What is the BEST state to be a HSer?

[catz]

Minnesota's not bad. The requirements are fairly minimal now, and we can get tax credits and some textbook reimbursement for hsing. Also, high school students here can take college courses for free and it covers all tuition, textbooks, supplies, etc.

 

:iagree: The homeschooling groups and offerings near the twin cities are pretty overwhelming at this point too.

[Farrar]

Church school/cover school seems to be used interchangeably here, although the law states "church school." There are many church/cover schools that require no statement of faith whatsoever, although a lot do. You get to choose which you want, so it's not much of an issue in my mind.

 

From what I've heard, it is an issue for some secular homeschoolers. There's not a guarantee for them that there will be an option that allows them to homeschool without signing an SOF, since these covers can come and go. I feel like I read at some point that there was only a single cover school that allowed that at one point. If true, that's not a lot of options. And a group of atheists don't have the right to start their own cover, but a group of Christians do. That's a bit unfair, I think.

[Devan]

From what I've heard, it is an issue for some secular homeschoolers. There's not a guarantee for them that there will be an option that allows them to homeschool without signing an SOF, since these covers can come and go. I feel like I read at some point that there was only a single cover school that allowed that at one point. If true, that's not a lot of options. And a group of atheists don't have the right to start their own cover, but a group of Christians do. That's a bit unfair, I think.

 

I don't know about the whole state, but when I was looking at cover schools I only considered ones that did not require a statement of faith. There was definitely more than one option in my area.

It is unfair, but there are options for those who don't want to sign a statement of faith. All in all, it's not that restrictive, in my opinion.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Devan

[angela in ohio]

From what I've heard, it is an issue for some secular homeschoolers. There's not a guarantee for them that there will be an option that allows them to homeschool without signing an SOF, since these covers can come and go. I feel like I read at some point that there was only a single cover school that allowed that at one point. If true, that's not a lot of options. And a group of atheists don't have the right to start their own cover, but a group of Christians do. That's a bit unfair, I think.

 

I think several states have religious-based regs, iirc. It's just a matter of who did the initial work. Now that there is a growing secular homeschooling population, it's time for non-Christian or secular (depending on the state) homeschoolers to stop using the regs that don't apply and fight for their own. The good news is that they will have the internet to help them now, as well as more positive public opinion. :D

 

This brings up a more general point in the conversation, too. Many people see the regs/laws as set in stone, because many newer homeschoolers don't know the history of the movement. If the regs/laws in a state are cumbersome, it just takes someone getting it together to make a change. In our state, it took parents willing to go to jail for the right, for example. In other states, it has meant homeschoolers willing to dedicate their time and money to fight for better laws.

[stripe]

Now that there is a growing secular homeschooling population, it's time for non-Christian or secular (depending on the state) homeschoolers to stop using the regs that don't apply and fight for their own. The good news is that they will have the internet to help them now, as well as more positive public opinion. :D

Aside from the fact that a lot of the early work was done by non-religious homeschoolers, not evangelicals as is commonly believed, I don't think there's very positive public opinion about religious homeschoolers. I think people are usually okay about taking kids out of schools if they are seen to be bad, but not so much for other reasons. Christian evangelical types are seen as trying to hide their kids from science/evolution/dinosaurs/global warming/hearing about other religions, and Muslims are seen as unassimilated immigrants (which not all are) promoting violence or cultural practices of their home countries (mostly failing to educate girls) [most notably in the 2008 NY Times article which does both, even though the homeschooled member of a terrorist organization was hsed as an evangelical Christian].

 

In both cases, the common denominator is weirdos trying to shelter their kids from the real world, which the majority of people (living in that world) are not overly supportive of. Whether homeschooling evangelical Christians (or other varieties) or Muslims actually ARE what they are stereotyped as, is another matter, not necessarily explored in as much detail. There have been some different sorts of reports, including about Priscilla Martinez (Muslim) and Elizabeth Foss (Catholic) , but I think that's the hurdle.

[Farrar]

I think several states have religious-based regs, iirc. It's just a matter of who did the initial work. Now that there is a growing secular homeschooling population, it's time for non-Christian or secular (depending on the state) homeschoolers to stop using the regs that don't apply and fight for their own. The good news is that they will have the internet to help them now, as well as more positive public opinion. :D

 

This brings up a more general point in the conversation, too. Many people see the regs/laws as set in stone, because many newer homeschoolers don't know the history of the movement. If the regs/laws in a state are cumbersome, it just takes someone getting it together to make a change. In our state, it took parents willing to go to jail for the right, for example. In other states, it has meant homeschoolers willing to dedicate their time and money to fight for better laws.

