Bad Homeschooling Bill introduced in Arkansas

[Dobela]

Rep. David Cook of Williford (Sharp County) has filed a very bad home school bill. House Bill 2144 would force every home school family to provide “proof†that their child took the most recent State-mandated test. In addition, it enables public school administrators to flatly refuse to allow students to leave their school and enroll in a home school once the semester is underway. This attack on home schooling is being led by Rep. Cook and the Rural Superintendent’s Association. They have hired a private lobbying firm to lobby the legislature for this bill. Over and over, we have appealed to Rep. Cook, asking him not to file this bill. He filed it today, and we must defeat it. HB 2144 has been referred to the House Education Committee. We can defeat this bill by persuading at least 10 of the 20 committee members to vote against the bill. You can call and leave a message for any or all of these committee members by calling the House Switchboard at (501) 682-2902. Listed below are the names of all the members of the House Education Committee along with their e-mails and home phone numbers. Please contact them immediately and ask them to vote against HB 2144, the David Cook home school bill.

 

Below you will find some talking points on the bill. Please call Family Council or the Education Alliance if you have any questions or need more information (501) 375-7000. You can also read regular updates on our blog at http://www.arkansashomeschool.org/blog

 

Rep. Bill Abernathy – abernathyb@arkleg.state.ar.us | 479-394-2733

Rep. Nancy Duffy Blount - blount235@sbcglobal.net | 870-295-1386

Rep. Mark Martin - martinm@arkleg.state.ar.us | 479-466-7386

Rep. Rick Saunders – saundersr@arkleg.state.ar.us | 501-760-7770

Rep. David Rainey – raineyd@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-382-2003

Rep. David Cook – cookd@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-966-4703

Rep. Eddie Cheatham – cheathame@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-364-5659

Rep. Toni Bradford – bradfordt@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-879-5270

Rep. Donna Hutchinson - hutchinsond@arkleg.state.ar.us | 472-876-6011

Rep. Jerry Brown – brownj@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-238-3815

Rep. Charolette Wagner - wagnerc@arkleg.state.ar.us | 870-561-4600

Rep. Steve Breedlove – breedloves@arkleg.state.ar.us | 479-996-9712

Rep. Dan Greenberg - rep.greenberg@gmail.com | 501-588-4245

Rep. Tim Summers – summerst@arkleg.state.ar.us | 479-273-0773

Rep. Les Carnine - carninel@arkleg.state.ar.us | 501-682-7771

Rep. Mark Perry - mperry@alltel.net | 501-985-0124

Rep. Linda Tyler - tylerl@arkleg.state.ar.us | 501-329-8644

Rep. Robert Dale - redale70@yahoo.com | 479-331-3503

Rep. Monty Betts – bettsm@arkleg.state.ar.us | 501-268-9254

Rep. Jody Dickinson – 870-523-8222

 

HB 2144: An Act Amending the Prerequisites for Home Schooling

Sponsored By Representative David Cook of Williford (Sharp County)

 

Summary: This bill requires all home school parents to prove by August 15 of each year that their child took the most recent state-mandated home school test. This bill enables public school educators to prohibit students from transferring to a home school once the semester is underway.

 

I. This bill affects every Arkansas home school family. In addition to a home school notice of intent and waiver form, every home school parent would be required to provide the public school superintendent with proof by August 15 that their child took the most recently required home school test. Parents who want to begin home schooling at the beginning of the spring semester would be required to turn in a notice of intent, waiver form, and proof of testing by December 1st.

 

Concern: What kind of proof is required? Will parents have to submit test scores? What other “proof†would a parent have to demonstrate that their child took the test? What about students who are not required to take the state-mandated home school test? Under this law, home schooling in Kindergarten through third grade would be illegal since children in these grades are not required to take the state mandated home school test. Home schoolers are tested for the first time during the spring of their third grade year. These students have no proof of testing because they are not required to take the test. The State Board of Education currently requires home schoolers to test in grades 3 through 9. State law gives the State Board of Education the option of changing these grade levels at any time or eliminating testing altogether. Just a few years ago, the board required testing in only grades 5, 7, & 10. Under this law, if the State Board of Education eliminated all norm-referenced testing, home schoolers would have no proof of testing and not be able to comply with this law.

