I have no problems with HSLDA’s stance in opposition to a Delaware proposal to charge homeschoolers for Driver’s Education in the state. All students have been allowed to participate in the program without cost and that may change if a proposal made by the Delaware Secretary of Education is adopted.
What I do have a problem with is the lead HSLDA chose for the alert. And the font, but that is another issue entirely.
The Delaware Secretary of Education has proposed an amendment to the current administrative regulations which would strip homeschoolers of the right to free driver education. HSLDA
It will “strip” them of their rights? Where is that one in the constitution? Where is any free program offered by the state described as a “right?” I thought this was something I agreed with HSLDA on…that rights are inherent and unalienable. They are things which cannot be taken from you, not claims on the property of others which must be provided to you.
HSLDA is probably right in their assertion that amending administrative regulations in this way goes against Delaware’s statutory law. I would think that would provide reason enough to protest the change as well as enough grounds to take the issue to court. But then they go on to highlight “serious constitutional questions.”
Not only is the proposed amendment contrary to the statutory law of Delaware, it raises serious constitutional questions regarding this discriminatory treatment of nonpublic school students by the state. We believe that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the type of unfair dissemination of services which would result from this change in the regulations. Ibid.
Just to be sure, I reread the Fourteenth Amendment, because I didn’t recall anything that sounded like it would extend to state’s paying for Driver’s Ed. I thought it was predominantly about allowing former slaves to vote and be secure in their life, liberty and property. Here is the Equal Protection Clause:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, I am pretty literal and not a “read between the lines” kind of woman, so maybe I’m missing something. But I don’t think that equal protection means equal access to wealth distribution.
Or are homeschoolers guaranteed by our Constitution access to free and reduced school lunches? School field trips? School sports? Those Christmas programs organized to give kids in urban schools presents? Textbooks? Or maybe access to a school administrator looking over our shoulder?
Public school students “unfairly” get those, too.
Update: I dug up Delaware’s education code. This is posted in comments, but I thought it should be added to the entry.
This is where the issue lies. Not with rights, but with the legislature’s intent. Power is given to the Secretary of Education to propose rules and regulations regarding the program, but there is an issue with the reading of the law. And the education code reads:
§ 122 b. The program shall be available to any pupil who is a resident of the reorganized school district in which the program is offered or in which the program is offered in cooperation with other reorganized school districts, who has been enrolled in or is eligible for enrollment in the tenth grade or who is enrolled in grades 11 or 12, or who has reached that pupil’s own fifteenth birthday on or before July 15;
And further down, in § 127, we find that state funds can even cover nonpublic instruction. Clearly, although authority was given to the Board of Ed., the intent of the legislature was to provide this for all students in the state.
It is a legal issue. Not a constitutional one.
My only problem with not allowing homeschoolers and other private school students taking these courses without cost is because of the insurance companies. If they no longer required these courses for a special rate, I would say everyone should pay.
But you and I both know the only reason these courses exist is not because you learn anything in them (all of us in those classes have already driven at sometime before taking the class) it is because the parents want a lower insurance rate.
I don’t know anything about “free” drivers ed in Delaware. But IO know one thing, nothing is free and someone is paying for it.
I took drivers ed as an elective when I was in 10th grade. I don’t recall paying for it. But someone did. The point is that unless the state allows “equal access” to other publicly funded programs, go pay for private instruction.
Well according to the rest of the HSLDA alert, this is a course offered during summer months. Current guidelines allow any student in the area to attend. The proposed guideline would allow only public school students.
I think I would need to know a lot more about how this course was authorized and funded before thinking it was a possible Constitutional issue.
If it is totally funded within the public school system. For example if it were part of the district summer school, then I could see that it was quite legitimate to restrict this.
But if it had been authorized by some other piece of legislation and received funding through another arm of the government (say the state department of transportation or public safety) then restricting it to certain types of students would seem to be an arbitrary restriction.
I agree with your general idea that drivers’ ed isn’t a right. But then, neither are summer reading programs. But I’d be pretty miffed if someone tried to restrict them to only students who attended public school. I would consider that their right to receive public services had been unfairly restricted.
This is another example of where I wish that the folks putting out alerts would give links to their sources. Context does matter.
When we decide to educate our children at home, we are opting to provide for them ourselves. We purchase the textbooks and materials. We pay for a chair and desk (or kitchen table), cover the costs of electricity, water and toilet paper used during the school day. I would no more expect Driver Education than I would think I could go to the school and pick up a desk or a roll of toilet paper. They have theirs, I provide ours. It’s better that way.
