¶ Why does LEAH support S4767?

LEAH supports S4767 because it genuinely and significantly increases parental freedom. Not only does it free us from fruitless paperwork, more importantly, it removes many opportunities for abuse and harassment by educational officials. Each piece of paper, each required interaction is another opportunity for such harassment. We know from the monitoring of parent/district difficulties that this is a genuine problem in some districts. It may only be one superintendent away from being a problem in your district too. Furthermore, this bill removes the approval/input right of the same officials for the assessment process. Under this bill, parents will no longer be subject to the arbitrary whims of a hostile superintendent. This is real increased freedom.

¶ Isn't S4767 just a codification of the current regulations?

The requirements of S4767 are but a mere shell of the current regulations. Only the letter of intent and the assessment remain. Furthermore, the assessment now has expanded testing options, and more importantly, it provides for alternative assessments(written narrative) at all grade levels, all without superintendent input/approval.

¶ Does S4767 assert or grant power to New York that it doesn't currently have?

Don't we all wish for an environment (such as Oklahoma: homeschooling is constitutionally protected) where the state has no power over us! Unfortunately, New York has already asserted such power, and the courts have agreed. (It is different discussion whether or not New York should have such power.) In the Packer decision (New York Court of Appeals, 1948), the court maintained, even though Packer Collegiate won freedom from excessive regulation, that the State has a right to regulate private education. (Because there is no explicit constitutional provision prohibiting such regulation, the State, under the principle of Police Powers, may in fact regulate home instruction.) Furthermore, the Blackwelder decisions (NYS Family Court in April 1988 and Federal Court in June 1988) affirmed that the State may require that parents demonstrate teacher competency and substantial educational equivalence under Section 3204 of the NY Statutes, and that home visits by educational authorities are permissible as part of their determination. This law and these interpretations of it by the courts remain the legal status of New York homeschooling. The Blackwelder decisions were potentially disastrous for homeschooling. HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association) and other homeschoolers from across New York negotiated with the SED to try to obtain as much freedom as possible in light of these decisions. The result was the S100.10 regulations, which HSLDA itself didn't like, but they were the best relief from Section 3204 that could be obtained at that time. (The regs provide a safe haven for parents to homeschool without having to directly satisfy the requirements of Section 3204.) S4767 supercedes the existing state statutes (3204 and others) to the extent that they are currently being used to cover homeschooling.

¶ Can't the SED just add the current regs (and then some) on to S4767?

When the legislature passes a bill, an agency can't add to the bill without statutory authority. This bill does not give the SED such authority. In fact, this bill contains specific language that is used when the legislature wants a particular bill and nothing more to be the governing law. This language has been tested in court. Neither state nor local agencies or officials can add on to this bill. In fact, this language prevents even the legislature from accidentally changing a provision via a later law, unless they specifically address home instruction.

I met with Senator Kuhl earlier this year. I specifically asked him about the potential of additional regulations from the SED because I knew this was a key concern about this bill of some homeschoolers. His response was that this was ludicrous, that this bill was specifically designed to replace the regulations, that there was no authority for additional regulation.

¶ Won't S4767 be amended in the legislative process and be turned into a bad bill?

The legislative process in New York is unique because, unlike Congress or many other states, a bill cannot be amended without the express permission of its sponsor. In the same meeting, I indicated to the Senator that the section on alternative assessments was especially important, and some homeschoolers were concerned that it would be amended. Senator Kuhl told me that he had no intention of amending this bill, that it was a good bill just the way it was.

¶ Why doesn't LEAH work to obtain more complete freedom in New York?

We are reaching for as much freedom that we think is currently achievable. Regardless of the outcome of S4767, we will continue to work for increased freedom. But even now as we are trying to find an Assembly Democrat to sponsor the bill on that side (without which, this bill is probably going nowhere), the comments and concerns that we are getting back from Assembly Democrats is that S4767 gives us too much freedom from state oversight. (Alas, life in New York, where big government and high regulation reign!) LEAH is working to increase homeschooling freedom - at the same time we are trying to be careful not to fruitlessly tilt at windmills.

Rich Stauter

President, NYS Loving Education At Home