 

Concern: What about parents who forget to turn in their notice of intent, waiver, and proof of testing by August 15? Under this law, they could be forced to enroll their children in the public school for the entire semester. This law provides for no appeal process. Under current law, the longest they could be required to remain in public school would be 14 calendar days.

 

II. This bill applies to every public school student. Even after the semester is underway, current law allows public school students to transfer to a home school subject to a 14 day waiting period. Under current law, the local public school superintendent may waive this 14 day waiting period and allow parents to begin home schooling immediately. Current law allows parents of public school students to withdraw their child and begin home schooling at any time during the school year and for any reason. This law would empower public school educators to overrule the wishes of the child’s parents. They could force the child to remain in the public school even in cases of sexual harassment, bullying, threats, serious physical or emotional illness, or academic failure. This bill makes no provision for cases in which parents believe it is in the best interest of their child to withdraw them from school. This bill requires the parent to apply with the school principal, counselor, and one teacher. If this panel refuses to allow the child to leave the school, there is no appeal process. Their decision would be final.

 

Concern: Why should public school educators have more control over a child than the child’s parents? Families who are able to send their child to private school are free to leave the public school at any time with no questions asked. Why discriminate against parents who decide to enroll their child in a home school?

 

Concern: What about liability for public school educators who force a child to remain in their school against their will and against the will of the parents? What if a bullied, harassed, or threatened child is harmed while being forced to attend the school? What legal liabilities exist for the principal, counselor, and teacher who made the decision to force the child to remain in the school?

 

Conclusion: Arkansas has a good home school law. Neither the Department of Education nor the home school community has brought any significant legislation before the Arkansas Legislature in over 12 years. There is no need for a change.

 

Vote Against HB 2144: The David Cook Home School Bill

[sassenach]

bump

[elise1mds]

Not from Arkansas, but bump again - that's harsh!

[chaik76]

Not from Arkansas, but bump!!!!!

[Spy Car]

I read the bill, and while I might not support it, yours is not a fair-minded summary of the bills provisions.

 

There are withdrawal periods prior to each semester, and the oversight committees are in place to evaluate whether either the student or the parents are in crisis, whether there is a truancy, unexcused absences, or discipline problems, or if there are "dependency-neglect" actions against the family. These are the possible grounds for a denial of withdrawal.

 

You may not agree with it, but this oversight is in place to serve a social function and to protect children from potentially abusive situations.

 

Bill

[Aggie]

I read the bill, and while I might not support it, yours is not a fair-minded summary of the bills provisions.

 

There are withdrawal periods prior to each semester, and the oversight committees are in place to evaluate whether either the student or the parents are in crisis, whether there is a truancy, unexcused absences, or discipline problems, or if there are "dependency-neglect" actions against the family. These are the possible grounds for a denial of withdrawal.

 

You may not agree with it, but this oversight is in place to serve a social function and to protect children from potentially abusive situations.

 

Bill

 

If there is a potentially abusive situation, though, would it take a withdrawal from school for the authorities to recognize it? Surely there would be other signs of abuse, and therefor CPS intervention, before the parents withdraw their children, right? The grounds for denial of withdrawal are serious enough that just being in school isn't going to protect the child from the situation or the parents.

 

And if this "protection" is the *real* reason, how are the committees going to protect the thousands of students already being homeschooled? (I don't think I really want to know the answer to that question.)

 

Also...this bill intends to punish the entire homeschooling community in the hopes of catching the few negligent parents. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" wouldn't apply here, eh?

 

The way I interpret this bill is that a committee has more interest in and more control over a child than the parent does.

 

What will be next? It won't stop at just withdrawing from school. They'll want a committee to interview each homeschooling family to determine whether or not they are worthy of home educating. Whether or not they meet the lofty ideals of public education including healthy lunches, freedom from bullying, sub-par academics, fund raising, and maximum use of time.

[Nestof3]

You know Bill, I agree with what you're saying, but I do not like getting to a point in this country when governmental bodies "give" parents permission to homeschool. I much prefer parents choosing for their children and the public school just being one of the many options. In my eyes, public schools will always be a welfare program for people who do not send their children to private school or home educate them. Public school should never have become the benchmark or the one giving out permission.

