Non-compliance with homeschooling laws (s/o)

[Greta]

I know a number of homeschoolers who choose not to comply with the homeschooling laws in my state. I can certainly understand civil disobedience for a just cause, but in this case, I guess I just don't get it.

 

The homeschooling laws here are so incredibly EASY to comply with, not what I personally would consider invasive at all. There is no reporting hours and subjects, no submitting your curriculum for approval, certainly no home visits! You just register with the state once a year, submitting an online form with very basic information like how old your child is and what school district you live in. Then you're done. It takes five minutes or less. It is far, far easier than having a driver's license renewed, and requires much less personal information (no showing your birth certificate, no questions about how much you weigh! :D ) Really, my state for the most part acts like they want nothing to do with homeschoolers. I think they're happiest when they're pretending we don't exist. :lol:

 

So, what really is accomplished by not complying with easy laws like this? I personally find myself wondering if this does more harm than good to the cause of homeschooling. What I mean is, to non-homeschoolers, I don't think they're going to be too impressed or sympathetic with our cause if we come across like we think we're above the law. And if the ultimate goal is to change the law, aren't law-abiding citizens in a better position to bring about that kind of change than those acting outside the law?

 

But I would love to hear others' thoughts on this. Obviously I'm not asking anyone to fess up if they're non-compliant! But if you see some validity to that viewpoint that I am missing, please enlighten me. The conversations I've had IRL were not very informative at all. They boiled down to "I don't wanna, I ain't gonna, and they can't make me."

 

Most of my argument for compliance (beyond the fact that it is THE LAW) in my post here has been that compliance in my state is so easy. I realize that's not the case everywhere. At what point does compliance become so burdensome that you feel (hypothetically of course ;)) that someone might be justified in breaking the law?

 

Is there any objective way of approaching the question of what is too burdensome and what isn't?

[Harriet Vane]

I can see the argument that the state has no right to be a part of the nitty-gritty of my life. For that reason, I support loose homeschooling laws at most.

 

On the other hand, if the state is not requiring me to do anything sinful, then yes, I have to obey the law.

[G5052]

I know of local families who never got social security number for their kids, don't claim them as deductions on their taxes, don't get them library cards, and don't register as being homeschooled. As far as the government is concerned, they want to appear childless.

 

I know others who do the rest, but don't register as homeschoolers because they figure they don't want their children in some database that could be used against them at some point. They don't join any homeschool groups or lists, and stay indoors all day so that no one sees the children. Some of these also diligently make sure that no homeschool catalogs come to their homes and have any orders go to a post office box or friend's house.

 

I also know of churches who meet in homes and don't have bank accounts for the same reason -- no record, maybe no involvement by the government.

 

Just depends how paranoid you are!

[Julie in CA]

The laws in my state are incredibly easy and I follow the law. At the same time, I'm fairly disgusted by how far the government has intruded into our lives. I'm pretty sure this isn't what the framers had in mind.

 

If authorities find that I'm neglecting my child's basic needs, then by all means, intervene using laws that already provide penalties for that. Otherwise, please just stay out of my pocket, my bedroom, and *my schoolroom!*

[Jean in Newcastle]

The relaxed requirements of filling out some paperwork lets the state know who is truly truant and who is not. I do not see that as an abuse of their power.

 

I actually am a bit miffed/angry at those who do not comply with these non-intrusive laws because I feel like they might end up taking away our freedom to homeschool.

[stripe]

I heard some family friends had decided to follow some man who advocated home birth in order to avoid getting birth certificates for the child. I am not sure that makes life very easy for a child, unless s/he decides to also live completely "off the grid."

 

I don't think merely reporting one is homeschooling is a very big imposition at all. But I don't live "off the grid."

[Greta]

I heard some family friends had decided to follow some man who advocated home birth in order to avoid getting birth certificates for the child. I am not sure that makes life very easy for a child, unless s/he decides to also live completely "off the grid."

 

I don't think merely reporting one is homeschooling is a very big imposition at all. But I don't live "off the grid."

 

I know of local families who never got social security number for their kids, don't claim them as deductions on their taxes, don't get them library cards, and don't register as being homeschooled. As far as the government is concerned, they want to appear childless.

