Report and Position on "Compromise" Meeting with Rep. Hugley

Report: HB586--No Compromise by Homeschoolers

 Following the House Education Committee hearing on December 10, Rep. Carolyn Hugley (D-133) asked to meet with representatives of GHEA and HEIR to discuss HB586. The meeting was held on December 16, and included:

• Rep. Hugley
• Rep. Maretta Taylor (D-134, vice-chair of the House Education Committee)
• Harold Beasley (past president of SSWAG)
• Ken Patterson (director, GHEA)
• Leon McGinnis (chair, HEIR)
• Cindy Sewell (treasurer, HEIR)
• Marcia McGinnis (newsletter editor, HEIR)

 At that meeting, Rep. Hugley asked if homeschoolers would be willing to compromise on a reduction of the 30-day grace period for filing the declaration of intent, if she would delete all the other provisions of the bill. The discussion lasted just over an hour. It was a lively discussion, with both sides participating actively. It also was a very respectful, cordial discussion. The homeschoolers at the meeting took the position that there was no clear benefit for changing the 30 day grace period, and there were good reasons for retaining the 30 day grace period. Therefore, we declined to compromise. Apparently, this has caused concern among some in the homeschooling community, who do not see what harm would be done by reducing the 30 day grace period, and who would like for homeschoolers to be perceived as "cooperative". The purpose of this update is to provide some background information, so the "no compromise" position can be better understood.

Position

1. HB586 is the product of efforts by SSWAG and GAE. Homeschoolers should be aware of the published positions of these two organizations regarding homeschooling (see the HEIR editorial "Homeschool Opposition: Who Are They). In brief, both organizations are firmly committed to bringing homeschooling under the "oversight" of the public school system. Some of their proposals are, for example, to "approve" parent educators, to monitor student progress in home study programs, to "approve" home study curricula, and to force children performing below grade level into the public school system. There has never been any indication on the part of either organization that they truly respect homeschooling, or that they are willing to leave home study programs in the hands of homeschooling parents. In any discussion of HB586, this fundamental philosophy must be recognized and understood by homeschoolers. 

2. From the House Education Committee hearing on December 10, it seemed clear that this bill has very poor prospects. The supporters had no data to substantiate any of their claims of abuse of the home study option. The opponents argued forcefully that the State already has all the power it needs to enforce the law. There is very strong, vocal, active opposition from the homeschooling community. Further, there were serious questions raised by a number of the members of the House Education Committee. Thus, it appears that the only possible way for this bill to receive any further legislative attention is for the homeschooling community to "invite" such attention by compromising with Rep. Hugley on the provisions of the bill. To do so seems unwise, because the bill does nothing to enhance home study, it solves no real problem of truancy, and it opens the door for unanticipated changes in the current home study law, as described below.

3. There is no guarantee that the initial form of any bill is preserved through the political process in the General Assembly. Once the debate on a bill has begun, "[a]mendments (definition), or even complete substitutions, may be offered by the committee that studied the bill or by a member from the floor" (http://www.State.Ga.US/legis/1997_98/house/hbcl.htm). In 1984, SB504 (from which the current provisions regarding home study were established) was modified in the final days of the General Assembly, to add the alternative requirement for a GED. This was not the wish of those who drafted the bill, but was insisted upon by GAE. The point that homeschoolers should keep in mind is that any bill proposing changes in the home study law puts the entire code "in play", and there is the possibility that undesirable amendments can be added, or even complete substitute bills. On Saturday following the December 16 meeting with Rep. Hugley, the Atlanta Constitution devoted half the Op-Ed page to promoting Rep. Hugley and HB586. Homeschoolers would be naive to ignore the political powers at work here, or to provide them an opportunity to change the current home study law.