 

But the history of the movement, as you say, is non-religious in many places in the beginning. And many of the early regulations were trailblazed by secular homeschoolers.

 

Regardless, there's nothing I can really do about homeschooling regulations in Alabama and I don't know that much about it anyway. But I suspect that trying to push for the rights of non-Christians in Alabama is probably a lost cause in the Alabama legislature for reasons that are WAY beyond homeschooling.

[angela in ohio]

Aside from the fact that a lot of the early work was done by non-religious homeschoolers, not evangelicals as is commonly believed, I don't think there's very positive public opinion about religious homeschoolers. I think people are usually okay about taking kids out of schools if they are seen to be bad, but not so much for other reasons. Christian evangelical types are seen as trying to hide their kids from science/evolution/dinosaurs/global warming/hearing about other religions, and Muslims are seen as unassimilated immigrants (which not all are) promoting violence or cultural practices of their home countries (mostly failing to educate girls) [most notably in the 2008 NY Times article which does both, even though the homeschooled member of a terrorist organization was hsed as an evangelical Christian].

 

In both cases, the common denominator is weirdos trying to shelter their kids from the real world, which the majority of people (living in that world) are not overly supportive of. Whether homeschooling evangelical Christians (or other varieties) or Muslims actually ARE what they are stereotyped as, is another matter, not necessarily explored in as much detail. There have been some different sorts of reports, including about Priscilla Martinez (Muslim) and Elizabeth Foss (Catholic) , but I think that's the hurdle.

 

Which is why I said that secular homeschoolers would have more positive public opinion. :)

[dakarimom5]

I don't know about the whole state, but when I was looking at cover schools I only considered ones that did not require a statement of faith. There was definitely more than one option in my area.

It is unfair, but there are options for those who don't want to sign a statement of faith. All in all, it's not that restrictive, in my opinion.

 

I think I use the largest cover in the state and they didn't ask for a statement of faith. Finding a cover was easier than finding a co-op;)

[Lisbeth]

Obviously, Texas. :D

 

No requirements. None. Nada. Zilch. No interaction with the school district or the DoE at all.

 

My vote is for TX, too.

[GoodGrief]

Shocked my fellow Alaskans are not all over this one. :-)

 

Complete freedom to homeschool independently without restrictions (and participate in local school sports, classes as desired, etc)

 

OR the option to participate in one of many public programs for homeschoolers that offer allotments (generally$1600+ annually) for curriculum reimbursement, extracurricular activity reimbursement (art, PE, music) in exchange for a few bureaucratic strings (participation in standardized testing, minor oversight by a "teacher" (turning in a simple plan and work samples quarterly.) Here's one: www.ideafamilies.org

[wapiti]

.

[Ghee]

Have to be a competent teacher, but they aren't allowed to define that.

 

But then couldn't that bite you in the hiney? If they say "Well, we also can't prove that you ARE competent?" Why even have a law that they then aren't allowed define?

 

After watching a friend's child not make it into the Air Force Academy because of no sports in TX, I'll take the extra-curr.

 

WHAT? WHY?! My uncle had to give up his AF dreams years ago, but only because he had horrible sinus issues and wasn't allowed to be a pilot. He had never played a sport in his life and that never came up. Why would it be an issue now?

 

Even a bad day in Florida is better than anywhere else.

 

:)

 

:iagree: I believe it. I wish one of my husband's job possibilities was there. I always cross my fingers, but it has yet to happen. Oh, to be close to a beach!!!

[godsaggie]

I'm going to be the different one and say Colorado! I can hear folks say, what? You have to file NOI and test or evaluate. Yes, that's true, however, if you have a sports-obsessed child, you have full, equal access to all extra-curr, including sports. After watching a friend's child not make it into the Air Force Academy because of no sports in TX, I'll take the extra-curr.

 

I say Colorado too. You can get around the filing requirements and testing if you are part of an independent school. Several families along with ours formed an independent school when I started homeschooling six years ago. Unfortunately, our little school disbanded. So now, all I have to do is file a form with any school district in the state once per year and submit testing scores every odd grade. I live in a rural area and submit my letter of intent to a huge district in Denver.

[Tutor]

In Mississippi, we file 5x8 card every year for each student with our local attendance officer to let them know we are homeschooling and not to send the truancy officer after us. That's it. No participation in public school sports, but I don't see that as a detriment/ benefit. I have no experience with access to special needs services, so I can't speak to that.

