Thank you for your prompt(!) reply. I have created a web site to help homeschoolers become informed about this bill and to track it. I will be posting my e-mails and your reply (replies) at that site. I have left a message at your house asking you to call, but e-mail exchanges are fine with me. They are actually less work and more accurate than summarizing conversations.

I am truly sorry that I missed the hearing. I was in Concord that day, and would have changed my schedule to be there, had I known. If you would care to share what happened, I think homeschoolers would be very interested.

Kurk, Neal wrote:

>On HB 518:
>
>1. Your approach of a letter from the parents of a homeschooled child that
>he is continuing his education, has received the equivalent of a diploma,
>etc., suffices, as far as I'm concerned. Homeschooling parents are a very
>special breed and, in my opinion, motivate their children to value education
>and succeed intellectually. Were all parents able to so inspire their
>children, public school education would thrive. Hence, little or no
>regulation of homeschoolers is needed.
>

Do you have any objection to amending the law to make sure that when the regulations that surround the law are created (likely by the Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles) that this will be an option? Forgive me for being skeptical that employees in that division share your views on what is adequate proof.

There is also the problem of 18-20 year olds, like my daughter, for whom parents no longer have any legal responsibility, and who cannot be legally bound to any course of action by their parents. In fact, in most of our laws in NH, the word "parent" has no legal meaning once a person turns 18. Can these young adults vouch for themselves? Again, do you have any objections to amending the law to make that clear?

>2. Your policy concern about disruptive students is valid. I am aware that
>one of the unintended consequences of HB 518 might be harm to other,
>hard-working students. I tried to deal with this through the "good cause
>shown" concept. However, I would expect that most 16-18-year olds would
>accommodate their behavior rather than risk losing their licenses.
>

I don't understand how this solves the problem. Teens risk losing their licenses only if they leave school. The loss of a license is not tied to their disruptive behavior, only to their presence in the classroom. Nothing changes about the situation of students who stay in school and are disruptive because they don't want to be there, except that, if your bill works, you have created more of them. The only way I can see this bill influencing classroom behavior in a positive way is either for an administrator to promise to write a letter at a future date based on good behavior (the student still drops out, and "good cause" becomes a pretense -- keep in mind how teens react to hypocrisy), or an administrator chooses to write a letter to get the disruptive student out of the classroom (rewarding bad behavior).

Surely you've dealt with teens who practice passive aggression. I know quite a few homeschooling moms who have. :-) The solution is not always punishment, it is often to change the student's environment. Many times punishment makes the situation worse. It's the age-old problem of bringing horses and water together, but somehow the water doesn't find its way into the horse unless the horse wants it to. No matter how much you punish the horse, if you insist on him drinking you will also get hurt.

Also, I have a technical comment. When a student is expelled, it is not the student who is terminating his or her attendance. A strict reading of the law would seem to indicate that an expelled student would be able to keep his/her license. This bill as written could wind up encouraging students to seek expulsions as a way out.

...chit-chat removed...

Chris