HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

It's not just us

2005-12-19T09:07:00.000-08:00

In addition to Ms. McCarthy's opinions (see also the post below this one), it seems that she's not alone in it, and she's not the first to have that thought:

-- Bill Moyers Fights Back

"An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical," Moyers said. "And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too."

An open letter to HSLDA's membership:

2005-12-18T10:15:00.000-08:00

I have always felt that HSLDA has a right to exist, and if that's what you want to spend your money on, I'm happy you have the financial means to do so. However, recent events have caused me to re-think my position. I was wrong to think that because I was not a member HSLDA did not affect me.

When HSLDA re-introduced their HoNDA legislation in the US House and Senate, they added a section related to the recruitment and enlistment of homeschool graduates to it. When it appeared HoNDA was stalled in committee they requested Senator Rick Santorum of PA to add a section that would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to identify for the purposes of recruitment and enlistment homeschool graduates to The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Scott Somerville of HSLDA recently wrote, IF we fail in our effort to get section 522 signed into law, we'll try something else, but we won't give up. It's been seven years already; it may be seven more years before we feel like homeschool grads have a level path to military service.

There is a lot to think about in those two arrogant sentences. HSLDA will not give up trying to push federal legislation into law that affects MY child. That's personal. That has nothing to do with a Christian's right to homeschool their children, something I would be first in line to protect. It's an attempt to target my child for recruitment and enlistment in the United States Armed Forces by a group of self-appointed, fundamentalist Christians pursuing an agenda they have determined to be part of their personal religion. Of course, they have a right, as individual Americans and as a lobbying organization, to do so. But I also have a right - as well as a responsibility - to protect my child from overly zealous political actions. That is the reason we have ELECTED representation, so the people can decide whether they want their children targeted by military recruiters or not. In a representative government, it's not the purview of a handful of zealots to make any decision for my family.

Section 522 does not delineate between 'homeschool students' and 'homeschool students whose parents are members of HSLDA.' This is personal and oversteps the bounds of representing a paid membership by an advocacy organization. It will affect every homeschool student/family in America, HSLDA member or not.

HSLDA could not operate without the dues of its membership. It is what pays the salaries, builds the buildings, and -- yes -- funds the lobbying. Membership dues are funding the effort to identify for purposes of recruitment and enlistment MY child. Membership dues are funding the proposal which will give the United States Secretary of Defense the authorization to define what a homeschool graduate is. The members of HSLDA are ultimately responsible for the actions HSLDA and its paid agents take.

I cannot influence HSLDA decisions because I am not a member, so I have to plead my case to the members. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable to respectfully request HSLDA's members accept responsibility for the actions of their paid representatives and use their checkbooks to take back the power they have ceded to HSLDA. YOU have the power. I know many of you, and I know you are good, responsible parents who will do the right thing. Thank you.

Mary McCarthy

The Marines, too?

2005-12-12T07:51:00.000-08:00

The Home Education Magazine News blog reports that HSLDA made it into a Marine Corps manual as well as in a Navy manual (see below) and an Army URL.

--The Home School Legal Defense Association has provided guidance to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, (OASD) that at a minimum the student should be home schooled for at least one (1) full school year.

What is going on?

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-12-07T13:44:00.000-08:00

ATTENTION Homeschool parents!

The United States Navy has ALREADY determined what a homeschool graduate is and refers their recruiters to the HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION (HSLDA) for guidance.

Please read this section from:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/navrecruit.pdf

pages 83 and 84:

g. Home School Diploma. Conference Report (Section 571) of the FY 99 National Defense Authorization Act established a five-year pilot program to permit home school diploma recipients TIER 1 high school diploma graduate status. A home school is a 12-year curriculum based, instruction oriented academic experience, in the home, involving regular parental or guardian instruction and education. Attendance should be for at least an average of 4.5 hours daily and at least 170 days per academic/grade year. For applicable state laws governing home school see http://www.hslda.org/central/states/xx/laws.html. (emphasis added)
The xx is the state abbreviation.

1. Home schooled applicants must provide a diploma and transcript for review by the NRD ESS. The ESS will determine whether the applicant’s home schooling meets State requirements for home school secondary graduation. In States that have no prescribed standards, the applicants' education credentials and supporting documents must meet the State of residence standards. NRD CO's are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements for home school secondary education. The ESS must contact the parent or guardian to verify that the applicant was home schooled and for how long, and annotate the findings on NAVCRUIT Form 1133/51.

2. Require that all home school applicants submit a home school secondary diploma and transcript containing the following information:
(a) Student's name
(b) Home address
(c) Date of birth
(d) SSN
(e) Date of enrollment in home school
(f) Date of graduation or projected graduation date if still enrolled
(g) Courses transferred from other educational institutions (if applicable)
(h) Courses attempted/completed with start and completion dates of each course
during each home school grade
(i) Credits earned from Home school courses
(j) Signature of parent or guardian, date, and home phone number

3. A letter from the applicant's parent or guardian describing in detail the education process is acceptable documentation for enlistment if it includes the same information as would be typically found on an official transcript. Code these applicants as "12H" on NAVCRUIT Form 1133/51 and DD Form 1966.

4. Home school applicants have completed the required number of credits, and would be considered in a "Senior" status by the local district guidelines may be NAVY RECRUITING MANUAL-ENLISTED COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F Effective Date: 08/15/02
CH-14 2-46 placed into DEP using the code "11M" provided they will graduate within 365
days from DEP-in.

5. Applicants claiming status as home school graduates must have completed a minimum of one home school academic year of education (12th) grade to qualify for home school (education code 12H) status.

6. Home school applicants age 17-19 at the time of home schooling, who meet State standards for graduation may be enlisted by the NRD unless correspondence school, independent study or distance learning was part of the home school education program. If the Home School program included any correspondence school, independent study or distance learning it cannot be classified as Tier I.

7. Those applicants who received home school diplomas at age 20 or older are required to submit education documents (public, private, correspondence, GED, home school, achievements test results, etc.) to CNRC (N35D) for review and approval or disapproval.

8. In some cases, educational credentials issued by a correspondence school, private tutor, distance learning or independent study program may be considered as home schooling when incorporated as a legitimate part of the curriculum used by the parent(s) or guardians(s). To be applicable, the curriculum must be concentrated on the interaction between the student and the parent/guardian. Such applicants' educational credentials will be reviewed by CNRC (N35D) for determination of eligibility. In cases in which the parent(s) or guardian(s) had little or no
involvement in the educational program, applicants will be coded as Tier II (education code - "__7).

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-12-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

LET ‘EM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT
Section 522- Recruitment and Enlistment of Home Schooled Students
DAY!

If you want to let your elected representatives know how you feel about the federal government identifying your child for the purposes of Recruitment and Enlistment in the Armed Forces, today, Monday December 5th is your day!

First, familiarize yourself with Section 522 (below). The amendment number is the same in both the House version – HR. 1815, and the Senate Version - S. 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. A good suggestion is to make up a short paragraph about your position on this legislation before you call. If you need to learn more about this proposed legislation you may visit http://hr3753.blogspot.com/

Senator John Warner (R-VA) introduced the amendment into the Senate version on behalf of Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). They should both be telephoned:

Senator Warner - 202-224-2023

You can also write Senator Warner at
225 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510;
or email the Senator: http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Senator Rick Santorum - 202-224-6324

You can also write Senator Santorum
at 511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510;
or email the Senator: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactForm&CFID=44135344&CFTOKEN=56632106

It is also advised to call your own Senators and Congressman.

To locate your Senators visit http://www.senate.gov/. Enter your State and it will take you to the names and contact information for your two Senators.

To locate your Congressperson visit http://house.gov and enter your zip code. Click on your Congresspersons name and it will take you directly to their website where the contact information is.

Indiana voters might want to also make a special note to Congressman Mark Souder because it appears from his remarks in the Congressional Record last May he is a staunch supporter of this proposal.

Mark Sounder, Indiana Third
U.S. House of Representatives
2231 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4436
Fax: (202) 225-3479
Email: souder@mail.house.gov

Of course faxing is acceptable, too!

Section 522:

RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF HOME SCHOOLED STUDENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES

(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment-
(1) POLICY REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a policy on the recruitment and enlistment of home schooled students in the Armed Forces.
(2) UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE ARMED FORCES- The Secretary shall ensure that the policy prescribed under paragraph (1) applies, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the Armed Forces.
(b) Elements- The policy under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of a graduate of home schooling for purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the Armed Forces that is in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c).
(2) Provision for the treatment of graduates of home schooling with no practical limit with regard to enlistment eligibility.
(3) An exemption of graduates of home schooling from the requirement for a secondary school diploma or an equivalent (GED) as a precondition for enlistment in the Armed Forces.
(c) Home School Graduates- In prescribing the policy, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a single set of criteria to be utilized by the Armed Forces in determining whether an individual is a graduate of home schooling. The Secretary concerned shall ensure compliance with education credential coding requirements.
(d) Secretary Concerned Defined- In this section, the term `Secretary concerned' has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code.