It seems like, in general, HSLDA recommends against its member families participating in government school programs. I hadn’t read about the Delaware issue, but I’m surprised at the language used (eg: “stripped” and “rights”).
The issue I have with all this is the use of the word “free.” As others have noted: Nothing is free. Someone’s paying for it, and it’s probably us (via taxes).
So, my thought would be that we should be given what we’ve paid for, if we want it. If people, through taxes, have paid for their students to attend drivers ed without further cost, then I think they should get that. It may not be a “right,” but it is a foundation of capitalism.
My two cents because that’s all I’ve got.
~Luke
There are all kinds of things our tax dollars pay for that we do not have access to. And I do think there may be a legal issue here. But dragging the 14th amendment in?
This is where the issue lies. Not with rights, but with the legislature’s intent. Power is given to the Secretary of Education to propose rules and regulations regarding the program, but there is an issue with the reading of the law. And the education code reads:
§ 122 b. The program shall be available to any pupil who is a resident of the reorganized school district in which the program is offered or in which the program is offered in cooperation with other reorganized school districts, who has been enrolled in or is eligible for enrollment in the tenth grade or who is enrolled in grades 11 or 12, or who has reached that pupil’s own fifteenth birthday on or before July 15;
And further down, in § 127, we find that state funds can even cover nonpublic instruction. Clearly, although authority was given to the Board of Ed., the intent of the legislature was to provide this for all students in the state.
It is a legal issue. Not a constitutional one.
Oops, here is the Delaware code as it applies to education.
So, if I am a little old lady who has never driven a car before, can I take the course for free? Is that my right?
Sure, I’ll give you Delaware’s taxpayer money.
I think the law covers that, though. It says something about being eligible for enrolling in the tenth grade.
We have homeschoolers participating and winning track and field events here in Texas. We pay ungodly property taxes. I pay quite a large sum to provide education for plenty of my kids’ peers. I would say that offering free drivers education and speech programs shouldn’t be something the district balks about – considering that we aren’t all up in arms about NOT paying property taxes when we don’t use their schools.
However, I agree with you. I’ll pick my battles. Signing my life over to the UN through the Convention of the Rights of a Child and having to pay for drivers’ ed are two entirely different animals. One is worthy of picketing, the other just a minor inconvenience for a homeschool family who is already paying for every other aspect of education.
Seems like another case of HSLDA using strong language. Sometimes IMO they are a bit strong with word choices. I’d prefer the really urgent issues such as legislation to regulate and further monitor HSing get the strongest language and the lesser issues like driver’s ed be a little more subdued.
When I was in public school the driver’s ed was optional and the parent had to pay $250 to the school to take the class within school hours. In my state the insurance gave a 20% discount to those who took the class. I was taught to drive starting at age 11 by my grandmother and uncle on rural backroads in northern Maine and had yearly practice up there. Then when it was time for me to do the official learning my father taught me here in CT.
Homeschoolers getting free driver’s ed from a public school is a pretty small issue in my opinion.
My complaint is not that my children are not getting “free driver’s ed” from our local school. (We’ll be shelling out $350 for it next spring, thank you very much.) My complaint is that I am paying for my neighbor’s little darling’s driver’s ed experience with my local tax dollars. The thought of that child behind the wheel of a car…And I have to fund it?!?
Horrors.
Christine, I agree. Actually, that bugs me quite a bit. Too much hyperbolic speech, and you get deaf to even the important alerts. It must work because every organization I’m involved with from the union to HSLDA sends out the same kind of alerts regarding their issues, but it still drives me bonkers.
I must just be weird.
Mississippi is one of the states that only allows vaccination exemptions for medical reason. They used the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit exemptions for religious reasons.
Not sure I follow their reasoning on that one either.
The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect former slaves after The Civil War, but since that is no longer an issue, The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment more broadly to protect many rights and privileges that we take for granted today. Whether you believe it is good thing or not depends on your political views.
It is the Fourteenth Amendment that allows one to move from one state to another and immediately take advantage of the laws and programs of your new home. Or better yet, those who live in one state and work in another. Without the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, one would be treated like an immigrant in the various states of this great country, and we would not be allowed to move as freely as we do between the states.