 

I know others who do the rest, but don't register as homeschoolers because they figure they don't want their children in some database that could be used against them at some point. They don't join any homeschool groups or lists, and stay indoors all day so that no one sees the children. Some of these also diligently make sure that no homeschool catalogs come to their homes and have any orders go to a post office box or friend's house.

 

I also know of churches who meet in homes and don't have bank accounts for the same reason -- no record, maybe no involvement by the government.

 

Just depends how paranoid you are!

 

Wow, I've never heard of such things! I mean, I've heard of home-birthing of course, have lots of friends who did it. But not for that reason! And I had no idea that people would avoid getting SSN for their kids and claiming them on their taxes. I'm just amazed.

[May]

I was non complient during my child's elementary years and only registered when she entered high school. I used Sycamore Academy for my transcripts and they wanted everyone to be legal. They nevered checked but I honored their request. I never complied before this time because I saw no need. I asked nothing from the state of CA and didn't want my dd's name in one of their data bases. Plus, I figured they had enough problems to deal with.

[Greta]

I actually am a bit miffed/angry at those who do not comply with these non-intrusive laws because I feel like they might end up taking away our freedom to homeschool.

 

I fret about the homeschooling laws being "looked at" again because of people like this. Frankly, we have very good and non-invasive laws in WA, but if by bad behavior, homeschoolers call attention to the laws, the laws will get revised--and NOT in our favor.

 

This is my concern as well, though you both did a better job of expressing it than I did. I wonder if homeschoolers disobeying the law will result in stricter laws, rather than more lenient ones. It seems, to me, to be not worth the risk.

 

At the same time, I wonder if there are circumstances where civil disobedience is justified, and what those circumstances would be. I guess that's not a question that has an objective answer, though. It's just going to depend upon each person's moral compass.

[cjzimmer1]

Our law is similar to yours, we have to file once a year and we do have an hours requirement but it is very easy to meet. I had a friend tell me that they chose not to register. Their reasoning was that if homeschooling ever became illegal, the first people that the government would come looking for were those who were registered. If they weren't registered, then the government would have a much harder time finding them. Considering they spend about 10 months of the year in other countries, I think the government would have a hard time finding them anyways. But I did understand her point

[Greta]

if the state is not requiring me to do anything sinful, then yes, I have to obey the law.

 

:iagree: This is one of the beliefs I was raised with that seems to have stuck. :001_smile:

[hillfarm]

In the cases I have seen where parents are homeschooling "under the radar", homeschooling seems to be only one facet of such actions. The whole family seeks to be as invisible as possible. Although there may be other reasons of which I am not aware, most seem to consider the government to be the big threat.

 

In the past, when many states considered homeschooling illegal and were taking children away from parents who were homeschooling them, I could understand it a bit more. Although I imagine my response would have been to just move to a more conducive location rather than go to such lengths. People today don't seem to understand that they run the risk of so much more trouble if they don't register (or in my state, notify) than if they do. About the only thing I have ever gotten from being on The List for the last 6 years was a flyer for a new support group. Not something worth risking jail for educational neglect or chronic truancy.

 

I don't know how to say this tactfully, so I'll just say it and put out the flames later, but IME, all of the people I know who are doing this are ones who seem to be easily mislead and very fearful. They have read some of the older books about homeschooling during the "dark years" and think that is still going on. Or some critic has frightened them with stories of how getting on this list or that one will cause the govt to come take your children. They seem committed to their paranoia and refuse to consider the evidence of all the rest of us happily homeschooling out in the sunshine. They are not open to examination of the facts and live very restrictive and isolated lives. I feel sorry for children growing up in such an atmosphere.

Edited January 5, 2010 by hillfarm

[ciyates]

My religious beliefs tell me I am under the authority of the law. It doesn't matter how much I don't like a certain law I must obey it.

 

I personally prefer as little government as possible but I do obey.

[angela in ohio]

I think this does homeschooling more harm than good. Fact is, there are means and methods to change the laws. Do the work to get the laws changed.

 

 

My religious beliefs tell me I am under the authority of the law. It doesn't matter how much I don't like a certain law I must obey it.

 

I personally prefer as little government as possible but I do obey.

 

:iagree:

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Honestly...