4. Reports from homeschoolers make clear that in some school districts, both the superintendent and the school social workers are opposed to homeschooling, actively discourage parents from electing homeschooling, and sometimes harass homeschoolers. Because this type of "homeschooling unfriendly" behavior is always possible, it is essential for homeschoolers to insist that the 30 day grace period is needed, to insure that new homeschoolers have time to locate the necessary forms, fill them out, and file them.

5. The "no compromise" position was taken only after careful consideration. We talked with several people involved in drafting the original SB504. We talked with homeschoolers around the State, including some who keep in close contact with members of the House Education Committee. We debated the pro's and con's of compromise. In the end, we reached a consensus that it was best not to do anything that could be interpreted as encouraging Rep. Hugley to continue pushing this bill. The current statute represents a carefully crafted compromise between the interests of private citizens and the interests of the State. This compromise was reached only after careful debate of the relevant factors. The proponents of HB586 have failed to show why the homeschool community should endorse further, unjustified compromises. We continue to endorse the compromise embodied in the current law and believe that school social workers should be satisfied with that compromise until the facts justify a change. Furthermore, all the polling done by HEIR indicates a very strong sentiment in the homeschooling community against any change to the current law that would further restrict home study programs.

   Furthermore, it is not clear that compromising to allow changing the current law is necessarily a good strategy for homeschoolers. In states like Pennsylvania and Massachussets, the willingness to compromise, to make homeschooling acceptable to the public school system, has resulted in restrictions and regulations far in excess of what we now have in Georgia.

6. There are good and valid reasons for maintaining the 30 day grace period:

   • The 30 day period corresponds to the requirement for private schools, and we see no reason why it should be different for home study programs. By the same token, the reporting requirements for "visiting teachers, acting visiting teachers, and attendance officers" is 30 days, so changes that take place during the month aren't reported until the end of the month anyway. Why should homeschooling parents be held to a more stringent requirement than school officials?

   • There are situations in which a family easily could find it difficult or impossible to meet the standard of prior notification or even notification within five days. For example, a child is beaten by a gang in school; the parents are naturally distraught; the child refuses to return to the school, even after recovering from the beating; after several more days of anxious search for a solution, the parents decide to homeschool. This could easily take two weeks, and then the parents face the difficulty of locating the proper forms, completing them, making sure they are submitted properly, etc. (This is not a hypothetical case--we were told of such a case by a homeschooling parent following the hearing on December 10.)

   • Homeschoolers have every right to insist that SSWAG and GAE provide a strong argument in favor of change. Private citizens do not need to "justify" restrictions on governmental meddling in their private lives. Procedural devices such as "grace periods" and Fifth Amendments (right against self-incrimination) and Fourth Amendments (prohibition of warrantless search and seizure) are natural features of a government of laws. They are part and parcel of what it means to be an American--to be free. Even if we assume that a pressing governmental interest has been advanced for shortening the grace period, proponents must prove that shortening the 30-day grace period is the least intrusive means of advancing that governmental interest and that it does not trample on individual liberties. The school social workers have not examined either of these questions, so they have no business proposing a shorter grace period. Finally, the 30-day grace period provides a vital buffer for parents who are struggling with the momentous question of whether to homeschool. It is a choice with potentially dramatic, lifelong consequences. Why should school social workers want to rush anyone into such a decision? Does not their statement of ethics contradict such a position? Is a 30-day trial period unreasonable?

 As long as GAE and SSWAG maintain their strong opposition to homeschooling as currently practiced in Georgia, there will no such thing as a "safe" bill to modify the home study provisions of the compulsory attendance law. That includes not only changing the 30 day grace period, but also such "homeschooler friendly" proposals as providing diplomas from the local school district, and providing homeschoolers with access to school facilities and activities.

 Individual homeschooling families have a critical role to play in protecting home study programs. Develop a relationship with your state senator and representative. Tell them about your homeschooling experience, and encourage them to preserve your ability to conduct your home study program as you see fit. Do it now, so that your elected representatives will see homeschoolers as an important, committed constituency.