 

It is also not the government's job to prevent abuse, it is their job to punish it. The gov't cannot prevent people from doing bad things. The rights of non-abusive parents should not be prohibited because there are abusive parents out there.

[Spy Car]

If there is a potentially abusive situation, though, would it take a withdrawal from school for the authorities to recognize it? Surely there would be other signs of abuse, and therefor CPS intervention, before the parents withdraw their children, right? The grounds for denial of withdrawal are serious enough that just being in school isn't going to protect the child from the situation or the parents.

 

The bill (according to my reading of it) requires as a condition of withdrawal that there be a previously reported abuse situation or a serious problem with truancy. So this bill applies to situation when child welfare is already involved in a domestic situation.

 

I'll grant that it is alway tricky to balance the rights of parents with the reasonable interests of the State in preventing child abuse, and I'm not sure this is the best legislation, but it's not the "cartoon version" provided by the OP, and it does attempt to address a serious problem.

 

And if this "protection" is the *real* reason, how are the committees going to protect the thousands of students already being homeschooled? (I don't think I really want to know the answer to that question.)

 

Since the law only applies to students who are going to be abruptly withdrawn mid-semester it would have no effect on home schoolers who plan their home school year in an orderly fashion. There many be many good causes to remove a child mid-semester, I understand this, and it is not necessary for anyone who has done so to feel offended. The bills provision allows for withdrawal after a review which has narrow terms for refusal.

 

That said, a mid-semester withdrawal could in some (not *all*) cases be a red flag, and this is especially true in cases where a family or student is already under investigation or probation by school or government authorities.

 

Also...this bill intends to punish the entire homeschooling community in the hopes of catching the few negligent parents. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" wouldn't apply here, eh?

 

I'm not sure "punishing" is the word I'd use. Anyone in the homeschooling community who filed to home school before either semester of school would have no problems, other than taking state tests. Those seeking to withdraw children mid-term would face a review that couldn't take more than two weeks and would involve a students teacher, councillor, and principle. These are not nameless bureaucrats, they are the school officials most involved and hopefully concerned with the child's welfare.

 

The way I interpret this bill is that a committee has more interest in and more control over a child than the parent does.

 

I don't think that is a fair characterization. I can see that a responsible parent might feel rubbed the wrong way by the provisions of this bill, frankly I might feel that way myself, but we are kidding ourselves if we think there aren't bad situations out there. Is this bill perfect? I dunno. Maybe not. But it's at least worth discussing it on its merits (or de-merits) and not only provide half the picture.

 

Bill

Edited March 10, 2009 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

Bill, teachers are mandatory reporters. If they suspect abuse then they have to report it regardless of schooling status. There is no reason to connect homeschooling and checking for abuse. They are separate issues.

 

I agree. But this bill doesn't link checking for abuse to homeschooling. It links previously reported abuse (or a students reported attendance/discipline problems) to mid-term withdrawal from school.

 

I'm not sure I like this bill, but let's assume a teacher becomes aware of abuse at home and reports it (as is their duty), and while the situation is being investigated the parents (unhappy with being reported) decide to pull their child out of school. Is that a satisfactory situation? Because this is the situation addressed in this bill.

 

Do we make withdrawal more of a process for ordinary parents who decide to homeschool mid-term because of bad situations because of the small minority who perpetrate abuse?

 

At the core my argument is with the idea that someone other than a parent has the right to approve or disapprove of a child's school placement, of any kind.

 

I get that. But at some point no rights are "absolute". As I said, I'm not sure I'd support this bill (and there is a good chance I would not), but in all sorts of ways "parental rights" are trumped by legitimate concerns about child welfare. Do we have to take great care in this area so government doesn't "over-step"? Sure! But does this mean society has no interest (or duty to intervene) when there is child abuse? Decidedly not.

 

So there is a balancing act. It's worthy of discussion, but this requires the whole picture being presented and not only half the argument.