 

I think this is why laws get stricter on homeschoolers. It gives people who aren't necessarily for homeschooling ammunition to tighten up laws. It makes it look as though there's something to hide.

[jujsky]

I know of some people who stay off the grid because they fear homeschooling laws becoming too invasive in the future. NH homeschool laws aren't horrible (a bit harder than the OP's state, but we're given several reporting options to choose from and it's not bad) but there are people working diligently in this state to make NH one of the most difficult states in the nation in which to homeschool. The people I know who have chosen to stay off the grid have done so to avoid having to comply with future reporting requirements they do not agree with. If they never file that first letter of intent, or if they move to another district and don't submit a letter of intent, then the schools have no record of them. If they submit the letter of intent one year and don't the following year AND the HS requirements become tougher, then they could be in trouble and be forced to comply.

 

I considered staying off the grid for those very reasons, but DH didn't agree, so I'm doing everything legally required like a good little doobie ;) I am all for a minimally-invasive government when it comes to homeschooling. There is no way I could be doing worse with my children (one of whom would be labeled "special needs") than my local school district. In fact, I would bet all my worldly possessions that I'm doing a far better job. The government should spend more time fixing the problems in the schools since those problems affect a far greater percentage of people, and they should leave homeschoolers alone and let them keep doing what works.

[TravelingChris]

I think it is a form of child neglect to live so completely off the grid so that your kids don't have birth certificate. They may decide not to live like that when they are adults. They won't even be able to prove citizenship. How awful.

[Greta]

I think it is a form of child neglect to live so completely off the grid so that your kids don't have birth certificate.

 

I agree, and one of the things that prompted me to start this thread was that when I was reading the "homeschool imposters" thread, I was thinking about one family I know where the label truly, definitely applies. And the educational neglect was only one of the forms of abuse and neglect that were going on in that household. (This is what happened to an adult friend of mine years ago, not going on right now.) So, for the reason that I suspect educational neglect is probably frequently accompanied by other forms of neglect, I would be completely in favor of homeschooling laws which separated the wheat from the chaff -- the legitimate homeschoolers from the imposters. The tough part is that I am not sure if the current laws are doing a very good job of this, or exactly what form ideal homeschooling laws would take. Hopefully people more clever than I am will get this figured out.

Edited January 6, 2010 by GretaLynne
awkward sentence

[meet me in paris]

I happen to think that the people who don't comply just make it SO much harder for the rest of us! It just ends up backfiring, and they punish *everyone* because a handful of people refuse to jump through the hoops. It's happening lately in my state, and it makes me very, very mad. :glare:

[nono]

Well I live in New Jersey, so we don't even file or notify. I believe the law states that if educational neglect is suspected, then I must gather my (undefined) proof and present it to the School Board, which may then choose to press charges. So essentially, we are all off-grid in NJ, if we begin homeschooling without ever involving our children in the public school system (which still floors my PA homeschooling sister).

 

I can understand how others in more restrictive states dislike the system under which they find themselves. But, I've never seen anything great come out of non-compliance. It's a risky move when children are involved.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

When does concerned cross the edge into paranoia?

 

This probably goes along with the mindset of being tax objectors because you've bought into an internet site that proclaims that it is unconstitutional. I ran into one of these at the library the other day and just had to laugh because here this family was, in the military and thinking that they could just write a letter stating they would no longer pay taxes because they had determined it was unconstitutional and that this wasn't going to have any effect on their future in the military. (Last time I checked, tax status - as in not being delinquent- was something that was verified, along with a number of other background checks, before officer promotions were confirmed)

 

I did know or know of some underground homeschoolers in Germany. I understood why they did it. I don't see a similar cause for most US homeschoolers.

 

My life has been too peaceful lately. Maybe someone could send some underground unschoolers my way to debate. All popcorn sales would go to support sending my kids to scout camp.

[hillfarm]

I think it is a form of child neglect to live so completely off the grid so that your kids don't have birth certificate. They may decide not to live like that when they are adults. They won't even be able to prove citizenship. How awful.

 

 

Be careful not to over generalize the birth certificate thing. In my area, there are still many people of the Quaker faith. They don't do a lot of things that the government requires, one of which being most of the documentation. They don't do governmental birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc. They are not a fly-by-night group and have held to this policy for the last two or three hundred years.

