Comments on: Restrictive homeschool law proposed in New Jersey

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:27:36 +0000

I wonder that, too. And it looks like the bill originated from a “concerned citizen” who is not a homeschooler.

The letter rally seems to be working, however. The committee has asked to meet with members of the NJ homeschool group so that should be a good thing.

By: Sebastian (a lady)

Sebastian (a lady) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:36:43 +0000

I wonder if the bill was so restrictive partly so they could give up some of the provisions and still have a much more restrictive system than they have now. It allows them to say that they have tried to compromise but that homeschoolers are just unresonable and must have something to hide.

By: Dana

Dana — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:39:52 +0000

Yeah, I read most of the original bill and it is not very good. I have a hard time imagining that a law so radically more restrictive than the current law will pass, but you never know. Certainly shows what the NJ legislature is heading toward, I’m afraid.

By: Sebastian (a lady)

Sebastian (a lady) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:18:47 +0000

I took a look at the actual language of the proposed bill.
I thought that the summary might have been alarmist. I am actually more concerned having read the actual text. To my mind, this puts all the burdens of a public school onto the homeschool. For example, there is a reference to all the subjects required by law, but no ennumeration of what subjects are required from homeschoolers. So if NJ passes a law requiring comprehensive sex ed or multicultural religous lessons or a week of Walter Mitty familiarization within the public school system, then it would seem to also be binding on homeschools.
Failure to demonstrate that learning through the portfolio would be grounds for ruling the homeschool unsatisfactory. Tremendous room here for superintendents to be arbitrary. I hope this goes down, or I’ll have to strike another state off my list of tolerable places to live.

By: Susan Ryan

Susan Ryan — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:43:40 +0000

As I understand it, NJ already has mandatory mental health screenings for all new and pregnant moms. A new law was passed a year or so ago.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:21:36 +0000

What is “medical care as required by law”? Compulsory vaccinations? Compulsory yearly well visits? Compulsory psychological evaluations? Scary!!

By: Susan Ryan

Susan Ryan — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:58:44 +0000

I was just responding to what it really means to “allow homeschoolers to compete in interscholastic sports” in Illinois. IL was listed as one of those 24 states and the quote made it seem much simpler than it is.

Regarding your question: “Has there been a push for greater restrictions in Illinois directly related to the fact that homeschoolers participating in sports have greater regulation?”

I don’t believe there have been greater homeschooling restrictions because homeschoolers wanted to be in ps sports/activities. There was a dustup when IHSA initiated its new rules about private school/homeschool participation, but my memory is fuzzy about that.

On a local level, there is negotiation with each homeschool family wishing to participate in IHSA activities because of the bylaws. How are those 20 credit hours approved? Does it need to be an accredited distance learning school such as American School? Do the kids have to be seated in the school half of the day? But if you’re in the public school, you play by public school rules. That is the choice of families to make.

Private schools here participating in IHSA activities are allowing homeschoolers to stay home while allowing legitimate 20 credit hour approval. Public schools seem to be insisting the kids stay in the classroom.
If our family did this (the IHSA activities), we’d go the private school route as they’re much more flexible and seem to be engaged in the actual education rather than the money (as an institution).They encourage the family sticking together.
I should say that some public elementary schools allow homeschoolers to participate in the grade school sports/activities. It depends on the principal/administrators and some are open to all.
Sorry to be so long about this.

By: ChristineMM

ChristineMM — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:21:21 +0000

Dana thank you for blogging this. I had not heard of it yet. I am sorry that my close neighbor, New Jersey is having to fight this battle.

Our law in Connecticut is similar in that we don’t have a specific homeschool law and we have no LAW that requires oversight. In the past some bills have been proposed to try to have more monitoring. I sure hope that in CT this legislative sesion we don’t have to deal with this.

More and more it seems that different states are trying to regulate and monitor homeschoolers.

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:01:38 +0000

I don’t know what is meant by “certain crimes,” but it may be directly related to what Crimson Wife mentioned about this perhaps being part of the fallout from the attention give homeschooling in the wake of what happened in CA. There are cases such as sustained allegations of abuse in which I think it is appropriate to have intensive family interventions involved to preserve the family, thereby not removing children. However, in such cases, I would be as uncomfortable about the parents homeschooling as are the normal detractors of homeschooling.

The problem is, without clarification, we can all read into it what we want. One person may read “any offense,” while I read only “sustained allegations of abuse.” Ripe for state abuse, if the state were ever inclined to such a thing.

By: Shawna

Shawna — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:57:44 +0000

So if you go to public school mommy can have a felony background for say writing bad checks, but if you are homeschooled she cannot? Interesting.