[dm379]

I think I use the largest cover in the state and they didn't ask for a statement of faith. Finding a cover was easier than finding a co-op;)

 

:iagree: there are no co-ops in the part I live in. When I was choosing a cover school, there was one pagen school and the rest were Christian. I hate that my kids are signed up with a Christian cover since we are not but we didn't have a choice.

[happyhomey]

In general, from what I understand, the more politically conservative state, the more friendly the homeschooling laws. Many of the posts here seem to confirm that.

[dakarimom5]

:iagree: there are no co-ops in the part I live in. When I was choosing a cover school, there was one pagen school and the rest were Christian. I hate that my kids are signed up with a Christian cover since we are not but we didn't have a choice.

 

Just out of curiosity, where in AL are you. I'm in Decatur but my cover is in Grayson.

[dm379]

Just out of curiosity, where in AL are you. I'm in Decatur but my cover is in Grayson.

 

About half an hour from Dothan. Middle of nowhere. :001_smile:

[Mom2Es]

Church school/cover school seems to be used interchangeably here, although the law states "church school." There are many church/cover schools that require no statement of faith whatsoever, although a lot do. You get to choose which you want, so it's not much of an issue in my mind.

 

It would be an issue for us, because our religious beliefs do not include the premise that churches ought to be running schools. So the states that force people to pay cover school fees specifically to religious organizations get a thumbs down in my book even if you're not required to agree with their specific doctrines.

[ktgrok]

I can't believe there aren't more posts about Florida.

 

Some of the benefits include:

 

1. Free homeschooling through the Florida Virtual School. The entire program or just some classes can be taken.

2. Several of the homeschooling options allow a homeschooler the Bright Futures college scholarship.

3. Participation in public school sports and classes is available in most counties. Also, VPA programs are available in my counties.

4. Dual enrollment can start a year early for many homeschoolers.

 

The paperwork is minimal. There is one sheet each year which requires name, address, and which of the 5 homeschool options was chosen. Some of the options require another signature besides just the parent's.

 

Even a bad day in Florida is better than anywhere else.

 

:)

 

Yes, and you do NOT have to be a public school studen when you use FLVS. You can register as a public school student and get a diploma, taking all your courses from them, OR you can register as a homeschool student and take what you want, when you want, and retain your authority over your own students.

[Firefly]

In general, from what I understand, the more politically conservative state, the more friendly the homeschooling laws. Many of the posts here seem to confirm that.

 

For the most part yes-- Connecticut being the exception. Like Texas there are no regulations.

 

So I think so far we have TX, CT and AL that have no regulations (unless I'm missing any!)

[angela in ohio]

For the most part yes-- Connecticut being the exception. Like Texas there are no regulations.

 

So I think so far we have TX, CT and AL that have no regulations (unless I'm missing any!)

 

And Michigan.

 

Technically, there are regulations, such as:

 

"Teacher Requirement

A parent or legal guardian that registers with MDE is qualified to teach

their child if they have a teaching certificate or a bachelor’s degree.

However, if they claim an objection to teacher certification based upon a

sincerely held religious belief, the minimum education requirement of a

teaching certificate or a bachelor’s degree is waived.

 

Course of Study

Instruction must include mathematics, reading, English, science, and social

studies in all grades; and the Constitution of the United States, the

Constitution of Michigan, and the history and present form of civil

government of the United States, the State of Michigan, and the political

subdivisions and municipalities of the State of Michigan in grades 10, 11,

and 12."

 

But there is no reporting of any kind. So, you know... ;)

[unfrumpable.]

I don't know about Alabama, but in Florida the covers schools can be religious or not. Several are secular, some are fee of cost, and are unschooling friendly.

 

Yep, the umbrella school I used in FL (Florida Unschoolers) was not religious and it was free. I had to report attendance once every 12 weeks or so, IIRC. This is a great umbrella school to join, if anyone here is in FL and looking for that option. And, no, you do not have to be an unschooler to join. :)

[unfrumpable.]

Yes, and you do NOT have to be a public school studen when you use FLVS. You can register as a public school student and get a diploma, taking all your courses from them, OR you can register as a homeschool student and take what you want, when you want, and retain your authority over your own students.

 

Taking whatever classes you want and being considered a homeschooler is only for upper grade levels. I think middle school and up. Using FLVS prior to middle school required you to be fully enrolled and you child would be considered a public school student. I seriously considered FLVS for my son as a first grader, but we decided that if we wanted our son to have a PS education, we would just send him to PS. :)

 

Coming from FL to TX, I definitely prefer TX for hs. :lol:

[Wheres Toto]

For the most part yes-- Connecticut being the exception. Like Texas there are no regulations.