 

I don't know if the Amish do governmental birth certificates or not.

[Renai]

 

The homeschooling laws here are so incredibly EASY to comply with, not what I personally would consider invasive at all.

 

It wasn't always like this, even here. Many of the people have been homeschooling a long time, and know what it was like. They are not going to start sending in notices of intent just because things have changed for the better. What if questions start being asked? Like, where were the children all the former years? etc.

 

What I mean is, to non-homeschoolers, I don't think they're going to be too impressed or sympathetic with our cause if we come across like we think we're above the law.

 

Not really, because no one is asking if that family files or not, so there is nothing to confess. What I found is, when people ask, they're asking what the law requires (do you need a teaching degree, do they check curriculum, etc.?). All a family needs to do is quote the letter of the law, they don't need to comment on what they personally are doing. This conversation doesn't even really come up among homeschoolers, let alone the non-. Of the three groups I belong to, there is one in particular that has most of the non-filers, so it's just known (but not necessarily who).

 

But I would love to hear others' thoughts on this. Obviously I'm not asking anyone to fess up if they're non-compliant! But if you see some validity to that viewpoint that I am missing, please enlighten me. The conversations I've had IRL were not very informative at all. They boiled down to "I don't wanna, I ain't gonna, and they can't make me."

 

Most of my argument for compliance (beyond the fact that it is THE LAW) in my post here has been that compliance in my state is so easy. I realize that's not the case everywhere. At what point does compliance become so burdensome that you feel (hypothetically of course ;)) that someone might be justified in breaking the law?

 

Is there any objective way of approaching the question of what is too burdensome and what isn't?

 

FWIW, I file. At the moment NM requires anything more than they require now, my dd disappears from the roll (so I say :lol:). And she's even been in ps for a whole month :tongue_smilie:.Actually, I'd be unhappy about it but still comply. Then, keep sending my letters to the legis, same as I do now. I'm known very well in a couple of schools because I tutor. But, even so, they've never asked if I've filed my intent for the year. They probably don't know enough to ask.

 

Why is there an I don't wanna, ain't gonna attitude? Because it's none of the guv'mints business what I do. I tutor their kids, I know what they're doing and it ain't pretty. They have no place to tell me what I should be doing with dd. I'd prefer a law like TX, that requires nothing at all. If we have to jump these hoops today, what other hoops will they create tomorrow? Well, we're already doing this, why not add that?

 

And, no, I don't think there is an objective way of approaching what is too burdensome, because we are a subjective people with different experiences. What is burdensome will be different because of those experiences. I think filing an intent is too much, cuz it's none of their business. But, on the other hand, I know this area, I've worked Head Start and other social service organizations, and even though I believe strongly in parent's rights I understand why this particular state wants to account for the children.

 

This thread is kind of a twist of previous threads in which people have asked if homeschooling organizations should be policing themselves...

[Renai]

I think it is a form of child neglect to live so completely off the grid so that your kids don't have birth certificate.

 

I don't think so. It's not always an off-the-grid issue. There are cultural nuances going on here that some kids don't get a birth certificate until a bit older (like when starting school). In many areas, midwives are still very important and highly utilized, and they don't give birth certificates (but can sign a paper about when the child was born). The state will accept a birth certificate, a Catholic certificate of baptism, or a Native American whatever they give. It's just recently that a birth certificate is required for some things.

[Anne in CA]

I will say that being nervous of the government is more justified for some people than you might think. Many years ago when my step daughter came to live with us Support Enforcement kept collecting child support. We were very low income ($23,000 a year with a small child) and they were brutal to us. They were completely aware that she lived with us, they had letters from our attorney, a court decree, and her school records, but as they told me when I called them crying one day:

 

"We are not here to help children, we collect money."

 

These sort of things are more common than people think and they make people nervous. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who doesn't register is paranoid with no reason at all. Sure, some people probably are, but many probably are not.

[Greta]

I want to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts. Several of you have brought up the "perhaps laws will get more invasive/unjust in the future" aspect of non-compliance, and while I don't find that a compelling enough reason for me personally, it's not difficult to understand how others could see it that way and make that choice. So thanks for explaining. I appreciate all the different perspectives.

