Rep. Shawn Jasper testified yesterday AGAINST HB 1571 on behalf of the House Republican Majority office, ie Rep. DJ Bettencourt.  The GOP leadership was the ONLY opposition to the bill at the public hearing.

Please contact Rep. Jasper (shawn.jasper@leg.state.nh.us) and Bettencourt (betts24@gmail.com) and tell them to get off the backs of homeschoolers and support this homeschooling bill.  Even lobbyists didn't testify against HB 1571!  Remind them that 2012 is an election year and that homeschoolers did better under Democrats rule of the House in 2010 than under Republicans in 2012.  Why?

HB 1571 eliminates the requirement to submit annual homeschooling evaluations, eliminates probation and eliminates termination of homeschooling programs in NH.  Additionally, it protects homeschoolers from privacy violations as federal regulations now allow for the distribution of student data without parental permission, even to foreign countries.

Parents would still be required to have their children evaluated annually, but those evaluations would stay with the parents.  

Text of HB 1571:  <http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1571.html>

Detailed analysis:
Given the that No Child Left Behind and other federal programs intrusively collect private student data and then allow the distribution of this information without parental permission, it’s reasonable to protect these private records, allowing parents to maintain these records and evaluations at home.
 
New rules were announced last month by the Obama Administration and its Department of Education regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  Students’ data is now more accessible. These new rules allow, without consent by parents, the government and even private companies to share students’ information.  The government can even share this information with foreign countries.
 
So the need for privacy is a very real concern.
 
However, many parents currently work with public schools to have their home schooled children evaluated.  So frequently both parties know the test results.
 
These test results should only a talking point.  Our objective should be how can the district constructively help the child, if or when it is needed.  Not how can the child be placed on probation or can someone terminate his program.  No public school program is ever terminated over poor test results.  So change is equitable.
 
Home schooled child’s records should not be maintained by public schools and disclosed under federal mandate.
 
Consider other home schooling statutes: 40 states have no procedure to terminate home schooling programs based upon test results.
 
Only 15 states require testing.  9 states require a review of the portfolio; one state (MN) requires a portfolio review but doesn’t require the submission of the evaluation.
 
Only 10 states have provisions to terminate a home schooling program.  Probation is found in only 4 states ranging from 1 to 2 years.
 
NH has the highest bar for standardized testing in the nation:  over 40th percentile. The range is 13th to 40th percentile or the top 2/3 to 3/4 stanine.
 
WV has essentially unlimited probation in that if the student is under the 50th percentile (which seemingly is the highest requirement), yet all that is needed is a demonstration of year-to-year incremental progress.  A student can go from the 6th percentile to the 7th percentile in a year and that’s sufficient incremental progress.  Thus, WV never terminates.
 

 
There are currently about 5,400 registered home schoolers in NH. That's is roughly 3% of the school age population.  Yet many home schoolers in NH are underground, up to half the home schooling community is underground.  Estimates are that nearly 5% of the school age population is currently being home schooled.
 
Home schooling is a nationwide grassroots movement in response to the lack of recognition for parental rights in public schools.
 
Keep in mind also that over the last ten years enrollment in NH pubic and private schools have fallen by 8% due to demographic changes.  At the same time NH home schooling enrollment has gone up by 33%, which does not even include the underground. [Information taken from the NH DoE website: http://www.education.nh.gov/data/attendance.htm]
 

HB 1342 (Rep. Steve Vaillancourt-R) was introduced to the prohibiting state and local governments from using funds to employ a lobbyist. Public funds should not be used to hire lobbyists who work in opposition to legislative initiatives submitted by citizens.

Many lobbyists are currently paid by taxpayer dollars that are collected by our towns and cities, or maybe even the state.  Why are our tax dollars being used to lobby against us?

For example, the Nashua 2012 Budget:

        School Department: Membership Dues & Subscriptions $98,950 

        Conferences & Seminar Registration $28,250

Taxpayer money should not be used in a partisan manner against taxpayers. Lobbyists have an inherent conflict of interest and often deny the existence of problems in their department. 

Self-government cannot succeed if taxpayers are forced to pay for lobbyists to work against them.  Citizens can't afford to go to the State House day after day like lobbyists do. Lobbyists supersede and replace the voice of citizens.

On November 28, 2011 Attorney Michael Donnelly of Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) was found finding guilty of illegally lobbying in New Hampshire in violation to NH RSA 15:1, I, II (a).  This offense constitutes a felony.

Attorney Donnelly failed to meet the December 9^th deadline to register HSLDA as lobbyists with the Secretary of State, nor has he submitted any public disclosure of his company’s financial involvement in this state.

Founded in 1983 HSLDA has collected membership fees from thousands of NH families and conducted hundreds of seminars within New Hampshire in addition to lobbying NH legislators. 

In 1990 HSLDA introduced a last minute amendment to Senator Disnard’s bill, SB 373, which later became the Home Education law, RSA 193-A.  The HSLDA lobbyist delayed the scheduled public hearing for one and a half hours, meeting behind closed doors with legislators while hundreds of families waited in Representatives Hall. 

HSLDA charges families over $100 per year for legal representation and defense protection. <http://www.hslda.org/join/apply.asp> See attached membership application form.  HSLDA’s 2010 990 federal tax return places their gross revenue for last year at $9,614,143. 

Given HSLDA’s income and tax exempt status, they have been able to lobby for numerous changes to our NH laws, while at the same time flouting and ignoring statutory requirements placed upon them as lobbyists.

This December HSLDA has already posted information regarding three bills before the NH legislature upon which they are lobbying.

