Dear Representative Kurk,

I am a homeschooler in NH, and I have some questions and concerns about HB518, an act relative to eligibility for youth operators’ licenses. I did not find out about the bill until after the House Transportation Committee hearing took place, and intend to contact committee members about these concerns, but first wanted to contact you and Representative Packard, the sponsors.

HB518 would require " proof of ... current receipt of home education " in order for a student who is home educated to be issued a youth operator's license. I would like to know what, in your mind, constitutes proof.

It may be helpful here to explain how home education is currently regulated in NH. Up to age 16, consistent with the compulsory attendance law, RSA 193:1, parents who wish to homeschool their children must create a formal home education program, and file notice with a "participating agency", which can be either the superintendent of the district where the child resides, a non-public school approved by the state of NH, or the Commissioner of Education. The participating agency must send back a "letter of acknowledgment", which is proof that the child is receiving home education, and that the parents are meeting the requirements of the compulsory attendance law. After age 16, parents are no longer required to create formal plans, and very few choose to do so. Some families, maybe up to 1/3 (there are no statistics on this, it is only an educated guess based on my 10+ years as a homeschooling advocate) enroll the student in a distance learning program that will lead to a diploma. This still leaves a large percentage of home educated students over age 16 who currently have no formal documentation that they are "receiving home education".

To me, this creates a potential problem. When the home education law was created 14 years ago, home educators conceded that, although the ultimate burden for ensuring a child receives an education rests with the parent, society has a stake in the outcome of that education, and they worked with legislators and school districts to create a law that was acceptable to all. Despite the lack of proof that regulation improves the outcome for home educated students (and proof is slowly accumulating that regulation has *no* effect), NH continues to regulate homeschooling up to the age of 16. Over the years, homeschoolers like myself have vehemently opposed any increase in regulation, and in fact, a bill submitted this year, HB406 , would remove some of that regulation. Unless proof of current receipt of home education is something as simple as a letter or signed form from the parent, HB518 would require homeschoolers who wish their child to obtain a youth operator's license to continue to document their home education programs until the age of 18. Since home education programs, as defined by the state of NH, are created by parents for their minor children, this leaves in limbo home educated students who are over 18 but not yet 21. Are they going to be required to enroll in a distance learning program (at cost to the family) or submit to arbitrary oversight by school officials in order to obtain their driver's licenses? I would find both of these increases in regulation of homeschoolers unacceptable. Keep in mind that for homeschooled students, a driver's license represents not just an improved social life, but also increased opportunities for taking classes outside the home, especially in families where parents are trying to meet the needs of many children.

Any increase in regulation runs counter to several trends in laws and administrative procedures. In 2002 the NH legislature created RSA 191:1 (c), which guarantees home educated students over the age of 16 access to public school programs, even if no formal home education program has been created for them. The federal government now allows homeschoolers to "self-certify" that their child has completed a high school education for purposes of receiving federal education loans and grants. Community colleges in NH allow students without high school diplomas to enroll in programs if they pass a simple test showing "ability to benefit", and many homeschoolers take advantage of this.

I would like to offer my daughter's story as an example of why further regulation is not needed. After age 16, our family stopped all formal communications with any participating agency, and continued to provide her with the education our family determined best met her needs. We had earlier used a distance learning program to document her learning so she could receive a high school diploma, but found that the program actually got in the way of her making the most progress. Her education consisted of a combination of self-directed studies, courses offered by local independent teachers, and courses at community colleges and UNH. At age 16 she received a Sign Language Program Certificate from the NH Community Technical College. At age 18 she was accepted by UNH (early admission) into the program of her choice, theater, invited into the honors program, and awarded the Presidential Scholarship, one of the largest in-state merit scholarships available at UNH. Because she had accumulated so many college credits, she had sophomore standing her first year. Her most recent accomplishment is the award of an International Research Opportunities Program grant that will allow her to create a documentary film on theater in South Africa. Under this bill, this accomplished young adult, who now possesses a commercial driver's license and works for the transportation department at UNH driving one of their buses, could conceivably have to surrender her youth operator's license unless she could get a letter from her superintendent or high school principal. How demeaning and illogical! You may say my daughter is an exception (and as a parent, I like to think of her as exceptional), but there are many, many success stories of homeschooled students who, without this additional regulation, turn out to be successful adults. If you wish, I can put you in touch with them or their parents.

I would also like to go on record as being generally opposed to this bill, based on the effect it will have on citizens other than homeschoolers.

1. I am sure there are superintendents and high school principals who care deeply about students and who use existing laws to work creatively for the benefit of the student. However, as a homeschooling advocate, too often parents come to me seeking information about homeschooling because they feel that school administrators are not acting in the best interests of their child. Most of the time I agree with the parent that the administrator is being unreasonable. Because of this, I am generally opposed to laws which give school officials arbitrary powers over students and their families, such as the ability of these officials to decide whether" the applicant has terminated his or her education for good cause ". This kind of decision properly rests with the parent or adult student, as it does under existing law.
2. A citizen over 18 who chooses to leave school before obtaining a diploma will likely seek employment. Not having the ability to drive a car will severely limit the choice of jobs, which will limit his/her ability to be a productive adult. It seems that in passing this bill we might be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Of course we want young adults to think about the long term effects of their decisions, but do we intentionally cripple them if they make ones we disagree with? A much better solution is to make education leading to a high school diploma accessible to all, including working adults. Once young adults realize it is to their benefit to continue their education, they will come to classes motivated to learn.
3. I can guess that you are hoping to use the "carrot and stick" approach to motivate students to remain in school until they receive a high school diploma. However, any "stick" approach reduces the incentive of the educational establishment to implement "carrot" approaches, which are already under fire with the proposed federal budget cuts, such as the one to eliminate federal aid for vocational programs. You will simply be forcing older students to remain in public school classrooms against their will, where they often disrupt the learning of students who wish to be there. The detrimental effects of this approach were well documented at the Senate Education Committee hearing in 2003 regarding SB55, an act raising the age at which a child may terminate his or her public education, which failed in the Senate.

Although, on its face, this bill may seem like a good idea, I hope after listening to my concerns you will reconsider your sponsorship. I will be contacting you by telephone, hoping to get an answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this letter.

Thank you very much for your time,
Chris Hamilton
Beaver Lodge Homeschool