[Greta]

It wasn't always like this, even here. Many of the people have been homeschooling a long time, and know what it was like. They are not going to start sending in notices of intent just because things have changed for the better. What if questions start being asked? Like, where were the children all the former years? etc.

 

I do see your point there. If I had been non-compliant in the past, it would be awfully difficult to come forward and start registering. I would be afraid of those questions too.

 

 

Not really, because no one is asking if that family files or not, so there is nothing to confess. What I found is, when people ask, they're asking what the law requires (do you need a teaching degree, do they check curriculum, etc.?). All a family needs to do is quote the letter of the law, they don't need to comment on what they personally are doing. This conversation doesn't even really come up among homeschoolers, let alone the non-. Of the three groups I belong to, there is one in particular that has most of the non-filers, so it's just known (but not necessarily who).

 

True, but I wasn't thinking of person to person conversations so much as media coverage and the general impression of homeschoolers by the culture at large. It seems like any time homeschooling gets mentioned in the media, it is always noted that anywhere from one to two million families are homeschooling in the US - exact numbers not known because in some states they just aren't tracked, and because so many homeschoolers are "under the radar". I'm just concerned that vast numbers of us disobeying the law is giving the impression of homeschoolers in general as . . . fill in the blank, I guess. But "people who don't respect the law" is the least emotionally charged way I can think to put it. And public opinion obviously sways lawmaking.

 

But more than that, I'm concerned that if we send a message to lawmakers that we won't obey the law even when it's reasonable and easy to do so, what incentive will they have to work with us?

 

But, on the other hand, I know this area, I've worked Head Start and other social service organizations, and even though I believe strongly in parent's rights I understand why this particular state wants to account for the children.

 

Right. I do think the state has some responsibility to protect children, and it is sad and horrible almost beyond belief, but it is still true that sometimes that includes protecting them from their own parents. When children's rights and parents' rights come into conflict, it's an awfully sticky, messy business. I don't claim to have the answers to the tough questions. But I don't think what the state of NM asks us to do is at all unreasonable.

 

This thread is kind of a twist of previous threads in which people have asked if homeschooling organizations should be policing themselves...

 

Oh, I guess I never read those threads. What sort of homeschooling organizations would, theoretically, be in a position to do this?

[Peek a Boo]

I was non-compliant in NY. But mostly to prove just how little effect compliance can have. ;)

 

My reasons also include that minimal regulation -- shoot,even "lots" of regulation-- does nothing to guarantee a child's success. Not when the public schools have kids surrounded daily by dozens of certified professionals and still have a horrific failure rate.

[Peek a Boo]

I happen to think that the people who don't comply just make it SO much harder for the rest of us! It just ends up backfiring, and they punish *everyone* because a handful of people refuse to jump through the hoops. It's happening lately in my state, and it makes me very, very mad. :glare:

 

 

 

yet, the people who DO comply make it SOO much harder for those of us who don't wanna comply! Can't get any real action taken to change anything cuz most people won't take that chance.

 

If compliance is an issue, it sounds like homeschoolers need to choose a team.

[Peek a Boo]

At the same time, I wonder if there are circumstances where civil disobedience is justified, and what those circumstances would be. I guess that's not a question that has an objective answer, though. It's just going to depend upon each person's moral compass.

 

sure there is.

 

If the enforcement of the law does not serve the purpose of the law, then it is a screwy law. Most homeschool regs do not do a sufficient job of ensuring that a child is being educated "properly." And since most schools themselves lack in the "sufficient" idea of education, they are not qualified to assess a stranger's skills.

[Stacy in NJ]

:001_smile:

 

As others have mentioned, NJ basically has no requirements, and that's the way I like it. I probably would comply with the law if registering was necessary. If more intrusive homeschooling laws were in place in NJ, I'd work to change them while complying.

[Janet in WA]

 

So, what really is accomplished by not complying with easy laws like this? ... The conversations I've had IRL were not very informative at all. They boiled down to "I don't wanna, I ain't gonna, and they can't make me."

It has been my observation that homeschooling tends to attract people who have an independent streak, and sometimes a very large one. I think what they're accomplishing by refusing to obey the law is self-satisfaction. I have that kind of personality myself. While I always complied with the homeschooling laws of the states in which we homeschooled (for many of the reasons stated in the other responses), I can SO identify with the urge to resist them.