Removing Section 522 from the National Defense Authorization Act

2005-12-01T14:00:00.000-08:00

In addition to calling or emailing your Congressional legislators (letters are delayed because of searches), you can also express your opinion by signing a petition.

Citizens Against HR 1815 (Section #522) and Other Federal Legislation of Home Schooling

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-11-28T10:27:00.000-08:00

********************ALERT*****************

THIS BILL HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO IN THE SENATE!

H. R. 1815, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 has already been agreed to by the Senate. To read the entire bill for yourself go to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/ (then type into the box "HR 1815" and select the last (fifth and latest version) of HR 1815. The four earlier versions do not contain this important section related to the recruitment and enlistment of homeschooled students.

Hidden deep inside this 739-page bill is section 522:

RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF HOME SCHOOLED STUDENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES

(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment-
(1) POLICY REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a policy on the recruitment and enlistment of home schooled students in the Armed Forces.
(2) UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE ARMED FORCES- The Secretary shall ensure that the policy prescribed under paragraph (1) applies, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the Armed Forces.
(b) Elements- The policy under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of a graduate of home schooling for purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the Armed Forces that is in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c).
(2) Provision for the treatment of graduates of home schooling with no practical limit with regard to enlistment eligibility.
(3) An exemption of graduates of home schooling from the requirement for a secondary school diploma or an equivalent (GED) as a precondition for enlistment in the Armed Forces.
(c) Home School Graduates- In prescribing the policy, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a single set of criteria to be utilized by the Armed Forces in determining whether an individual is a graduate of home schooling. The Secretary concerned shall ensure compliance with education credential coding requirements.
(d) Secretary Concerned Defined- In this section, the term `Secretary concerned' has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code.

---end---

NOTE: There are no guidelines as to what kind of policy the Secretary [of Defense] will create. This leaves the door open to whatever the military creates with assistance from anyone. It will not be voted on by your representatives, but a subjective defining of "homeschooled graduate." You will have no say in what policy the DOD creates with regard to recruiting and enlisting homeschooled students.

NOTE: H.R. 1815 leaves it up to the Secretary of Defense to determine "a single set of criteria to be utilized by the Armed Forces in determining whether an individual is a graduate of home schooling." Do you want the Department of Defense defining what a homeschool GRADUATE is? They could require almost any criteria as a definition.

NOTE: HOW will the DOD "identify" home school graduates [section (b) (1)]? By registration? With who? Is this the law that will require a national registry of homeschooled students? Will homeschoolers be 'identified' by the federal government collecting state lists of registered homeschoolers? There appears to be nothing to prohibit a national registration of homeschooled students in HR 1815, indeed, it seems to call for it. Will it be necessary for homeschooled students to register with the DOD as young people now register with the Selective Service? Or some other appointed agency or organization affiliated with the DOD?

Will this action lead to organizations becoming - by law - the official accrediting agencies of homeschoolers? Will there be a federal registrar of homeschooled students?

If you believe this is just an 'end-run' around the opposition to H.R. 3753 and S. 1619, [the Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act] then contact your U. S. Representatives NOW and let them know you oppose section 522 of H.R. 1815, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2006. Otherwise Section 522 will slip through hidden in this huge bill when Congress approves the Defense Authorization for fiscal year 2006.

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-11-16T18:40:00.000-08:00

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

and it's picked up a few new cosponsors of late:

COSPONSORS(71), BY DATE [order is left to right]:
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 9/13/2005 Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 9/13/2005 Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 9/13/2005 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris [IN-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 9/13/2005 Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 9/13/2005
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 9/13/2005 Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 9/13/2005 Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] - 9/13/2005 Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/13/2005 Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 9/13/2005 Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 9/13/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 9/13/2005 Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 9/13/2005 Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 9/13/2005 Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 9/13/2005 Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 9/13/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 9/13/2005 Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 9/13/2005 Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 9/13/2005 Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 9/13/2005 Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 9/13/2005 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/13/2005 Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 9/14/2005
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 9/14/2005 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 9/14/2005 Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 9/14/2005
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 9/14/2005 Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] - 9/22/2005
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 9/22/2005 Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 9/22/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/22/2005 Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 10/25/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 10/25/2005 Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 10/28/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 10/28/2005 Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 10/28/2005
Rep Pombo, Richard W. [CA-11] - 10/28/2005 Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 11/3/2005
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 11/9/2005

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-11-16T18:36:00.000-08:00

Update on H.R. 3753 as it continues to move through Congress:

ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
9/13/2005:
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
9/13/2005:
Referred to House Education and the Workforce
10/12/2005:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
10/12/2005:
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
10/12/2005:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
9/13/2005:
Referred to House Ways and Means
9/13/2005:
Referred to House Armed Services
9/20/2005:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Follow The Law-No Clarification Needed

2005-11-06T10:35:00.000-08:00

It's noted HERE that there is no need for HSLDA's desire for clarification with federal legislation.
This particular post is regarding Section 4 of HR 3753/S 1691. Here's an excerpt focusing on a comment from Chris Klicka (HSLDA):

Interesting is that HSLDA said No Problem as well, back in January, 2003:

We are thankful for the revisions in the Handbook and the new "Dear Colleague" letter. We believe that this will clear the air and enable homeschoolers to easily gain admission to colleges based on the merit of their excellent academic programs and will also enable homeschoolers to freely obtain student financial assistance without any further unnecessary and illegal barriers.

And if it's illegal, what's the deal with fussing it up with more legal verbiage and "clarifications"? Just follow the law. Let's get rid of this invasive bill! HSLDA is demanding more government intervention via their legislation; particularly Section 10 along with HSLDA's financial gain (as laid out in part 5 above). This article from Washington University (St. Louis) about homeschoolers in college has a great quote from a homeschooler: Sharp feels that her application process did not differ much from that of her fellow college students.

"College applications were the same for me as for everyone else-a pain!" exclaimed Sharp.

Homeschoolers do NOT need special privileges. We stand on our own without special status.

Tier I Status for military enlistment

2005-10-24T10:34:00.000-07:00

This entry is in reply to a post in the Comments section below by Mr. Somerville of HSLDA. I am replying to this one personally because of the complete misunderstanding about objections to Section 10 of HR 3753/ S 1691.

Mr. Somerville: HSLDA has been working to get homeschoolers admitted into the military as "Tier I recruits" for at least seven years. This has been an enormously difficult enterprise, which has required thousands of hours of legal effort and dozens of face-to-face meetings with military policy makers.

Without trying to be sarcastic, because that's not how I'm writing, that is HSLDA's problem, not ours. You, the personnel of HSLDA, are going about the solution of a result of a conscious choice made by families from a bureaucratic entitlement standpoint rather than from the position of individual responsibility.

The guidelines in place for military recruitment that the people at HSLDA see as discriminatory are not aimed at homeschoolers. Those guidelines were in place before homeschooling became an issue for potential recruits and are there for the good of the service, which is the bottom line concerning all things military. Premature separations (discharges) are often made for the good of the service.

If people, usually parents in this case, make a decision of their own free will, they are responsible for the consequences of that decision. It is unfortunate that the implications of homeschooling regarding a military enlistment did not arise for some families until after it was too late to do anything about the schooling, but that is the nature of being a pioneer. You have difficulties, you work to overcome them. For those families the 15 semester hours of college are a do-able, and personally enriching, solution. We all have to make sacrifices to realize our dreams.

My opinion of gaining enlistment for homeschoolers is to give the families and kids the tools they need to acquire Tier I status, not to have the bureaucracy deign to include them. What the bureaucracy gives, the bureaucracy can take away. What you gain for yourself is yours.

Mr. Somerville: While HSLDA has worked and worked at this task, HSLDA's critics have suggested that homeschoolers should simply accept "Tier II" status or, if they really want to join the military, should go off and get 15 college credits so they can be accepted as Tier I.

HSLDA's critics?

This isn't about HSLDA, nor about criticising that organization. The criticism is leveled at what the organization is trying to do. Those are two separate things.

Since I'm the one who made the statement on the HSWatch list that the 15 hours of college credit would be a satisfactory workaround, I'll take this as me being the critic of HSLDA. And that ain't it. Neither do I counsel 'accepting' Tier II status.

My point is: I want the kids who join to be the best they can be.

Get it? I want what is best for the kids, and what is best for the military services, and for the people who will be depending on these recruits to be able to do what needs to be done.