 

So I think so far we have TX, CT and AL that have no regulations (unless I'm missing any!)

 

And New Jersey. No regulations at all and not conservative other than a few counties.

[Dmmetler]

Yeah, I thought it was the state where you had to register with a religious umbrella/cover/church school, which is rotten if you happen to be Muslim, Pagan, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist or just not Christian.

 

 

TN has a similar law. You either register with a "church related school" or with a public school district, and then it's up to the school you're registered with to set whatever requirements they choose-and there's a range, so you can pick one that is unschooling friendly, accepts "living life" as your curriculum for the year, and requires no other documentation besides filing attendance and S/U grades at the end of the year. Or you can pick one that provides classes, sports teams, has suggested or required curriculum, and does yearly testing and grades, which is basically the private school version of doing something like a Virtual academy. Or anything in between.

 

Church Related School doesn't mean "Christian church" any more than the property tax exemption for houses of worship means "Only Christian houses of worship". It simply uses the fact that religious schools are exempted from all school requirements except those affecting health and safety (basically attendance records and either having a shot record or a parental waiver form on file). I don't know AL's law, but I'm guessing it may be similar-or, at least, that it's amenable to being bent into defining "it's a CRS because I say it's a CRS" in the same way that TN's law has been.

[Momof3littles]

I think several states have religious-based regs, iirc. It's just a matter of who did the initial work. Now that there is a growing secular homeschooling population, it's time for non-Christian or secular (depending on the state) homeschoolers to stop using the regs that don't apply and fight for their own. The good news is that they will have the internet to help them now, as well as more positive public opinion. :D

 

This brings up a more general point in the conversation, too. Many people see the regs/laws as set in stone, because many newer homeschoolers don't know the history of the movement. If the regs/laws in a state are cumbersome, it just takes someone getting it together to make a change. In our state, it took parents willing to go to jail for the right, for example. In other states, it has meant homeschoolers willing to dedicate their time and money to fight for better laws.

 

Eh, I live in one of the most tightly regulated states. Everyone says "no big deal" in reality, but it becomes a really big deal when a district oversteps. Right now we have a PDE who seems to be interpreting the law quite differently than many HSers have historically, and while the law is still the law, it adds another monkey wrench into things. IMO our state has had a lot of hoop jumping in the past, with redundancies like having to go through an evaluator to get a letter, and then going through the whole shebang with the district anyway-submit a port, letter from evaluator, 180 days, a log, etc. It seems so ridiculously redundant. Districts continue to overstep and seem to be asking for plenty of "extra" paperwork-proof of high school diploma, actual medical records vs. statement in affidavit that medical checks and immunizations are in compliance, some districts ask for "proof of residency" etc. The hoops seem to be even more redundant.

 

BUt if you ask the seasoned HSers who have been through the fight, many will say changing it runs the risk of things getting worse.

 

It is tremendously frustrating! Yet everyone insists "no biggie," and assures you it will be okay. I moved into a district that was historically easy to work with, and one personnel change later, they are making lots of extralegal requests. I just filed my affidavit so haven't been through the port process with them yet, but they have told other HSers in my district their port must be a certain size, labeled a certain way, they want HSers to use their evaluator form which asks for info beyond what is in the law. So the hoop jumping IMO just went from tolerable but annoying, to how far do you want to take it?

 

NOt everyone can afford to escalate things and retain an attorney. If push came to shove, we can, but it is an intimidating process, and of course, you end up burning bridges and wondering what they'll do in the future. Will you be singled out yet again, etc.

 

Yes, I have a chip in my shoulder :glare: Trying to enact change may not be as easy as it seems...the veterans here insist it could likely be worse if we try to change the law. I don't know what to think. I've read up on the backstory here a bit, and don't know what to do. I just submitted my notorized affidavit attesting to all kinds of things the law requires (I hold a diploma, I'll offer courses in English, medical exams and immunizations are up to date or there is an exemption, etc.) yet I'm expecting a call any day asking for proof of all of the above. If proof is "required," what's the point of the hoop jumping with the notarized affidavit? But districts continue to ask for supporting documentation for all of the things attested to in the affidavit anyway.

 

Yet I hear people insist regulation is a good thing and ultimately protects us and the ability to HS. When I was NC sometimes people would suggest HSers there should comply with extralegal requests (come to the police station with your children and curriculum voluntarily, which the law did not require). The thought was complying with those extralegal requests would keep authorities off of HSers back for the long haul. Living in a highly regulated state right now, it seems like the hoops just get more redundant!

Edited July 7, 2012 by Momof3littles