Subject: Please pull HB406 back into committee
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:12:14 -0400
From: Chris Hamilton
To: peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us, SenatorBragdon@verizon.net
Dear Senator Bragdon,
My name is Chris Hamilton. I am a homeschooling parent, and I testified for HB406 at the Senate Education Committee hearing. I have been tracking the bill over the Internet, in hearings, and in executive sessions since it was introduced as an LSR, and I am the one who broke the news to the homeschooling community that the amendment published in the Senate Calendar on 6/2 did not match the discussion in executive session on 5/10.
I truly appreciate what you are doing to try to "make things right". However, no matter how good they are, I do not support any floor amendments to the bill. It's not just because I support the bill as passed by the House. I know that I won't always get my way on policy issues. Those who oppose the bill had a right to present their point of view, and they convinced some committee members to take their side on some issues. But I do think that the legislature owes its citizens as much openness in its deliberations as reasonable and possible. We give legislators a lot of leeway in doing its business without giving prior notice to citizens because we know that situations will come up where such leeway is necessary. I don't think this is one of those situations.
The bill is not addressing a crisis. We homeschoolers have been living under the current law for 14 years now. We will likely have to live with whatever is passed by the legislature for a long time. Let's take the time to do it right. Let's bring specific language before the Senate Education Committee and let them say, "Yes, this is a proposal I can vote for." Let homeschoolers see if the debate matches the wording in the amendment, let them hold committee members accountable for their actions, and let them communicate with their senators about something that is not a moving target. I think if homeschoolers are allowed input on the amendment, the result will be a better law for all, including opponents of the original bill.
Please pull the bill back to the Education Committee and do it right. Without that, there will always be the cloud of suspicion in the homeschooling community that someone was trying to circumvent the rules. I believe the amendment published in the calendar was an honest mistake, but many homeschoolers do not. Let's keep government in the hands of the people, even if it means that this bill will not come to a vote this session.
Sincerely,
Chris Hamilton
(phone number deleted)
Subject: Re: Please pull HB406 back into committee
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:03:32 -0400
From: Senator Peter Bragdon
To: Chris Hamilton
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
Thank you for your e-mail.
I plan to urge Senate Republicans to vote for HB 406 as it originally came to us from the House. I think there is a reasonable chance we can make that happen, though I won't know until late Wednesday afternoon. If you me some information as to how best to reach you after 6:00 Wednesday, I will try my best to give you the outlook and tell you who to target to get this thing passed. Please send that contact info to peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us
If I cannot make that happen and I cannot stop an amendment from getting passed, I want to make sure the amendment does no harm. As you pointed out, the amendment as printed in the calendar contains two major problems, both of which I must take responsibility for; the replacement of "within 30 days" in current statute with "at least 30 days before" and the replacement of the commissioner "acknowledging in writing that the parent is permitted" in current statute with the commissioner "granting permission". I will make sure that if there is any amendment that squeaks out then that amendment will, at least, not have those flaws.
I appreciate your views on the matter and I share your preference that the original bill get passed. I just want to be prepared, just in case...
Sincerely,
Peter Bragdon
State Senator, Dist. 11
(603) 271-6933 (State House)
(603) 673-7135 (Home)
Subject: Re: Please pull HB406 back into committee
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 21:17:29 -0400
From: Chris Hamilton
To: Senator Peter Bragdon
Dear Senator Bragdon,
Thank you for your support for the bill as it passed the House. And thank you for your desire to see that any amendment "does no harm". However, there are some additional problems with the amendment, and with the changes you propose.
I can say fairly certainly that, although this amendment leaves intact the part of the law that allows a homeschooler to select any of three participating agencies, it only allows the one-time acknowledgement that would exempt a homeschooler from submitting future curriculums to come from the commissioner of education. Yes, families could choose other participating agencies, but then they would be required to submit a curriculum every year. I called Roberta Tenney, Administrator of School Approval. It is her group that would be required to review all the home education programs. She did not think having them all come through the DOE was a good idea at all. They are having trouble acting as participating agency for approximately 200 families. It would be virtually impossible for her group to handle the likely 4,000 programs which would land on their desks the first year, and the likely 400-500 that would come their way each year thereafter.
Regarding the rewording of the "30-day" provision, you may find a great deal of opposition to this from superintendents. Under existing law, homeschooling parents are required to have their letter of intent (but not their curriculum) submitted by the first day of school in their district, or the day they withdraw their child from school, to avoid truancy. Under this amendment, districts will have to wait 30 days to prosecute cases of truancy, in case the parent intends to notify of their intent to homeschool.
You can see why I am nervous about ANY amendment going to the floor of the Senate this Thursday under the time pressure you are facing. I really think it would be much better to slow the process down and make sure that changes will not have undesireable side effects!!!
Sincerely,
Chris Hamilton
Beaver Lodge Homeschool
(phone number deleted)
Subject: Re: Please pull HB406 back into committee
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:28:02 -0400
From: Senator Peter Bragdon
To: Chris Hamilton
Dear Chris:
Just a couple of thoughts....
With respect to the "acknowledgement," current law CLEARLY states that the acknowledgment must come from the commissioner. However, another statute gives the commissioner the authority to delegate this responsibility to local supts. and private schools, which is what happens. This would not change if the amendment were to pass.
The 30-day notice issue is indeed interesting... it appears that the Dept. of Ed's RULES (rules are what the agencies use to implement statutes) conflict with current STATUTE and would also conflict with the statutes established by the amendment. (Statutes take precedence over rules). The department's rules say that on or before the start date, notification must be made, followed by curriculum submission 30 days later. However the statute passed by the legislature makes no distinction between the two (notification and curriculum submission) and says they occur "within 30 days", which legislative history indicates means "no more than 30 days after". I see nothing that indicates the Dept. has the authority to demand notification "on or before"
With all that said, your point is well taken... with every thing else going on these days, why rush into making changes from the original HB 406. If the original doesn't pass I may move to get it Re-referred. That means it comes up again in January. If it passes then and goes to the governor (just before an election) he may be more inclined to support it.