These kids may be going off to face imminent danger, and I want them to have the best training they can possibly receive. I don't want them distracted by their background any more than is humanly possible during their training.

Now, by either attending a year of high school, or by acquiring the college credit hours (which some homeschooled kids do before they finish their homeschooling) the kids are better prepared. I want them to succeed on their own merits.

By accepting a Tier I status for a background whose preparation isn't optimal for military success, some of these kids are being sold a bill of goods, the results of which could follow them for the rest of their lives. An other-than-honorable discharge is permanent, it can dog someone's heels, consciously or subconsciously, and it is something about which a person will be reminded at each and every patriotic ceremony from now on. Upon seeing an American flag at Independence Day celebrations, I don't want adults-who-were-homeschooled to think, "I couldn't cut the military."

PDF-page 50 of CNA survey results: In general, results of other performance measures, such as initial paygrade, reason for separation, waiver status, type of discharge, and eligibility to reenlist, are consistent with the attrition findings. By most measures, both homeschooled and ChalleNGe recruits fail to match the performance of traditional high school graduates.

(I am not pleased at having to scour this document for citations of less-than-wonderful results concerning homeschooled kids. And no, to forestall objections about the survey document, the reason that the Navy misclassified some dropouts as homeschoolers doesn't hold up, because the survey team took them into consideration. Also, the Air Force misclassified recruits with Associate's degrees as homeschooled, which should have skewed the results in the opposite direction.)

CNA Survey, PDF page 44: During this period, the Navy’s recruiting policy on homeschooled enlistees was not well articulated, and many Navy recruits officially classified as homeschooled during FY99 actually held no credential. It appears that this problem was most severe between March and July 1999. When we exclude all Navy homeschooled recruits during this time period, the proportion of homeschoolers looks somewhat different (see figure 8). 23 Even with this exclusion, however, it appears that the recruitment of homeschoolers may have peaked in the Services by 2001.

CNA Survey, PDF-page 49: (Homeschooled recruits in the Air Force exhibit very low attrition rates when we measure attrition based on official educational credential, but we demonstrate that this is due to the tendency of the Air Force to classify recruits with Associate’s degrees as homeschooled.) [parentheses in original]

The Air Force's results underscores that the college experience improves the quality of service given, and experienced by, the recruits.

But back to involuntary separations, there is the process of those separations. Leaving the service before a term of enlistment is completed is not accomplished by a sergeant saying, "Gee whiz, I wish it could have worked out better for you," and then giving a hearty handshake and a slap on the back as the young person packs his or her suitcase. Leaving the service before a term of enlistment is completed is usually accompanied by some large event, whether physical so that the servicemember is medically retired, or perhaps psychological, so that the servicemember is counseled first by the immediate superior, and then by increasingly more distant people on up the chain, until there is no resolution other than discharge. The servicemember loses, the people who work with the servicemember lose, and a replacement has to be found.

And as for finding the replacements, they have to be groomed from scratch -- again. In the meantime, someone who has already done his or her bit, has to step in to fill the hole. There isn't a situation where the need goes unfilled for long, someone invariably is detailed to compensate for the loss. I would like to avoid that as much as possible.

Many homeschooled kids do succeed as enlisted members* of the military services, and three-serious-cheers for them. They must be of strong character, and great discipline, to be able make the adjustment from a family circumstance to a strongly bureaucratic circumstance. I was a weenie and cried for the first week of basic training, so I know how abrupt the transition is.

The numbers in the CNA survey, though, do not reflect that strength for many homeschool enlistees. And those are the kids who concern me. The kids of strong character and great discipline are going to make it, regardless of the barriers in their paths, but the others need strengthening first. It's only a kindness.

[* Tier I status applies to enlisting, not to commissioning as an officer. Officers must have a college degree, which erases any consideration of homeschooling from the discussion of who is or is not qualified.]

Mr. Somerville: I'm not sure I understand the criticism this time around. Are you objecting to our single-minded determination to open the doors for homeschool graduates? Do you think that HSLDA is too "gung-ho" about all this? Do you think HSLDA is claiming too much credit for the results we have achieved to date? Do you feel like the results so far aren't worth making a big deal about?

IT'S NOT ABOUT HSLDA. (yes, that was shouting)

Mr. Somerville: HSLDA is committed to making sure that our members are able to join the military, if they so choose.

That's not the way it works. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. People are disqualified all the time for differences in height, weight, physical problems about which they may not have known, or maybe mistakes when they were young. See AR 601-210, PDF pages 17 - 26. (Acrobat 6.0 or higher)

In my opinion, what your members want is immaterial, just as it was immaterial what I wanted before I qualified to enlist. The privilege of enlisting must be earned. What is important is not whether all who want to join are allowed to join, but whether the people who do join are the best people for the job.

Mr. Somerville: If being able to join the military is very important to you, please let me know--I'd love to have some non-HSLDA members speaking out about this issue. If you could care less about joining the military, why does it bother you that HSLDA does?

It's not about HSLDA. It's about the members of a team whose job may take them into clear and present danger. It's about the cost to the government for all those who aren't optimally prepared. It's about the cost to the young people who don't make the cut.

In order to serve its members as best it can, HSLDA needs to be adult about what is involved and stop trying to gain special status for homeschooled kids just because they are homeschooled kids.

Valerie Bonham Moon
site owner: The Military Homeschooler

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-10-21T13:47:00.000-07:00

www.goarmy.com/hslda/

by Mary McCarthy

On September 13, 2005 Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) introduced the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 (HoNDA) in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (1)

H.R. 3753 and S. 1619 are almost identical to the previously introduced Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. Identical except for the addition of Section 10, "Recruitment and enlistment of home schooled students in the Armed Forces." (2).

Knowing that the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is lobbying for passage of these proposals, it first appeared that they were simply trying to write themselves into law as the designated accountability organization for students wanting to prove their homeschool status for purposes of enlistment. HSLDA as a quasi-government accountability entity is troubling enough but could there be another reason?

The Washington Times reported in 2005 "HSLDA has been at the forefront of the battle to gain access for home-schoolers to the military, and HSLDA senior counsel Chris Klicka has been negotiating with the military for six years." (3)

In 1998, the Department of Defense began a study that included homeschool students to assess their fitness for enlistment. (4)

The results were published in 2004 and concluded homeschool recruits have attrition rates significantly higher than public high school graduates. (5)

The study ended in 2004 and homeschoolers reverted to a lesser status for enlistment. In January of 2005, following meetings between Chris Klicka and the Department of Defense, homeschoolers were again "afforded priority enlistment with no practical limit." (6)

In June 2005, however, Army Secretary Francis Harvey, interviewed by USA Today indicated, "Home-schooled students are a growing pool of potential recruits." (7)

An October 2005 release of a master plan for increasing Army recruitment includes targeting "those of high school age who are being homeschooled -- a potential market the Army has largely ignored." (8)

So why efforts to attract homeschooled students to the military when its been proven they are separated from the military at higher numbers than publicly educated students?

In his President's Report for 2003, Michael Farris, an ordained Baptist pastor (9), announced, "we were invited by the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) to send our students for officer training. Placing our graduates on the path to leadership in the U.S. military is another way PHC can influence the nation." (10)

On December 18, 2003 PHC announced that students were eligible to enroll in the US Army's ROTC program. (11)

Why does HSLDA/PHC continue to champion HoNDA legislation and military involvement for students? They must know from the last introduction in 2003 that most homeschoolers are overwhelmingly against HoNDA and the federalization of homeschooling? And why have they added Section 10?