 

Bill

Edited March 10, 2009 by Spy Car

[Dobela]

I agree. But this bill doesn't link checking for abuse to homeschooling. It links previously reported abuse (or a students reported attendance/discipline problems) to mid-term withdrawal from school.

 

I'm not sure I like this bill, but let's assume a teacher becomes aware of abuse at home and reports it (as is their duty), and while the situation is being investigated the parents (unhappy with being reported) decide to pull their child out of school. Is that a satisfactory situation? Because this is the situation addressed in this bill.

 

 

Bill, if a family has been reported to social services due to suspected abuse in Arkansas, removing the child from school and homeschooling will not close that case. A judge or the social worker can close the case. It doesn't matter who reported the abuse or where it was discovered. If the family decides to homeschool after being reported, they will still be under investigation.

 

In Arkansas now parents must give 14 days notice before homeschooling if they decide to do this after the school year has started. Some schools make the children stay that long, others will exempt the family from the entire 14 days once the intent to homeschool is filed.

 

Homeschoolers are not well liked in Arkansas because their absence from schools means less is earned by the schools in tax dollars. Many teachers, board members, and administrators would love nothing more than for homeschoooling to be completely outlawed (I am a former public schoool teacher so I know this well). This bill is so broad that any administrator can make this as subjective as they want - to the extent that no one could homeschool. How my children are schooled should be my decision - not the decision of someone else.

[Spy Car]

Bill, if a family has been reported to social services due to suspected abuse in Arkansas, removing the child from school and homeschooling will not close that case. A judge or the social worker can close the case. It doesn't matter who reported the abuse or where it was discovered. If the family decides to homeschool after being reported, they will still be under investigation.

 

Granted. The question is whether as policy it would be preferential for a student in a situation of reported abuse to remaining in school and having their case reviewed, or being withdrawn immediately.

 

In Arkansas now parents must give 14 days notice before homeschooling if they decide to do this after the school year has started. Some schools make the children stay that long, others will exempt the family from the entire 14 days once the intent to homeschool is filed.

 

So the bill doesn't change the 14 time-frame, it just prompts a committee to look at the child welfare aspect of the situation. This does not strike me as that "unreasonable."

 

Homeschoolers are not well liked in Arkansas because their absence from schools means less is earned by the schools in tax dollars. Many teachers, board members, and administrators would love nothing more than for homeschoooling to be completely outlawed (I am a former public schoool teacher so I know this well). This bill is so broad that any administrator can make this as subjective as they want - to the extent that no one could homeschool.

 

That's not what I get from reading the bill. There are some clearly defined criteria for denying a "withdrawal."

 

How my children are schooled should be my decision - not the decision of someone else.

 

Yes, but this right only extends until a parent proves themselves to be unfit or abusive, then "the people" have an interest in intervening on the behalf of a minor child. That's just common sense. The question is how you best balance rights and our social obligation to protect the welfare of children. This bill does serve a "public purpose". Is it the best mechanism? I don't know, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

Bill

[Dobela]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dobela

In Arkansas now parents must give 14 days notice before homeschooling if they decide to do this after the school year has started. Some schools make the children stay that long, others will exempt the family from the entire 14 days once the intent to homeschool is filed.

 

So the bill doesn't change the 14 time-frame, it just prompts a committee to look at the child welfare aspect of the situation. This does not strike me as that "unreasonable."

Actually, the new bill does change this. If the bill is passed, parents will only be able to bring a child to homeschool at semester breaks - in August and December. At this time they may remove their child at any time, as long as they give the 14 day notice.

 

I understand the idea of making schools a safe guard. But as a former public school teacher, I can tell you that isn't how it will work. They don't necessarily catch all the abuse now. If they only refuse to allow a family to homeschoool because they *think* a child is in danger, or might be, then they need to be reporting the family to the social services department whether or not the child remains in the school. Homeschooling has nothing to do with it. There are those school officials who believe that homeschooling in and of itself is abuse (I know this personally because my family member is one). If a parent is in that district, my family member would make certain no child was allowed to homeschool for any reason if given the opportunity.

 

I will also say, as a licensed foster parent, that most abuse/neglect cases I have seen were never discovered or reported by the schools. They were reported by the neighbor, a family member, the doctor, or someone else in the community. Besides, schools need to teach academics, not be the extra arm of social services.