Driver’s education, administered through the public school system via this statute is considered a “privilege” of “all” students. And even by a “literal” reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, that privilege is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, there is a strong argument that this is a constitutional issue. Any law that denies any citizen the opportunity to exercise a right or enjoy privilege given them by law is a constitutional issue. HSLDA pulled out the big guns. It looks like a “strong-arm” tactic, but it is a valid argument.
Anything that can be defined as a “privilege” is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Depending on the wording of the laws of the state, yes home school students have rights to free and reduced school lunches, textbooks, school field trips, extracurricular activities, or anything else made available to “students” of the state. If the state wishes to exclude home school students, or any other students for that matter, it must do so expressly, or the courts will include any and all who fit the description based on the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. An interpretation that is hotly contested among the justices of the current Supreme Court.
It is likely the make-up of The Supreme Court will change in the next few years, and the current application of the Fourteenth Amendment may be more restrictive.
I have not heard of this, and I am sorry if I am re-iterating what someone has said already.
I don’t think homeschoolers should get special preference. I don’t know why we would need to have a child take Driver’s ed, unless mandated by law. We teach our children to drive with us, no biggie, and we prefer it that way.
However, a friend of mine lives in WA, and she said Driver’s Ed is a requirement to get your Driver’s License (I thought she said when you first get it, and it may not be for 18 and older, but I know it is for the age of those who would take Driver’s Ed.).
The only thing I was upset with about that is that I don’t think Driver’s Ed should be mandatory to get a Driver’s License. I think if you can pass a written test and a driving test, then they should give you your license. You pay for it anyway when you get it, along with mandatory insurance, taxes, title, etc. Since Driver’s Ed is not FREE, it should not be mandatory to get a license. Otherwise, it should be.
Just my two cents… :HA:
~J
In Georgia, since “Joshua’s Law” was passed, which mandates driver’s ed for teens under 18 to get a driver’s license, teen deaths due to auto accidents has dropped significantly. You will probably find similar statistics in other states.
I’m not sure I follow, but thank you.
The law seems to clearly state that all students can receive this, so I don’t know how the proposal could possibly stand. If that is what you were saying with regards to the 14th, then is seems a little redundant. I don’t see where a court could look at this and rule any other way. If the state wants to exclude private schools and homeschools, the law needs to be amended, not changed through rules and regs. It was written too clearly for that.
I disagree that a “privilege” is a “right.” I see “equal protection of the law” to mean that the law can’t turn a blind eye on theft, murder, etc. Perhaps the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly, I don’t know. But I don’t see the reason for the “Big Guns” when the law so clearly says any student residing within the district.
I have no problem with driver’s ed, even mandatory driver’s ed. I think it is a good program.
I agree with Jacque, that if a drivers’ ed course is mandatory, it should be free. Where it is not mandatory, the state is under no obligation to provide it for free to any and all.
And, homeschool students are not students of the state, as per Adrianne’s wording — just students in the state.
And good grief, ChristineMM, your father and grandparents aren’t certified to teach driver’s instruction. What were they thinking? Just because you can drive a car doesn’t mean you are qualified to teach someone to drive. What if there are holes in your driving education? This isn’t toilet training, after all; I have to share the road with you!
Sorry — just feeling snarky. But isn’t it ironic that driver’s ed is probably the only subject typically taught in a high school setting for which no one seems to question the validity of home instruction or the ability of parents to provide it? (Probably because a good portion of the population was taught to drive by their parents or grandparents!) And yet it is a life or death subject (unlike algebra!)
With the accident rates among youth on bicycles, I think that we need state certified instructors to teach children to ride bicycles. Can’t leave it up to the parents!
I think a mandatory number of hours behind the wheel is not a bad thing. I don’t care if that is with mom, dad, uncle or a certified driver’s ed instructor.
I know when I took driver’s ed, you could do either. If you went through driver’s ed and passed, you only had to take your sheet down to the DMV. If I remember correctly, your parents could sign your form but without the class you were subjected to a test.
I don’t think that is a bad model. Even if I’m remembering it wrong…I took DE, so not sure exactly the difference any more.
I can be wordy, and lose my audience. I said all that to say, that it is a constitutional issue, rather than just a legal issue.
The proposal probably won’t stand simply because it’s being challenged. That’s the scary part. There are many laws, such as this one on the books, and they stay on the books unless, and until someone says “wait a minute!” That’s why watchdog groups are so valuable.
Other arguments could be made to strike it, but HSLDA went straight to The Constitution.
“And, homeschool students are not students of the state, as per Adrianne’s wording — just students in the state.”
This statement lends itself to “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is” argument, but I will refrain.