The Larger Picture

A Department of Defense investigation in 2004 determined that Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the Pentagon's senior military intelligence official, violated at least three internal regulations while speaking at 23 religious-oriented events beginning in January 2002 while in uniform. Speaking before crowds ranging from small groups to over 1000, General Boykin's remarks included a depiction of the war on terrorism as a battle against Satan; he stated "President Bush had been placed in his post by God;" and he said that "the U. S. military is recruiting a spiritual army (emphasis added) that will draw strength from a greater power to defeat its enemy." (12)

In September of 2004, General Boykin appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an attempt to repair his reputation, damaged by the disclosure of his speaking engagements. Interviewed by correspondent David Martin, Boykin defended his comments before a congregation in Dayton, Florida that, "my God was bigger than his [Allah]." According to the article, he further explained that "America's real enemy was not Osama bin Laden, but 'a guy called Satan.'" In a reference to captured Islamic militant Osman Atto, Boykin said, "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," which refers to Atto's "worship of corruption, of of power, of money." Martin noted, the "Secretary of the Army is expected to issue Boykin something called a 'letter of concern,' which amounts to a mild slap on the wrist." (13)

Prior to his speaking tour, Major General William G. Boykin had organized an event for Southern Baptist Pastors at Fort Bragg NC on April 22nd and 23rd, 2003. The event was promoted as part of the FAITH evangelism program of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Christian Resources. (14)

According to promotional materials mailed to pastors, "we must find a group of men who are warriors of FAITH, pastors who have the guts to lead this nation to Christ and revival!" The "Super FAITH Force Multiplier" materials also promised unprecedented access to the military base, including heavily secured areas, a Special Forces demonstration with live ammunition, and a visit to the "Shoot House" to learn how Special Forces attack the enemy inside buildings. After complaints from Americans United for Separation of Church and State regarding the appearance of the U. S. Military advancing a specific faith and religious mission, the event was scaled back. (15)

General Boykin was the keynote speaker at Patrick Henry College's Council for Statesmanship Banquet on March 29, 2004. (16)

Back to HoNDA

So is that the reason HSLDA is promoting the military recruitment and enlistment? "so these home schoolers can impact the military for Christ..."? (17)

If the homeschool recruits are at risk of not completing their enlistment, if they are not as qualified, yet are being targeted, what other conclusion is left? And -- perhaps most importantly -- with their increasingly close relationship with the Pentagon, will the membership information your family has entrusted to HSLDA be kept confidential?

HSLDA does seem to be recruiting for the Army -- http://www.goarmy.com/hslda/

(1) "Homeschool Non-discrimination Bill introduced in Congress" http://www.hslda.org/docs/media/200509/200509140.asp?printerFriendly=true
(2) http://thomas.loc.gov/
(3) "Military Levels Playing Field for Recruits," The Washington Times April 11, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/email.php?StoryID=20050410-110415-9831r (requires registration)
(4) Staff Sgt. Alicia K. Borlik, "DoD Evaluating Recruits with Alternative Diplomas." American Forces Information Service, February 1999. http://www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1999/n02011999_9902011.html
(5) Wenger & Hodari, Final Analysis of Evaluation of Homeschool and ChalleNGe Program Recruits, CNA, January 2004
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
(6) Army Opens Doors Wide for Homeschool Graduates http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200503/200503310.asp
(7) Dave Moniz, "Army recruiting up for June but still down for year," USA Today, June 29, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm
(8) Robert Burns, "Army has plan to boost signups in 2006," Associated Press, October 12, 2005 http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/12878466.htm
(9) http://phc.edu/administration/president/default.asp
(10) Patrick Henry College President's Report 2003 http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/200401160.pdf
(11) "ROTC Now an Option for PHC Students," Patrick Henry College press release December 18, 2003 http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/031218Media.asp
(12) R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White, "General's Speeches Broke Rules," The Washington Post August 19, 2004, page A23 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14262-2004Aug19?language=printer
(13) "'Holy Warrior' General Takes to CBS to Repair Reputation," Americans United for Separation of Church and State, September 17, 2004 http://blog.au.org/2004/09/holy_warrior_ge.html
Also The Holy Warrior, CBS News, September 15, 2004 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml
(14) Steve DeVane "Army says pastors' training at Fort Bragg meets regulations" North Carolina Biblical Recorder April 28, 2003 http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/4_28/pages/army.html
(15) "U.S. Military support for Baptist Evangelism Program Draws Protest from Americans United" Americans United for Separation of Church and State, April 7, 2003. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;id=5114&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1284
(16) 2004 Council for Statesmanship, The Trumpet of Liberty, Patrick Henry College. Vol. 4, No. 1, 6/2004. http://www.phc.edu/news/trumpet/2004_06/2004_06_06.asp
(17) "Military Recruitment of Home Schoolers Increasing," Home School Court Report, July/August 1999 http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v15n4/v15n410.asp

Further reading:

"Army Offering More Benefits to Homeschool Graduates," HSLDA, October 19, 2005 http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200510/200510190.asp

"General Seeks 'Satan' Speech Probe," CBS News, October 21, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/attack/main578471.shtml

Money for College & More Benefits Bonuses for Home School Graduates
http://www.goarmy.com/hslda

Thanks to Publius for the space to post this, and KY for the original breadcrumb trail that led me to question why HSLDA would be so interested in the military, and thanks to all my friends who helped.

HSLDA joins the Army?

2005-10-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

HILL has linked to an article about an Army recruiting site that has an ad for HSDLA. How does that tie in with Section 10 of the proposed legislation?

From the HILL site:
--I have yet to see an answer as to why the HSLDA link is on a goarmy site.

Interesting Timing for This Military Blurb

2005-10-17T12:00:00.000-07:00

From the HILL blog:

-- Army plan uses incentives to meet recruit goals

"Here's what caught my eye and was a bit surprising since homeschoolers are usually overlooked for so many issues.

• "Put more effort into recruiting people who have begun their college careers but not yet earned a degree, on the assumption that some would be interested in taking a hiatus to try military service. Also, target those of high school age who are being home schooled – a potential market the Army has largely ignored."

New NHELD Bulletin about HR 3753

2005-10-17T05:42:00.000-07:00

Bulletin #44 HONDA Re-Introduced Examining Sections 1, 2 and 3 10/17/2005

NHELD is preparing a series of bulletins detailing, section by section, the exact language of HR3753/S1691, the "Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005" as proposed in the House and Senate. The bulletins will provide the exact language from the bill, along with the exact text of the existing federal law that the bill proposes to amend. The bulletins will also include NHELD's comments on those provisions.

NHELD is opposed to passage of any and all parts of this legislation. NHELD believes the entire bill should be killed and all previous federal laws already adopted having anything to do with the rights of parents to instruct their children at home should be repealed.

NHELD believes that there can be no compromises on any federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home.

NHELD believes all federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home, no matter how beneficial the legislation appears, is wholly unconstitutional, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must be defeated and/or repealed immediately.

===================================================

Did you know that even the "Findings" section of HR3753/S1691 contains misleading and dangerous information?

For ease of reference and because the House and Senate bills are identical at this point in time, the House version will be excerpted in these bulletins.

The entire text of the bill can be found at:

House version

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3753:

Senate version

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1691:

The preliminary section of the bill is as follows:

Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 3753 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3753

To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 13, 2005
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. FLAKE, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. HYDE, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. OTTER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. RENZI, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. TERRY, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WAMP, and Mr. WOLF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:

(1) The right of parents to direct the education of their children is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.

(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents.

(3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills.

(4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.

(5) The rise of private home education has contributed positively to the education of young people in the United States.

(6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of private home education, are in need of clarification as to their treatment of students who are privately educated at home pursuant to State law.

(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to the United States; and

(2) parents who choose this alternative education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution."

Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this bill do not purport to change any existing federal law. This is an introductory portion designed to give reasons for the necessity for adoption of the bill. Because these sections do not purport to amend any particular existing law, NHELD cannot reprint for a comparison any other federal law. In other bulletins regarding other sections of the bill, NHELD will be doing so. For now, NHELD will simply provide comment on this introductory section.

The purpose of the bill itself is objectionable.

"To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law."

Federal law does not need to be "clarified". The United States Constitution is abundantly clear in stating under the Tenth Amendment that the federal government has no delegated power to adopt any law regarding the education of children by their parents.

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to adopt laws affecting the right of parents to instruct their own children is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, that power is reserved to the States, or to the people. It cannot be clearer.

Any law, no matter how beneficial it may appear, that Congress adopts that affects the right of parents to instruct their own children or that affects the children who have been so instructed, is unconstitutional, should not be adopted, and if already adopted, should be repealed. It is just that simple.

The bill purports to clarify existing federal law as to "the treatment of students privately educated at home". If there is need to amend the "treatment of students", clearly, because that power is delegated to the states or to the people, the people in each state, if necessary, should seek amendment of their state laws.

Let's examine the Findings Section:

In the "Findings" section, it is stated that Congress has found that:

"(1) The right of parents to direct the education of their children is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.

(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents."

While the words may sound appealing, don't be fooled by them.

The United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. This is a "right" "found" by the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts, in a few cases "interpreting" the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution also says absolutely nothing about the "right" of "privacy" itself. Again, this is a "right" "found" by the courts in the "penumbra", or "shadows" of the Constitution.

Congress and the President have absolutely no business in "exercising their legislative and executive functions" concerning the right of parents to instruct their own children because the U.S. Constitution does specifically say that Congress and the President can only exercise their authority when expressly granted a power by the U.S. Constitution. All other powers remain in the states and in the people.

Again, see the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Why are we allowing Congress to get away with such misstatements? Each and every Congressman took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is still part of the Constitution. Each and every one of the Congressmen who sponsored this bill should be reminded of their oath in no uncertain terms.