[pqr]

 

 

"the people" have an interest in intervening on the behalf of a minor child. That's just common sense. The question is how you best balance rights and our social obligation to protect the welfare of children. This bill does serve a "public purpose". Is it the best mechanism? I don't know, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

Bill

 

 

So let me get this straight. In order to "protect" the children by use of a method that may or may not be accurate, by teachers who will act on a "suspicion" and in the face of reality which says that abuse cases are generally not discovered by teachers we will further violate a parent's rights. We will call this a "public purpose" and undoubtedly argue that "if it saves just one child...."

 

I am tired of this. I do not want to suborn my rights to some nebulous notion of the "public good" or any other such concept. We all know that such laws inevitably grow and become ever so much larger than initially proposed, there is such a thing as a slippery slope and this is simply another example of it.

 

Every time I see these arguments I am reminded of Pitt the Younger.

 

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.â€

 

Oh that today's politicians had such wisdom.

[Harriet Vane]

So let me get this straight. In order to "protect" the children by use of a method that may or may not be accurate, by teachers who will act on a "suspicion" and in the face of reality which says that abuse cases are generally not discovered by teachers we will further violate a parent's rights. We will call this a "public purpose" and undoubtedly argue that "if it saves just one child...."

:iagree:

I am tired of this. I do not want to suborn my rights to some nebulous notion of the "public good" or any other such concept. We all know that such laws inevitably grow and become ever so much larger than initially proposed, there is such a thing as a slippery slope and this is simply another example of it.

 

Every time I see these arguments I am reminded of Pitt the Younger.

 

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.â€

 

Oh that today's politicians had such wisdom.

 

:iagree: Well said. Love the quote.

[Spy Car]

Actually, the new bill does change this. If the bill is passed, parents will only be able to bring a child to homeschool at semester breaks - in August and December. At this time they may remove their child at any time, as long as they give the 14 day notice.

 

The link is now broken, but I read the bill. It still allows a parent to withdraw their child mid-term, but under the new conditions a committee of teachers, councillors and school administrators (principle or vice-principle) would have to review the case during the 14 day period to see is this is a neglect or abuse situation, and that only reason for denial of withdrawal.

 

The waiting period is still 14 days.

 

I understand the idea of making schools a safe guard. But as a former public school teacher, I can tell you that isn't how it will work. They don't necessarily catch all the abuse now. If they only refuse to allow a family to homeschoool because they *think* a child is in danger, or might be, then they need to be reporting the family to the social services department whether or not the child remains in the school.

 

No disagreement here.

 

There are those school officials who believe that homeschooling in and of itself is abuse (I know this personally because my family member is one). If a parent is in that district, my family member would make certain no child was allowed to homeschool for any reason if given the opportunity.

 

If authorities are going to wage war on home schooling via legislation aimed at protecting children then that is abuse of the system and should be punished civilly and criminally. School officials who misuse their "powers" should be relieved of their positions.

 

I will also say, as a licensed foster parent, that most abuse/neglect cases I have seen were never discovered or reported by the schools. They were reported by the neighbor, a family member, the doctor, or someone else in the community. Besides, schools need to teach academics, not be the extra arm of social services.

 

The issue is not whether or not schools find all cases of abuse (or not) the issue is if the school is aware of abuse because it has been reported to social service agencies, is there a public purpose to be served in not allowing a mid-term withdrawal of a student from a public school.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill, if they are unfit and abusive they will already be in the process of having the children removed. Homeschooling has nothing to do with it. I understand where you are going with this but you are wrong. The two things have no reason whatever to be linked. If there is suspected abuse, it is reported and found true the parents already lose the right to make decisions regarding their child. This bill adds regulation for the sake of regulation.

 

You may correct that this legislation is unnecessary. There may (or may not) be adequate protection for children in Arkansas, I simply don't know. I'm not a proponent of this bill, I just see that it does attempt to address a worthy public purpose, but simply don't know if it's the best (or even a necessarily) role for the school system to take on. I do know it is more "complicated" that originally presented.