Thanks for your input.
Peter Bragdon
State Senator, Dist. 11
Dear Senator Bragdon,
First of all, I would like to take you up on your kind offer to give me an overview of how the Republican caucus views the bill. After 6PM, I can be reached either by e-mail, or by phone (xxx-xxxx) or by cell phone (xxx-xxxx). So you are not surprised when we speak, I should let you know that my given name is Christina. There were just so many Christine's and Christina's in the homeschooling movement that I chose to be known as Chris, to avoid confusion. :-)
You wrote:
> With respect to the "acknowledgement," current law CLEARLY states that
> the acknowledgment must come from the commissioner. However, another
> statute gives the commissioner the authority to delegate this
> responsibility to local supts. and private schools, which is what
> happens. This would not change if the amendment were to pass.
Your e-mail illustrates perfectly why I want to bring the bill back to the committee rather than see it amended at this point. There's major confusion about existing law less than 24 hours before the issue comes to the floor. I think if we can clear up this confusion, a solution can be worked out that is agreeable to all, but I don't think it can happen in this short time frame.
I wish the original law had been written more clearly. I believe you and the original bill's authors, both supporters of homeschooling freedoms, misunderstand the following sentence:
Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:7, I, the commissioner of education shall acknowledge in writing that the parent shall be permitted to initiate a home education program for a child enrolled in a public or nonpublic school if the program meets the minimum definitional and educational requirements as provided in RSA 193-A:4, I and paragraph II of this section.
This sentence is not referring to the commissioner passing judgment on the program itself. This means that in the event of a disagreement between the participating agency and the parent that reaches the level where the district initiates a hearing, the commissioner must inform the parent of his/her right under the law to start a home education program as long as it meets the requirements of the law. This is to make sure the parent knows that the participating agency cannot refuse to acknowledge a program because they "didn't like it". It establishes the intent of the legislature to impose limits on what districts can require of home educators. This is not the way I would have written this requirement/limitation, and it confuses a lot of people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are taking this sentence to mean that the commissioner is the only one who can issue a letter of acknowledgement. After your e-mail, I tried to explain this misunderstanding to some other supporters of homeschooling, and for the first ten minutes they were agreeing with you. But the sentence immediately preceding it gives the parent the right to choose among three options:
193-A:5 Notification and Other Procedural Requirements.
I. Any parent commencing a home education program for a child, for a
child who withdraws from a public school, or for a child who moves into
a school district shall notify the commissioner of education, resident
district superintendent, or principal of a nonpublic school of such
within 30 days.
This is further supported by paragraph IV in the same section:
IV. Subject to the provisions of RSA 193-A:7, I, the commissioner of education, resident district superintendent, or nonpublic school principal shall acknowledge receipt of notification within 21 days of such receipt.
There are places in the law where the commissioner is the only one who can send a letter of acknowledgement, but those are in cases where the commissioner is settling a dispute. In the case where there is no dispute, the party chosen by the parent as participating agency must send the letter of acknowledgement within 21 days. It's been that way from day one of this law, under the watchful eye of DOE officials who participated in the writing of the law. I'm pretty sure Roberta Tenney, current Adminstrator of School Approval in the DOE (271-2079) and currently responsible for overseeing the home education program in the DOE, will support this explanation.
The law that will result from the amendment you created still allows homeschoolers to choose any participating agency of the three, but unless they use the commissioner for one year, they will be required to continue submitting a curriculum each year. If parents give up their right to choose the district or non-public school as participating agency in order to qualify for exemption in future years, the DOE will act as participating agency for up to 4,000 programs the first year the bill takes effect, and approximately 400 programs in subsequent years (with current turnover, it would not be unreasonable to assume that 10% of all programs submitted each year are new parents), where they're struggling now to handle 200. If parents continue to select some other participating agency, they will have to submit a curriculum every year. I'm not sure that is what you intended.
We've been living with this law for 14 years, so I'd like any changes that are made to say exactly and clearly what is meant, and not have any unintended side effects that we have to live with for another 14 years. Although I don't agree with everything in the House version of the bill, I have had a chance to understand it and I know that it will produce a reasonable and workable law. Two years ago, among friends, I proposed something similar to the Education Committee's proposal, and even drew up language that would enact it, so I am not completely opposed to a one-time submission; it would be a compromise for me now, just as it was then.
I could go into the history of the 30-day notice, but you're probably pretty busy today.
I would be curious as to why your amendment removes the other provisions of the House version that are not strictly part of notification. Don Gorman didn't seem to think that the Education Committee talked about that in the executive session.
It's not my intent to criticize you. It's really heartening to see that senators get right down into the laws, and verify that their bills have the desired effect, but I know that it's a lot for you to absorb in a short time. I am worried that decisions are going to be made based on incomplete understandings, and I and other homeschoolers are going to have to live with those decisions. The assertions I am making are things that I have been learning over the course of 6 years of focused learning about our laws and how they are applied to homeschoolers in various situations. Whenever I had a question I sought an answer until I was satisfied. I spent a lot of time going to Home Education Advisory Council meetings and talking with the DOE and homeschoolers who were around when RSA 193-A was created. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand everything perfectly, but I think I know my limitations. I know that I can't explain the existing 30-day rule without doing more research, so it's possible you may be right.
I am hoping very much that all this is moot, and that the bill will pass unamended, but if it does not, I hope that you would ask for it to be re-referred. I know that I am probably in the minority of homeschoolers asking for this, but I truly think it is the best course of action.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Hamilton