Also, the federal courts do not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate cases and controversies involving the instruction of children by parents because that power was not delegated to the federal judiciary. The instruction of children by parents is a power that remains in the states or in the people. The federal judiciary only has authority to resolve cases and controversies involving federal issues or federal law.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution reads in relevant part,
"The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between Citizens of different States, - [and] between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States."

Furthermore, Article III, Section 1, states that federal "Judges hold their Offices during good Behaviour."

That section gives the people yet another means by which they can demand that judges who are not applying the Constitution in their decisions may be removed from office by impeachment.

In other words, it is now and always has been improper and unconstitutional for cases and controversies involving the right of parents to instruct their children at home to be adjudicated in a federal court, no matter how beneficial the outcome of a case has been or will be. Cases and controversies about the right of parents to instruct their children at home and the rights of children who have been so instructed, when necessary, are more properly to be adjudicated in state courts based on state law.

The federal judiciary in reality has no jurisdiction to hear any case involving the instruction of children by parents.

We must stop pretending that the U.S. Constitution says things that it does not. We must shout out loudly and clearly to the federal judiciary to stop this pretending.

Let's continue on in this examination of the Findings section:

The findings further say "Congress has found that:

(3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills.

(4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.

(5) The rise of private home education has contributed positively to the education of young people in the United States."

If this bill is adopted, we will then have a "finding of Congress" that "Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills." Constitutionally, Congress shouldn't be involved in making "findings" on this issue in the first place. If allowed to stand, however, Congress, at any time in the future, could make an alternative "finding" as an excuse to adopt still more federal laws. Furthermore, Congress, by this statement, is establishing a standard that "success on standardized tests" and "socialization skills" are to be achieved. Congress can then adopt a law specifying that "success" on certain federally "approved" "standardized tests" are to be achieved and that certain federally "approved" "socialization skills" are to be achieved.&n

Congress also is identifying the instruction of children by parents as "private home education". Instruction of children by parents currently is not considered to be "private education" in all states. Some states have no statutes defining "home education" at all. Amazingly enough, in some states parents are free to instruct as they please. Congress can adopt other laws that specify that only "private home education" contributes positively.

In addition, the phrase "The rise of private home education" is an anathema and should be denounced emphatically as an abomination and complete distortion of historical fact. Parents have been instructing their children at home since the beginning of time. The phenomenon did not suddenly "rise" in the twentieth century. Only the terminology given to the instruction of children by their parents has changed. The term, "home school" has "risen" in recent years. The only thing that has "risen" in modern times is the number of people who understand anew that this is their parental obligation and who are undertaking the obligation to instruct their own children.

The next of the Findings section of the bill which is absolutely objectionable is the Finding number 6 which states that

"6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of private home education, are in need of clarification as to their treatment of students who are privately educated at home pursuant to State law."

The phrase, "pursuant to State law" is also objectionable in that parents in certain states may be free to instruct their children at home without reference to any "state law" such that their "home education" may not need to be "pursuant to state law". It's called freedom.

The "rise of private home education" is objectionable for the reasons already cited. "Several laws, written before and during the rise.are in need of clarification" is objectionable precisely because parents always have had the legal authority and the obligation to instruct their own children. Federal laws have been silent on this issue precisely because the Congress has no delegated power to involve itself in making laws on this issue. Since the year 2000, Congress, wholly unconstitutionally, has taken upon itself the authority to adopt and amend laws involving the right of parents to instruct their children. The only "clarification" these "laws" need is to clarify that they are wholly unconstitutional and must be repealed.

The last section of this Findings portion of the bill claims Congress has found that:

"(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling."

The finding that "The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling" implies that the Constitution allows federal authority of some kind over "homeschooling". Congress effectively has taken upon itself to deem that Congress does have the authority to adopt laws of some kind affecting "homeschooling", hence, the proposal of this bill and all of the other federal laws it has adopted or proposed since 2000. Congress, then, has determined that it does have the authority, albeit wholly unconstitutionally, to "regulate" "homeschooling". The difference between "control" and "regulation" is merely a nuance of semantics. In reality, "regulation" by the adoption of any federal law is "control".

Section 3 of this bill, the "sense of Congress", also is an abomination.

It reads: "It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to the United States; and (2) parents who choose this alternative education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution."

Again, only "private home education, pursuant to State law" is deemed to be a "positive contribution". In addition, the instruction of children by their parents is being termed an "alternative education", when in reality, it is and always has been the primary form of education. Public and private schools have been the "alternative" for parents who were unable or unwilling to undertake their obligation to instruct their own children.

The phrase "should be encouraged" is objectionable because the federal government should not be involving itself in any way with the instruction of children by parents.

The phrase, "within the framework provided by the United States Constitution" is the only phrase that is not objectionable but it is doubtful that Congress actually has in mind the Tenth Amendment when it makes this statement. If Congress truly followed the "framework provided by the United States Constitution" it would immediately repeal all existing federal laws adopted regarding "homeschooling" and withdraw this and all other proposed bills having to do with "homeschooling".

Attorney Deborah Stevenson - Executive Director of National Home Education Legal Defense. - www.nheld.com or email : info@nheld.com

Judy Aron - Director of Research, NHELD - imjfaron@sbcglobal.net

TaNDA

2005-10-15T08:01:00.000-07:00

This new policy by the Coast Guard appears to be unfair and discriminatory. The number of tattoos on a person, or the percentage of skin covered is immaterial concerning how well a person works or how well a person learns his or her job. Without documented rates of attrition, or evidence of other negative results of having tattoos, an informed opinion regarding tattoos cannot be made.

TaNDA legislation should be introduced into the houses of Congress to protect the rights of law-abiding tattoed citizens to enlist.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Tattooed Persons Non-Discrimination Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) The right of persons to have themselves tattooed is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of people to tattoo themselves.
(3) Tattooing performed in a certificated tattoo parlor is a right protected by the Bill of Rights.
(4) Persons who have been tattooed are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.
(5) The rise of tatooing has contributed positively to the expression of freedom of speech of young people in the United States.
(6) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of tattooing.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) tattoing, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to free speech within the United States; and
(2) people who choose this form of free speech should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution.

SEC. 4
RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF TATTOOED PERSONS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
Tattooed Persons - Chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 503 the following new section: Sec. 503b. Recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons

(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment- The Secretary concerned shall prescribe a policy for the recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the polices prescribed under this section apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the armed forces

(b) Elements- The policy prescribed by the Secretary concerned under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Identification of qualified tattooed persons for purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the armed forces that is in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c).
(2) Within the Department of Defense recruiting requirements, tattooed persons will be treated the same as untattooed persons, with no practical limit with regard to enlistment.
(3) An exemption of tattooed persons from any requirement for a percentage of untattooed skin as a precondition for enlistment in the armed forces.

(c) Qualified Tattooed Persons - In identifying a tattooed person for purposes of subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the person meets each of the following requirements:
(1) The person has taken the Armed Forces Qualification Test and scored at the 50th percentile or above.
(2) The person has provided the Secretary concerned with--
(A) a signed form from the tattoo parlor that conforms with the licensing requirements according to State law of the State where the tattoo was done;
or
(B) a certificate or diploma awarded to the tattoo artist from the American Tattooing Institute or other national tattoo certification provider.
(3) The tattooed person has provided the Secretary concerned with a photo of all tattoos on the person, which includes the tattoo date, and type of image
(4) The recruit has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the tattoo parlor's certified status by the Tatto Artists Legal Defense Association or a State or county tattoo association or organization.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 503 the following new item: `503b. Recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons.'

[Note: other than the October 15, 2005 news article, the above is a spoof. No tattooed people were harmed in the making of this spoof.]

Ann Zeise is Covering HR 3753

2005-10-12T05:33:00.000-07:00

Check it out under Points to Consider regarding the Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act.

Where the bills are, someone waits for me

2005-10-10T07:36:00.000-07:00

(apologies for the Fogey Attack, but the mind just makes these odd connections)

Back to the business of the current status of the bills on this Monday morning:

HR 3753

Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
House Education and the Workforce
Referral, In Committee
House Ways and Means
Referral, In Committee
House Armed Services
Referral, In Committee

Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Referral

S. 1691

Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
Senate Finance
Referral, In Committee

Emailing or faxing the committee members will be a more direct route of making your opinion on these bills known rather than writing to legislators who aren't yet involved, unless, of course, your legislator is a co-sponsor of either of the bills.

Payback

2005-10-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

Servicemembers who don't complete a term of service may have to pay back any signing bonuses they got if they were Tier I recruits.

