have available for teaching.

It is extremely offensive to the homeschooling community to have child abuse or molestation identified as a homeschooling problem. It strains the boundaries of common sense to suggest that homeschooled children are completely isolated from people other than their parents--they have neighbors, doctors, grocery clerks, bank tellers, and other homeschoolers with whom they come in contact every day. And if a homeschooler is so isolated that they never see other people, then no law is going to protect then from the situations posited by SSWAG. In such cases, the problem is not a homeschooling problem, it is a criminal problem.

In summary, we do not believe that the proposed bill will accomplish anything of value to the State. It would entail additional cost to the State for administration and enforcement, and it would significantly curtail the freedom of Georgia's families to choose homeschooling. We are especially doubtful that it will provide any additional protection to Georgia's children, beyond that afforded by current laws.

Conclusion. Homeschoolers in Georgia oppose this bill, and oppose it vigorously. While we are concerned about this specific bill, we are equally concerned about the systematic violations of the current code by school superintendents and school social workers. We see no reason why the school social workers should have homeschoolers' declarations of intent or attendance records. We are concerned when superintendents send out declaration of intent forms that deviate significantly from the specifications of the current code. We are concerned when superintendents make homeschooler information available to independent groups without the prior permission of the homeschooling parents. All of this has occurred and continues to occur in Georgia, and is in large part responsible for the reaction of many homeschoolers to any overture from the public school system.

Homeschoolers value education, value personal responsibility, and value children. Homeschoolers are intensely protective of their right to choose the method and content of their home study program, and the results demonstrate that, by and large, they make excellent choices. However, the proposers of further regulation of home study programs in Georgia have failed to seek or obtain any participation from the homeschool community in discussing perceived problems or possible solutions prior to drafting new legislation. It seems unlikely that the General Assembly would seek to change the regulation of any other legitimate activity, such as private schools, banking, or utilities, without including its participants in well publicized studies of the need for change and the form of change. Given the excellent track record of homeschooling, it is particularly distressing to have additional regulation proposed with no participation by the homeschooling community.

We would ask that the Committee consider the following questions in its discussion of this and any other legislation affecting homeschoolers in Georgia:

1. What is the problem that this change to the current law will resolve?
   If the problem is not well defined, then a legislative remedy is not appropriate. If it is well-defined, but also a matter of policy in administering the current law, then perhaps legislation is not appropriate. In the present instance, we do not believe that a systematic problem has been identified.
2. Who will benefit from this change to the law?
   If one cannot identify a constituency whose rights are restored by this law, then it is not needed at this time. It must be a real, documentable constituency, not a hypothetical constituency. In the present instance, we do not feel that the constituency has been identified.
3. In what way will this change to the law restrict the freedom of law-abiding Georgia citizens?
   Any legislation that intrudes into the privacy of the family will restrict freedom-the extent of this restriction should be clearly identified by the proposers of the legislation, and clearly understood by the supporters.
4. Is the price to be paid worth the good to be gained, or are there more effective actions that the State can take to achieve the objectives of the proposers of this bill?
   Is this the correct and best way to approach the problem that has been identified? Does it have the least "social cost?" The State should not treat all citizens as guilty because of the misbehavior of a few. In the present instance, we do not believe that the restriction of freedom and the interference in family issues is justified by the good that the proposes claim will be done.
5. Does the proposed legislation treat homeschoolers with the same respect and rights as any other citizen?
   If the proposed legislation holds homeschoolers to a higher (or different) standard than other Georgia citizens, there needs to be clear and compelling evidence that such discrimination is absolutely necessary. By the same token, it is unreasonable to hold home study programs as a group to higher standards of performance than other legitimate educational options.

This analysis is based on the assumption that the goals of the substitute HB 586 are to strengthen the State's ability to deal with truancy in home study programs, to give the State better tools with which it can measure the readiness of homeschooled children to enter or re-enter public school, and to provide greater protection from neglect and abuse for children in home study programs.

The primary effect of this provision is to restrict the freedom of parents to choose homeschooling. Those parents who find their child in an intolerable situation in a public school would lose the right to remove that child until the end of the semester. It is difficult to see what interest of the child is served by this restriction. The State would not even consider passing a law that prohibits a parent from moving out of a school district during the semester. Likewise, the State would not consider passing a law that prohibits a parent from moving their child from public to private school during the semester. So how can it be argued that a citizen's right to choose to move to a another different, but legally accepted method of satisfying the compulsory attendance laws should be curtailed?

It may be that the real issue in this instance is the situation in which a parent declares that they are homeschooling partway through one semester, and then decides to send the child back to public school for the next semester. Rather than prohibiting such decisions, which could be taken for entirely legitimate reasons, the State should insure that local school boards have established clear policies for readmitting homeschoolers. This is not a matter requiring legislative remedy.

It is difficult to see how this provision addresses any of the objectives of the bills authors. Requiring all homeschoolers to submit this documentation simply adds to the burden already placed on limited local school superintendent staff. The superintendent already has the authority, through subpoena, to request documentation when there is a need to investigate the legitimacy of a home study program.

The existing law addresses the qualifications of hired tutors. This provision seems to be an attempt to prevent parents from "sharing" their expertise. Clearly, such prohibition would reduce the quality of the homeschooling experience for the individual child, by eliminating access to other adults who have expertise different from their parents. In effect, this provision seeks to reduce the quality of home study programs.

There is no evidence that this is needed for strictly academic reasons. In fact, it is not required in the public school system, so there is little basis for requiring it of homeschoolers. Again, all available evidence indicates that the academic achievement of homeschooling significantly surpasses that of the public school system, so why would additional restrictions be proposed?

The real issue addressed by this provision probably is that of homeschooled children entering or re-entering public school, at which point they must be placed in appropriate classes and be given appropriate credit for prior work. As stated elsewhere, this should be a matter of local policy, not a matter of legislation.

What purpose is served by this requirement? It hardly seems likely that it will improve the quality of the homeschooling experience. Instead, this provision also seems to be directed to the problem of students who enter or re-enter public school after some period of home study. As stated elsewhere, this should be a matter of local policy, not a matter of legislation.

This issue currently is a matter of local policy, and each school district is required by law to establish a policy. What is proposed may be specified in the policy of the local school district. However, there is little justification for the State to usurp the proper role of the local school superintendent to manage local school affairs.

Homeschoolers have difficulty seeing how this is a homeschooling issue. In the first place, preventing such parents from homeschooling does little to protect children from exposure to an abuser. Secondly, if this restriction does in fact help to protect children, we see no reason why it should apply only to homeschooled children. If any change to the law is proposed, it should apply to all persons directly or indirectly engaged in or supporting the education of children pursuant to the compulsory education laws of the State of Georgia. Thus, it should apply to all public and private school teachers, staff, bus drivers, and administrators, and to all school social workers and visiting teachers, if it is to apply to homeschooling parents.

This is an example of worst-case scenarios leading to bad law. One can easily create hypothetical situations in which such a law would penalize parents and their children for mistakes made very early in the parent's life.

HEIR conclusion and recommendation. - In conclusion, this is a poorly crafted bill, which does little if anything to address the purported motivations of its authors. It would impose additional, pointless, expensive and time consuming requirements on homeschooling parents. It would create additional costs for the State, it would usurp local authority and control of schools, it would lead to unwarranted invasions of privacy, and it would not solve any real problem.

About HEIR ||| Home ||| Contents ||| News ||| Opinion