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

If there has been abuse or neglect, there is already a government agency in charge of it--CPS. School personnel are not trained or otherwise equipped to decide whether there is neglect or abuse (only whether there is a possibility and then report to CPS), or whether a change in schooling status will make neglect or abuse more likely. If there has been a history of CPS problems, then it is the responsibility of CPS to monitor the case for as long as necessary. Often, this is 6 months, which is longer than a semester,anyway.

 

What I can imagine happening is that in cases where there is a conflict between parent and school system, whether it's about the school adequately addressing bullying, adequately meeting the child's educational needs, etc. is that the 2 week period will create an opportunity for at least an uncomfortable situation for the child. It is not beyond imaginination that there could be subtle pressure or repercussions. It could also be the opportunity for the school to "discover" that they believe there are neglect/abuse issues as retaliation if there is a conflict, or even if the educators simply feel that they are being insulted by the parent pulling a child out, or if the educators don't believe in homeschooling anyway.

 

In short, it's not needed (there is already a mechanism to deal with suspected abuse/neglect) and gives an arm of the gov't power that it doesn't need but could abuse.

[Spy Car]

So let me get this straight. In order to "protect" the children by use of a method that may or may not be accurate, by teachers who will act on a "suspicion" and in the face of reality which says that abuse cases are generally not discovered by teachers we will further violate a parent's rights. We will call this a "public purpose" and undoubtedly argue that "if it saves just one child....

 

You are simply misstating the facts. The school can act when there are unexcused absences, or when there are reposted cases of abuse. The competence of a school in "discovering" cases of abuse is a red-herring. The school only acts on reported cases of abuse. Do innocent parents ever get accused of abuse? Sure. That's why investigations need to take place in a reasonable fashion, and with due-process. But you can't ignore reports of abuse under some absolute doctrine of "parental rights" in a civilized society.

 

And I'm not sure what you getting at with the phrase "further violate" a parents rights. What "further"? What are you implying?

 

]I am tired of this. I do not want to suborn my rights to some nebulous notion of the "public good" or any other such concept. We all know that such laws inevitably grow and become ever so much larger than initially proposed, there is such a thing as a slippery slope and this is simply another example of it.

 

I'm unimpressed by "slippery slope" arguments. There is always a balancing of rights and duties in any society, reasonable laws to protect minor children have a public purpose, your fatigue not withstanding. This may (or may not) be the best legislation, I'd need to know a lot more before I supported this kind of expansion of a schools powers, but deciding this based on an absolutist ideology does not strike me as responsible.

 

What would you do in cases where there is demonstrable evidence of parental abuse? Nothing?

 

Bill

Edited March 10, 2009 by Moderator
Snark

[FO4UR]

You know Bill, I agree with what you're saying, but I do not like getting to a point in this country when governmental bodies "give" parents permission to homeschool. I much prefer parents choosing for their children and the public school just being one of the many options. In my eyes, public schools will always be a welfare program for people who do not send their children to private school or home educate them. Public school should never have become the benchmark or the one giving out permission.

 

It is also not the government's job to prevent abuse, it is their job to punish it. The gov't cannot prevent people from doing bad things. The rights of non-abusive parents should not be prohibited because there are abusive parents out there.

 

 

I agree.

[Hoggirl]

and it will link you to their suggested course of action. Whether or not one agrees with HSLDA's position there is additional info. at their site. At the bottom are additional links for the bill history and the actual text of the bill itself if anyone wants to read it.

[Spy Car]

If there has been abuse or neglect, there is already a government agency in charge of it--CPS. School personnel are not trained or otherwise equipped to decide whether there is neglect or abuse (only whether there is a possibility and then report to CPS), or whether a change in schooling status will make neglect or abuse more likely.

 

But this is the limit of the school's authority. A committee is to ascertain only if a mid-term withdrawal is likely to exacerbate a neglect or abuse situation. It they feel it would they can deny a mid-term withdrawal. That's it.

 

What I can imagine happening is that in cases where there is a conflict between parent and school system, whether it's about the school adequately addressing bullying, adequately meeting the child's educational needs, etc. is that the 2 week period will create an opportunity for at least an uncomfortable situation for the child. It is not beyond imaginination that there could be subtle pressure or repercussions.