Battling for the heart and soul of home-schoolers

2005-10-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

Some excerpts from a Salon article had been posted by HILL. Let's study the legislation and the history presented of HSLDA/NCHE. In particular, what are the possibilities if an organization such as HSLDA is allowed by federal mandate to verify homeschool status? What if a homeschooling family chooses to not join a state or county home-school association or organization? Why is HSLDA limiting the choices of homeschooling families by these requirements? And should an organization like HSLDA that requires such verification by writing this language into a bill also be allowed to profitably provide such? Would they verify all homeschoolers as approved?

From Section 10:

5) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the graduate's home-school status by the Home School Legal Defense Association or a State or county home-school association or organization.

From page 4 of the Salon article:

"They even asked group leaders to do home visits to make sure people were doing home schooling the 'right' way," Moyer says. Many who opted out of the groups launched the inclusive HERO support group network.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Section 10 again

2005-10-07T06:33:00.000-07:00

Two Section 10 comments are posted at Happy As Kings:

-- Federal Legislation Needed?
In reading the HR 3753/S 1691 blog, I've found another avenue: enlisting in the Reserves.

-- Those Picky Military Services
What we can do for homeschooling families who are looking at the military for their kids, is not to put homeschool-qualifiers in federal law, but rather educate them. The information as to what the services are looking for in terms of Tier I recruits applies to everyone, and can be distributed without wrinkling the fabric of federal law.

Speaking of same-old, same-old

2005-10-05T13:10:00.000-07:00

On an email list a message-writer called the objections (and objectors) to the to the proposed homeschooling legislation contained in the House resolution 3753, and the Senate bill 1691, "same old, same old." It's hard to come up with something new when the proposed legislation is nearly identical with legislation proposed just two years ago.

Still, that Section 10. That's something new, isn't it?

No.

The Spring 2000 edition of the Massachusetts Home Learning Association (MHLA) newsletter, Snail Mail, carried an article in which the authors considered many of the same issues being discussed now, and a couple that haven't yet been considered. The concerns are nothing new.

-- Military Survey Re-ignites Fears of Legislation

Military Survey Re-ignites Fears of Legislation
Summary of the issue by Maggie Sadoway

When is New Legislation Worth the Risk?
Results of research into the issue by Nicky Hardenbergh (This article appeared in Snail Mail in an abridged version.)

So even with the 'new' section, we run into the "same old, same old" issues and concerns from five years ago.

Homeschooled kids are already priority candidates

2005-10-03T17:31:00.000-07:00

In light of this memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, and dated last January, why is Section 10 of HR 3753/ S 1691 even needed for homeschooled kids to enlist as Tier Ones?

And this mention at About.com seems to say that DoD is replicating the five-year pilot program whose report was released in January 2004 -- although maybe "graudates" are something other than grads?

Tell me again why we need to enshrine homeschooling in federal law.

[channeling Abba] Ring, ring! Why don't you give him a call!

2005-10-02T20:04:00.000-07:00

See Inhofe's explanation of his support of S. 1691, then, give him a call.

HILL suggests calling Inhofe about his position:
-- Call Senator Inhofe's Office Monday :
"Here are Inhofe's phone numbers (from his website here. It's probably best if you're out-of-Oklahoma to call the D.C. office, but I left all the numbers here anyway. "

Click on over. We still don't mind.

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-10-02T15:43:00.000-07:00

House Armed Services Committee members

Republicans:

Akin, W. Todd MO
Bartlett, Roscoe, G. MD
Bradley, Jeb NH
Calvert, Ken CA
Conaway, Michael TX
Davis, Geoff KY
Davis, Jo Ann VA
Drake, Thelma VA
Everett, Terry AL
Forbes, J.Randy VA
Franks, Trent AZ
Gibbons, Jim NV
Hayes, Robin NC
Hefley, Joel, CO
Hostettler, John IN
Hunter, Duncan, CA Chairman
Jones, Walter B. NC
Kline, John MN
LoBiondo, Frank NJ
McKeon, Howard “Buck” CA
McMorris, Cathy WA
Miller, Candice MI
Miller, Jeff FL
Rogers, Mike AL
Ryan, Jim KS
Saxton, Jim NJ
Schwarz, Joe MI
Shuster, Bill PA
Simmons, Rob CT
Thornberry, Mac, TX
Turner, Michael OH
Weldon, Curt PA
Wilson, Joe SC

Democrats:

Abercrombie, Neil HI
Andrews, Robert NJ
Bordallo, Madeleine Guam
Boren Dan OK
Brady, Robert PA
Butterfield G.K. NC
Cooper, Jim TN
Davis, Susan A. CA
Evens, Lane IL
Israel, Steve, NY
Langevin, James R. RI
Larsen, Rick WA
Marshall, Jim GA
McIntyre, Mike NC
McKinney, Cynthia GA
Meehan, Marty MA
Meek, Kendrick FL
Ortiz, Soloman P. TX
Reyes, Silvestre TX
Ryan, Tim OH
Sanchez, Loretta CA
Skelton, Ike MO Ranking Member
Smith, Adam WA
Snyder, Vic AR
Spratt, Johm SC
Tauscher, Ellen CA
Taylor, Gene MS
Udall, Mark CO

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-10-02T13:47:00.000-07:00

House Ways & Means Committee members

Members of the 109th Congress
Bill Thomas, CA Chairman
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-10-02T13:46:00.000-07:00

Full Committee Members and Jurisdiction
House Education and the Workforce Committee
109th Congress
(updated February 4, 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John A. Boehner, Ohio, Chairman

Republican Members (27) Democrat Members (22)

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
(Vice Chairman) George Miller, California
(Ranking Minority Member)
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Major R. Owens, New York
Sam Johnson, Texas Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Rubén Hinojosa, Texas
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Ric Keller, Florida Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Joe Wilson, South Carolina David Wu, Oregon
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
John Kline, Minnesota Susan A. Davis, California
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Cathy McMorris, Washington Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona
Kenny Marchant, Texas Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Price, Georgia Tim Ryan, Ohio
Luis G. Fortuño, Puerto Rico Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana John Barrow, Georgia
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. "Randy" Kuhl, Jr., New York

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-10-02T13:41:00.000-07:00

As of October 2, there are now 63 Co-sponsors. Note that none have been removed, which makes it more important if one of these Representatives is representing you and you do not support this legislation. Let's see if we can get some of these names moved to the 'removed' column!

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] -
9/13/2005 Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] - 9/22/2005
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 9/14/2005
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 9/13/2005
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris [IN-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 9/13/2005
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 9/22/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 9/13/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/22/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 9/13/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 9/14/2005
Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 9/22/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 9/13/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 9/13/2005
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 9/13/2005
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 9/14/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/13/2005

Section 10. Recruitment and Enlistment of Home-schooled students in the Armed Forces

2005-09-30T23:38:00.000-07:00

Comments on Section 10 concerning enlistment in the military by homeschoolers are at The Military Homeschooler.

Main points are:
-- creation of homeschoolers as the only educational group outside of the Tier system, specified in public law concerning military enlistment

-- identification of qualified recruits are already spelled out without pinpointing homeschoolers

-- contradictory requirements concerning third-party verifiers of "homeschooling status"

-- homeschool grad must score at the 50th %ile, which is the current standard for holders of a GED certificate

-- proposed legislation states that homeschool curriculum will be patterned after "traditional secondary school," but the current law, which wouldn't be amended, requires 12-years of traditional graded schooling

-- the third-party verification letter of a graduate's "home-school status" is not an optional choice, but would be required

Status of S 1691

2005-09-30T23:35:00.000-07:00

ALL ACTIONS:
9/13/2005:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

-------------------------------------------------------

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 9/29/2005
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] - 9/21/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 9/15/2005
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 9/13/2005

--------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
Senate Finance
Referral, In Committee

Current status of HR 3753

2005-09-30T23:25:00.000-07:00

ALL ACTIONS:
9/13/2005:
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

9/13/2005:
Referred to House Education and the Workforce

9/13/2005:
Referred to House Ways and Means

9/13/2005:
Referred to House Armed Services

9/20/2005:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

--------------------------------------------------

COSPONSORS(63), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 9/13/2005 Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] - 9/22/2005
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 9/14/2005 Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 9/13/2005
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 9/13/2005 Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 9/13/2005 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris [IN-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 9/13/2005 Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 9/13/2005
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 9/22/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 9/13/2005 Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] -
9/13/2005
Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 9/13/2005 Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 9/13/2005 Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] -
9/13/2005
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 9/13/2005 Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5]-9/13/2005 Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3]-9/13/2005 Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 9/13/2005 Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 9/13/2005 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/22/2005 Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] -
9/13/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11]-9/13/2005 Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 9/13/2005 Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] -
9/14/2005
Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 9/22/2005 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-1] - 9/13/2005 Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] -
9/13/2005
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 9/13/2005 Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 9/13/2005 Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] -
9/13/2005
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 9/13/2005 Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 9/13/2005
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 9/13/2005 Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] -
9/13/2005
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/13/2005 Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 9/14/2005 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/13/2005

--------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Education and the Workforce Referral, In Committee
House Ways and Means Referral, In Committee
House Armed Services Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Military Personnel Referral

Call him up

2005-09-30T08:19:00.000-07:00

HILL suggests calling Inhofe about his position:
-- Call Senator Inhofe's Office Monday :
"Here are Inhofe's phone numbers (from his website here. It's probably best if you're out-of-Oklahoma to call the D.C. office, but I left all the numbers here anyway. "

Click on over. We won't mind.