< http://www.hslda.org/legislation/state/NH/default.asp>

Will HSLDA attorneys be allowed to continue to ignore the lobbying laws of this state with impunity, an offense which constitutes a felony? 

The House Education Committee voted CACR 8 "Ought to Pass" for Jan 4 (Vote 10-5; RC) .  This amendment protects local control of education which is the only way to protect a parent's voice in their child's education regardless of whether the child is enrolled in a public school or being home schooled.  Control over education is the EXCLUSIVE right of parents within their local communitie, not the prerogative of the State government.

This recommendation goes to 400 State Representatives who will vote on CACR 8 in January  with many other retained bills, either  on Wednesday, January 4^th or Thursday, January 5^th.  3/5 of the House or 239 votes are needed to pass a constitutional amendment.

Here is the actual report from the House Education Committee as reported in the House Record No. 70:

CACR 8, relating to education.  Providing that the legislature shall have the power to authorize schools.  

MAJORITY:  OUGHT TO PASS. 

MINORITY:  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Michael A Balboni for the Majority of Education:  CACR 8 restores the people’s right to local control of education and the authority of the legislature in education and education funding.  In 1968, NH ballots included Question No. 3, a proposed Constitutional amendment which read:  “Are you in favor of amending Article 6 of Part I of the Constitution so as to strike out certain specific sectarian references ….”  The ballot question included this summary of the original Article 6: “Article 6 authorizes local public taxation for the support of ‘Protestant’ clergymen only, and promises equal protection of the law solely to ‘every denomination of Christians’.”  The ballot question provided voters with the following explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment: “If the amendment is adopted, … the above-described sectarian references will be stricken from the state constitution, putting all religious denominations on a basis of equality and removing the present conflict with the U.S. Constitution.”  Though the voters were told that only the sectarian references were to be removed, the actual amendment language went far beyond this.  The amendment also removed and altered several non-religious phrases in the Article, and these changes were not explained to the voters.  CACR 8 would give the people the opportunity to restore to their Constitution the non-religious aspects that were removed in 1968.  These restorations include the following: the purpose of education as being to teach the fundamental principles of the Constitution so that the people are better able to control their government; empowering the legislature to authorized schools, to create and regulate public schools; providing school districts the exclusive control over the selection of their teachers and their compensation; the school districts control over curriculum which is inherent in the original Article’s exclusive control over the selection of teachers;  and each school district’s responsibility as the first payers of education expense consistent with the exclusive control over teacher selection and compensation and curriculum selection.  CACR 8 then proposes two further changes: it ratifies judicial opinions which enable the state to pay for non-religious education at religious schools; and it clarifies the legislature's power to supplement local funding of public education.  The first change makes clearly and permanently constitutional the state's current practices such as funding the non-religious education component for special needs students as required, for example, under federal special ed regulations, and the giving of scholarships to nursing students for the non-religious part of their education at religious schools.  The second part ensures that the state funding of education will be consistent with the coordinating Articles of the Constitution of New Hampshire, specifically Part I, Articles 12, 28 and 29 and Part II, Articles 2 and 5 which make the legislature the supreme policy body of the state, and the only body capable of determining state spending.  CACR 8 can be summed up as restoring the local control of education and the authority of the legislature in regard to education and education funding; thereby returning the people firmly in control of public education.Vote 10-5.      

Rep. June M Frazer for the Minority of Education:  Objection 1.  State funding of Education.  Article 6 states that the parishes, et al, “have the right of . . .  contracting with them [their teachers] for their support or maintenance, or both.”  It does not say that the parishes, et al, have the sole obligation for support or maintenance of their teachers.  The amendment to this passage – adding the word “exclusive” before “the right” – takes the state completely out of funding for support and maintenance of teachers.  A further amendment statement nails this down and expands “support and maintenance” of teachers to support and maintenance of “schools”:  “”The several political subdivisions for public education, charter schools, parishes, bodies corporate, shall make adequate provision at their own expense [emphasis mine], for their schools, provided that the legislature may [emphasis mine] supplement that provision in the manner and degree that the Legislature finds most beneficial to the general good.  This amendment takes away all obligation for the state to fund public education.  Objection 2.  State support of religious schools.  The second-to-last sentence of Article 6 states that “no person shall ever be compelled to pay toward the schools of any sect or denomination.”  In deleting the word “schools’ and substituting the words ”religious education,” the amendment opens the door to public funding of religious schools, which the constitution emphatically states that no person (i.e., taxpayer) should ever have to do.  This amendment allows for state funding of religious schools.  

On October 18, 2011 the House Education Committee (HEC) voted to HB 595 "Inexpedient to Legislate".  This recommendation will go to the House floor where HB 595 will be voted upon by the entire House as one of many retained bills.

Retained bills will be acted on in January 2012.  It is expected that they will be dealt with on Wednesday, January 4^th and/or Thursday, January 5^th.

Here is the actual report from the HEC as reported in the House Record No. 70:

HB 595,amending the compulsory school attendance statutes to permit parent-directed instruction programs and repealing the home education statutes.  

MAJORITY:  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. 

MINORITY:  OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Ralph G Boehm for the Majority of Education:  There were three bills dealing with home education, even though it was felt that this bill had some good points, the committee decided that HB 545 was the vehicle to use for changing the home education statute.Vote 12-2.      

Rep. J.R. Hoell for the Minority of Education:  We oppose the ITL recommendation.  HB 595 is similar to HB 1580 which almost passed through the house under a democratic majority in 2010.  HB 595 provides for equitable treatment for home schools.  Under current law a child’s home education program can be terminated in certain cases whereas the child’s public or non-public school program would not be terminated.  HB 595 respects a parent’s right to direct the education of his/her child.