 

I see this a a potential problem as well. From what I understand this is still a problem under current law in Arkansas, as there is currently a 14 waiting period, and nothing changes on this front.

 

It could also be the opportunity for the school to "discover" that they believe there are neglect/abuse issues as retaliation if there is a conflict, or even if the educators simply feel that they are being insulted by the parent pulling a child out, or if the educators don't believe in homeschooling anyway.

 

As I said earlier such actions would be criminal and should be prosecuted if they occur.

 

In short, it's not needed (there is already a mechanism to deal with suspected abuse/neglect) and gives an arm of the gov't power that it doesn't need but could abuse.

 

You may be correct. As I've explained from the beginning I'm not sure I'd support such legislation. It's just a more complex issue than first presented.

 

Bill

[christielee7278]

I am from AR so this concerns me.

 

I have two main concerns about this bill. The quotes are from ArkansasHomeschool.org blog.

 

Under this law, home schooling in Kindergarten through third grade would be illegal since children in these grades are not required to take the state mandated home school test.

 

I have THREE children who are not even school age yet. This bill has the potential of disallowing me the right to teach them at home.

 

Why should public school educators have more control over a child than the child’s parents? Families who are able to send their child to private school are free to leave the public school at any time with no questions asked.

 

This law would empower public school educators to overrule the wishes of the child’s parents. This bill requires the parent to apply with the school principal, counselor, and one teacher. If this panel refuses to allow the child to leave the school, there is no appeal process. Their decision would be final.

 

The school district we live in is very poor. Their test scores are low. They do not have the means (or desire...it is the #1 reason we pulled him out) to help my adhd/odd child who, btw, is THRIVING now. Yet, this school will have the power to deny a family who wants to homeschool without having to give a reason!

 

I understand wanting to protect abused children, but I don't think this is the way. I worked for years in a center that helped abused children and their mothers. In all the time I was there, I saw not one homeschooler come into the shelter. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this bill isn't the answer to that problem.

[Spy Car]

I understand wanting to protect abused children, but I don't think this is the way. I worked for years in a center that helped abused children and their mothers. In all the time I was there, I saw not one homeschooler come into the shelter. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this bill isn't the answer to that problem.

 

But this aspect of the bill doesn't aim at people who are home schooling, it applies to families who have children enrolled in the public schools who are seeking to remove them mid-term and either the family has been previously reported for abuse/neglect or there are serious problems with the student's attendance and/or discipline.

 

The bill does not suggest or imply home-schoolers are likely child abusers, rater it looks at cases where public school parents have been reported suspects of abuse or neglect, and asks if allowing these parent to withdraw their children from school mid-term is a good idea, or a bad one.

 

Bill

[christielee7278]

No, you're right. This bill won't affect my oldest son's education since he is already homeschooling and above the 2nd grade.

 

This bill is aimed at parents who want to withdraw their children from ps midterm because of good, valid reasons. The *panel* would be allowed to decide however they wish without restrictions or explanations. In a little town like mine, where the school is already consolidated with another because of funding problems, these teachers and principals do not like losing students. They are rude and, in some cases, down right hateful to parents who drop off their paperwork every August 15th. This panel wouldn't have to show cause for not allowing a child to be homeschooled. They will have the ability to just say no. End of story.

 

However, parents CAN file proper paperwork to have their children sent to a different district or put their children in a private school without any consent from a panel. Homeschool families in AR just want the same consideration.

 

Trust me, the bottom line in some of these small AR schools isn't the best interest of their students.

[PineFarmMom]

Wow. I'll be praying for Arkansas!! That's not right.

[Spy Car]

The *panel* would be allowed to decide however they wish without restrictions or explanations.

 

I read the bill. It allows denial on a very limited set of conditions including abuse/neglect, and serious truancy and discipline issues. It doesn't allow decisions made on a whim, or without reasons.

 

Reasonable people can differ if this bill is a good idea (or not) and I'm not convinced that it is, but let's at least not misrepresent the proposed legislation.

 

In a little town like mine, where the school is already consolidated with another because of funding problems, these teachers and principals do not like losing students. They are rude and, in some cases, down right hateful to parents who drop off their paperwork every August 15th. This panel wouldn't have to show cause for not allowing a child to be homeschooled. They will have the ability to just say no. End of story.

 

Let's assume you are right. It's the "end of the story" only until the beginning of the next semester, when any parent can file paper work to home school.

 

However, parents CAN file proper paperwork to have their children sent to a different district or put their children in a private school without any consent from a panel. Homeschool families in AR just want the same consideration.

 

The circumstances are different. In one case a student is moving from one school environment to another. In the other case, a student from a home where abuse has been reported to authorities is potentially being removed to that same home environment. Big difference.

 

And the school committee has no grounds to deny withdrawal if there are no "problems".

 

Trust me, the bottom line in some of these small AR schools isn't the best interest of their students.

 

I don't doubt it.

 

Bill

[christielee7278]

It allows denial on a very limited set of conditions including abuse/neglect, and serious truancy and discipline issues. It doesn't allow decisions made on a whim, or without reasons.

 

 

 

(ii) The committee shall not consider whether to

17 approve or disapprove an application if:

18 (a) A delinquency, family in need of services,

19 or dependency-neglect action has been commenced concerning the child within

20 three (3) months of the date of the application;

21 (b) The child is currently under disciplinary

22 action for violation of any written school policy, including without

23 limitation excessive unexcused absences; or

24 © The child is truant at the time of the

25 application.

26 (iii) The committee shall consider information

27 provided by the parent of the child in making its determination.

28 (D) The Department of Education shall develop a form to be

 

 

29 used for applications under this subdivision (a)(2).

 

I read this to mean the committee won't need to decide one way or another on the issue because this already is part of AR law. These aren't the reasons for disapproving. There are no reasons stated. Already parents cannot pull their children out of ps if any of the above apply.

 

In one case a student is moving from one school environment to another.

 

Is the homeschool not a school environment? There are several families who live in our school district, but choose to send their children to a neighboring district for a better education.

 

And the school committee has no grounds to deny withdrawal if there are no "problems".

 

Where does it state this in the bill?

 

Let's assume you are right. It's the "end of the story" only until the beginning of the next semester, when any parent can file paper work to home school.

 

 

Yes. Only until the beginning of the next semester. For a child like my oldest, "only until" would mean nothing. He was treated poorly by his teacher and principal because of his disabilities. The only adult *friend* he had in the school was the counselor who was too afraid to step on the principal's toes to protect him. He spent most of his days in her office doing his schoolwork on his own because his teacher couldn't be bothered. He was labeled a "bad kid" and their advice to me was to "try spanking." Right before we took him out, the principal and teacher had agreed that any time she had a problem with him, it would result in "licks" from the principal...no questions asked. And if I refused to agree with the plan, he would be suspended for three days.....for every instance. All because he has ADHD/ODD and couldn't be medicated due to severe reactions to the medications.

 

He cannot be the only child with ADHD/ODD in a school system that refuses to help or at least understand. What if the panel decided a child might be at risk because of "behavioral problems"? My son's teacher thought I was being a bad parent because she didn't believe I was disciplining him properly. Otherwise, in her opinion, she wouldn't have the problems she had with him.

 

only until the beginning of the next semester

could be the worse case scenerio for some kids.

 

This bill just doesn't seem to have the children's best interest at heart.

[Spy Car]

I read this to mean the committee won't need to decide one way or another on the issue because this already is part of AR law. These aren't the reasons for disapproving. There are no reasons stated. Already parents cannot pull their children out of ps if any of the above apply.

 

I've lost the link. However, after re-reading the section you posted and seeing the language is not as clear as I though it was (assuming it is correctly cited), and that the "reasons" do appear to be cause for immediate denial, but are not exclusive conditions for denial, I've come around to thinking this bill is too broad as written, and too open to abuse.

 

I wasn't crazy about the bill even as I understood it (or mis-understood it) but without clear cut reasons you have won me over.

 

How's that? :D

 

Bill

[christielee7278]

How's that? :D

 

 

Cool beans!! :lol:

 

Here is the link, btw.