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

2005-09-29T14:29:00.000-07:00

Senator Inhofe responds re: HR 1692:
From:

September 29, 2005

Dear (private):

Thank you for contacting me about S.1691, the
Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act (HoNDA). As your voice in
Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your ideas and
opinions.

My views on education in America come from a somewhat
unique perspective in that my wife, Kay, was a teacher at Edison
High School for many years, and now both of my daughters are
teachers. I can assure you that I am one of the strongest supporters
of education and homeschooling. Like you, I feel that the family
has the primary responsibility for and interest in the child.

There are currently more than two million students that are
homeschooled in the United States. While these students have
proven to excel in both academics and extracurricular activities,
existing legislation has tended to overlook this growing population.

The Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act (A.K.A.,
HoNDA and S. 1691), which I have co-sponsored, serves to
remedy this oversight and encourage the government at all levels
to recognize the homeschooling movement as a viable force in
education. S. 1691 acknowledges the right of parents to direct the
education of their children under the Constitution, which also
prohibits federal control of homeschooling. I believe that the role
of the federal government should be limited in order to create an
environment in which all Americans have the opportunity to better
themselves and achieve success. HoNDA encourages these
opportunities through greater eligibility for financial aid for higher
education and policy to ensure the treatment of homeschool
graduates as Tier I recruits into the U.S. Military.

The National Center for Home Education supports HoNDA
because it would end discrimination by allowing home educators
to take advantage of Education Savings Accounts and granting
protection under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
for all homeschool students' records. Additionally, HoNDA would
permit homeschool students to work during traditional school
hours to maintain flexibility and protect students from forced
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
evaluations.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Your input helps me
to serve Oklahomans better. Please do not hesitate to contact in
the future with any comments or concerns.

"Home School" Language Is Not Wanted

2005-09-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

Within the language is the phrase "home school" which is repeated in Section 6, Section 8, Section 9 and most importantly, in the Title.

The point has been made in various homeschooling organizations and states that such language will negatively change the status of homeschoolers where they educate their children under a private school exemption without "home school" mention. Under the private school exemption, homeschoolers may also receive the protections of the large and more legislatively powerful cover of the brick and mortar private schools.

A few years ago in Illinois, HSLDA attempted the same "clarification" or infringements when they tried to insert "home school" language into Illinois legislation. They attempted to codify Illinois 'homeschooling' status. The very idea was unanimously and resoundingly beaten down by Illinois homeschoolers.

One has to ask for whose or what organization's advantage was this attempted? Not Illinois homeschoolers, as was apparent in the phone calls and messages given to the sponsor of the bill despite his good (but misguided) intentions. The consequences of such language was explained further by an Illinois homeschooling activist here.

But yet, the same problem that was foreseen by Carol Severson of the Eagle Forum in deals struck by HSLDA for their members in Illinois during a crisis have been ignored by HSLDA. Instead they have expanded on their narrow objectives by the introduction of this federal Home School NonDiscrimination Act.

"While this may be a good arrangement for the families directly involved in this problem, what will happen to the other families throughout the state who aren't members of HSLDA?" Severson asked today.

As was stated, homeschoolers need to watch out for homeschoolers. We are a tiny minority as is, but protections shouldn't be provided for an even smaller homeschooling minority with no regard for the others.

The same type of situation occurred in Michigan as related by a Michigan homeschooling dad who also happens to be a lawyer

Under the influence of a misguided state senator [he admitted this when faced with the problems created by the Revised School Code] who was a new home schooler, the Senate inserted a provision defining home-schooling in terms of a separate exemption to the compulsory attendance law, the infamous subsection (3)(f). This so-called exemption was made even more onerous in the Michigan House under the guidance of a home-schooling representative who was closely allied with HSLDA. The exemption was expanded in the House to include standards that would have permitted local school district officials to closely regulate home schooling families."

If this bill (HR3753/S 1691) is split into separate bills, this "home school" language will follow each section. Every single word laid out across 4 different congressional committees right now will affect us if this is passed.

Harvey Bluedorn stated the obvious very well in 2003 and it still has meaning regarding this attempt at federal legislation of homeschooling in his piece On Trying To Fix What Ain't Broke.

Coverdell portion not worth the time

2005-09-26T18:16:00.000-07:00

Discussion over at Home Ed Mag's HE&OS

-- Only the income is tax free. So, unless you’re financially well off (in which case home education expenses are of relatively little concern), funding a Coverdell and then taking the money out a year or two later won’t generate enough interest or capital gains to be worth the trouble. An example– The annual limit for a contribution is $2,000. Let’s say you contributed the maximum for six years and then started making withdrawals so that the money would be exhausted after twelve years of homeschooling (It wouldn’t make any sense to make a withdrawal and a contribution in the same year.) Further, let’s assume you earn a nice safe 3 percent on your money. At the end of the 18th year, you’ll have earned $3,595.92 in interest, or an average of $299.66 per year of homeschooling. At the 30 percent tax bracket, you’ll save an average of $89.90 in federal taxes. Contribute only $1,000 per year and your tax savings drop to $28.95. Yeehah!

More at the link.

The Military-HSLDA Complex and Our Freedoms

2005-09-26T12:39:00.000-07:00

Over five years ago HSLDA persuaded Congress to implement a five-year pilot program to allow homeschooled teens to enter the military as Tier I recruits.

After the survey was commissioned, Home Education Magazine published information about it:

The Military-HSLDA Complex and Our Freedoms

-- Also, regulations adopted by the military would set a precedent. They might then be adopted by other parts of the federal government (such as offices that handle financial aid for higher education) and be used as models by state governments.

-- One set of risks comes from the fact that amendments that increase regulation of homeschooling can be added during the legislative process. But even if a bill gets through the legislature without harmful amendments, regulation can easily be increased as the law is being implemented, as is the case with this law.

-- The researcher answered questions from the floor. The researcher also explained that Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute was a consultant for the survey and that HSLDA provided names and addresses of "home school associations" to whom the survey was mailed. The cover letter from Klicka on HSLDA stationery was included with the survey, the researcher said, to ensure a higher response rate.

[snipped]

The first part of the survey asks heads of "home school associations" how the military can reach homeschoolers.

-- The second part of the survey asks for help in defining homeschooling and identifying "genuine home school graduates."

-- Attempts to identify "genuine home schoolers" will inevitably cost us homeschooling freedoms. Requirements introduced to identify "genuine" homeschoolers will increase the regulation of homeschooling. In addition, we would be surrendering power and control to whoever judges homeschoolers, whether it is our local school board, the state board of education, educational experts, or even other homeschoolers or homeschooling organizations.

The program has concluded, but the results aren't as rosy as some people wanted:

-- page 52, "Although there are good reasons to explore recruiting avenues beyond traditional public high schools, given the attrition rates of homeschoolers compared with other high school diploma graduates, homeschooled recruits seem to be a less desirable recruiting market than was originally thought."

Despite this conclusion, HSLDA pressed for a continuation of Tier I status (September 9, 2003).

And, to top that, now a special section in public law, pertaining only to homeschoolers, is under consideration in Congress. Is it an attempt to get around the conclusions of the study? If so, why?

Instead of causing repeated public embarrassment because the homeschooled recruits' completion rate of their enlistments isn't as good as the publicly schooled kids' rate (see: "less desirable market" remark above), why not just face the music and tell the families what needs to be done if their children want to enlist in the military: get 15 credit hours of college (1 full time attendance semester). What agenda is served by trying to duck the issue, thereby causing it to be trotted out more often? Are those of us opposed to more federal legislation containing the word "homeschool," especially concerning the military, supposed to just dummy up and go along with the game and pretend the survey doesn't exist? What's the profit in that?

On the other hand, if the homeschooled teens qualify for Tier I status, just like the rest of their fellow-citizens do, the kids get a little more education, they're more likely to fulfill their term of enlistment, there will be fewer homeschooled washouts wondering perhaps for the rest of their lives what happened, and there's one less mention of 'homeschooling' in federal legislation. What's not to like?

Homeschoolers aren't 'special cases' needing their hands federally-held in order to enlist. They're just people who need to find out what to do in order to have the best shot at success. Don't sell them short.

Homeschoolers are American citizens, just like the public- and private-schoolers: one nation under the same law.

Spunky's not for it either

2005-09-23T21:44:00.000-07:00

HR 3753 (sorry, won't dignify the bill with a cute name meant to stick in peoples' heads like a commercial) is NOT good news for Homeschoolers

Stuffing the ballot box at Atypical Homeschool.net

2005-09-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

It would be interesting to know which organization is trying to skew the results of a poll:

--Until today, we believed that the polls we had posted on the site would be honourably used. We were not aware that they could be so easily manipulated.

DoD defining homeschooling

2005-09-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

The majority of homeschoolers aren't concerned with military recruitment, but military recruitment could affect the majority of homeschoolers.

Enactment of a standard in one part of federal law can be used as precedent in other parts, so if the Department of Defense codifies what is acceptable 'homeschooling' (and their present standard for enlistment specifies 12 'grades'), then any other parts of federal law where homeschooling is mentioned, could use the military definition as a standard.

See: ‘Discrimination’ against homeschooled military recruits'
--2.12.5.1. High School Graduate (HSG) or Higher (Tier 1). An applicant who has attended and completed a 12-year or (or grade) program of classroom instruction and possesses a locally issued diploma from the school. …

Calling legislators

2005-09-23T08:24:00.000-07:00

Kara at, Homeschooling Freedom - the HONDA Edition, is recounting her experiences with calling her legislators.

So far the bill isn't part of the common knowledge among phone-answerers, so callers need to know chapter and verse about the bill.

Faxing your legislators

2005-09-22T21:22:00.000-07:00

Faxing your Congressional legislators is a superior method of timely communication because of the continuing examination of paper mail. Not everyone has a fax machine but, according to the following article, people with scanners and a modem can fax from a computer running Windows XP:

Faxing via Windows XP

"Although you don't need a fax machine, you'll need a phone line, a modem, and a scanner to send and receive faxes from your computer. For faxing, the modem and scanner don't have to be anything special. Even a 33.6 bps modem will dispatch a multi-page letter in a minute or two. As to the scanner, faxes are sent in black and white and usually at a default resolution of no better than 150 X 150 dpi. Any working scanner can manage that."

Set-up and configuration instructions are included at the site.

For people without a fax machine or, either a modem or a scanner, faxing can still be done:

use a commercial store such as Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Kinkos or UPS.
take the letter to your legislator's district office (if it's close by) and have the staff fax it to the Washington, D.C. office

Senate Finance Committee Contacts

2005-09-22T18:59:00.000-07:00

Congress: Contact your representative

Republicans
CHARLES GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
TRENT LOTT, MS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
CRAIG THOMAS, WY
RICK SANTORUM, PA
BILL FRIST, TN
GORDON SMITH, OR
JIM BUNNING, KY

Democrats
MIKE CRAPO, ID
MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, VT
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY

We also noticed further information at Homeschooling Illinois.

Contacting Congressional Legislators

2005-09-22T12:30:00.000-07:00

If you plan to write to your Congressional legislators about the bills concerning the alleged discrimination against homeschoolers (HR 3753/S 1691), or any other topic you want immediate action on, don't use snail mail.

Congressional paper-mail is still being screened for anthrax, and other biological agents, so an email or a fax will get through much faster. Phone calls are another way to bypass the long screening time for paper-mail.

Recruiting and Enlistment: Creation of an entirely new section

2005-09-21T18:20:00.000-07:00

In reading the text of Section 503 of the current enlistment law, it appears that the proposed changes of HR 3753 and S 1691 concerning enlistment aren't to the existing section, but instead will create an entirely new section, 503a, dealing solely with homeschooled teens.

Although the fingerprints of NCLB appear to be all over Section 503 as it now stands, no specific group of recruit-aged teens is mentioned. The criteria for inclusion in Section 503 is not whether a teen is enrolled in a public or private school, but rather whether the school receives federal assistance:

(c) Access to Secondary Schools.

(1) (A) Each local educational agency receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

HR 3753 and S 1691 will set a precedent for homeschoolers by including them as a class of people, instead of merely as enrollees in an institution:

(a) Home-Schooled Students-

Chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 503 the following new section:

Sec. 503a. Recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students

What is the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005?

2005-09-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 (HONDA) is an updated version of the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. A new section concerning enlistment in the military by homeschooled children has been added. While it is the same proposal it should not be confused with the 2003 version, which did not pass. These bills are a new attempt at passage in the current congressional session.

To read the entire 2005 Act, search for bills S. 1691 (US Senate) or H.R. 3753 (US House of Representatives) at Thomas. It is imperative that families read the actual bills, rather than depend on press releases or Internet information, before deciding for themselves whether these bills are detrimental to them. We believe it is.

The Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003/2005 was reportedly written by the Home School Legal Defense Association and introduced in the U.S. House by Representative Marilyn Musgave (R) of CO. Representative Musgrave introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have amended the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Representative Musgrave introduced the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 on July 15, 2003 and The Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 on September 13, 2005.

The Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003/2005 was introduced in the US. Senate by Senator Larry Craig (R) from Idaho, also on September 13, 2005.

When the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 was first introduced there was a lot of discussion about it on the Internet. HSLDA was, and presumably still is, well aware of opposition to it by individual homeschooling families who do not want to see homeschooling federalized. They do not appear concerned about those families in that they have proceeded to re-introduced HONDA at this time.

As the lobbying organization writing and sponsoring HR 2732, HSLDA has taken the fundamental right of homeschoolers to represent ourselves and replaced it with their personal theopolitical agenda that is antithetical to American values. Our representative system of government entitles each person to vote their conscience and represent him or herself. It is unique that each of us can contact the representatives we elect and have a say in how our government operates. When any group usurps that right, it weakens our government allowing lobbyists and special interests to control how our government functions and how it affects each of us.

We encourage each individual family to represent themselves using the tools we have gathered here.

Updated Section

2005-09-21T11:11:00.000-07:00

Updated September 16, 2005

Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act of 2005:

SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF THE COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW.
(a) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (4) of section 530(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified elementary and secondary education expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR HOME SCHOOLS- For purposes of clauses (i) and (iii) of subparagraph (A), the terms `public, private, or religious school' and `school' shall include any home school which provides elementary or secondary education if such school is treated as a home school or private school under State law.'.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

STATEMENT:
While it sounds laudable to include homeschool families under this section of the IRS code, the statement ‘if such school is treated as a home school or private school under State law' is problematic for homeschoolers in states which do not currently ‘treat’ them under state law. In order to qualify for a small tax benefit, states would need to enact laws which would ‘treat’ homeschoolers as a home or private school, thereby removing any independence homeschoolers in those states now enjoy.

Briefly, the savings accounts may be used to pay for elementary or secondary educational expenses related to enrollment or attendance at an eligible school for a designated beneficiary (child) such as tuition, books, tutoring, special needs services, room and board, uniforms and transportation. Computer equipment is included if it is used for educational purposes. The educational institution should be able to tell you if it is an eligible educational institution.

Up to $2000 may be added to each child’s account each year by qualifying parents and relatives and the money then belongs to the child. It is counted as the child’s asset and income when applying for education loans. If it is not used by the time the child is 30 years old, it becomes theirs. It should also be noted that trustee fees to manage the account may exceed the tax-free interest earned and in order to access this type of tax benefit, parents are required to file a tax return.

Since 2003 when Homeschool Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 was first introduced as HR2731 and S1562 some Christian parents have chosen to enroll their children in HSLDA’s Patrick Henry College. Ironically, because Patrick Henry College does not participate in any government funding programs, it is doubtful Coverdell accounts would qualify for use at Patrick Henry College. For more information contact Patrick Henry College or the Internal Revenue Service.

Another alternative to a government program would be to open a tax-free no-load mutual fund to save for your child’s education. To learn more about this type of investment program VISIT

Because these are private mutual fund investments, none of your fellow homeschoolers would have their freedom threatened by federal regulation so you could qualify. No state would have to institute homeschool laws to treat homeschools “as a home school or private school under State law” in states which currently do not regulate them as such.

Additionally, you and your family members would be able to save for your child without any limits on the amount you set aside and your educational choice will not have to be approved by the government.

Homeschoolers need to assess whether this small tax benefit is worth trading for legislation regulating homeschools in those states which do not currently do so.

To learn more about Coverdell ESA’s (Educational Savings Accounts) either request IRS publication 970 - Tax Benefits for Education – or visit their web site HERE

HR 3753/S 1691

2005-09-20T09:38:00.000-07:00

Again, an alleged 'homeschool non-discrimination' bill has been introduced to Congress.

To read about the first iteration of this federal bill, please read: