Homeschooling under attack – again! This time in NH? So much for "free state"...

[bj72]

Any grassroots, RPF or free state project people, fighting this and hitting the phones? The current homeschooling law in NH is one reason I would cross NH off my list as a viable relocation option. If this passes, it'll be even worse. I'm surprised NH is not "no notice" or at least a low level intrusion like states that require notice to state only. Why is NH so harsh on homeschooling, yet making strides in other areas?

BTW, I specifically did not put this in the "Education" category as I feel those with children are often the only ones taking up the cause. Even if you are young and do not have children yet, have children that have already grown, or choose not to have children, this is an important issue to call in about if you live in NH. This is freedom under attack. If those in NH win on some issues, but fail to protect children from restrictive state control, they have lost the long-range war for freedom and liberty within the state. Portfolio reviews are subjective and a way for the state to get their foot in the door. If the reviewer does not like the curriculum, it could open the door for the state to deny the family the right to educate their own children. Testing sounds great in theory, except then it will force those educating at home to "teach to the test" instead of educating in the best manner and pace for the child.

"He said hearings on the issue are scheduled in Concord Feb. 11." Please attend if you can. If you need more info on homeschooling and state laws, check out HSLDA, www.hslda.org. They have a lot of information. Thanks!





http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88006

Homeschoolers under attack – again!
Proposal would require review by 'credentialed educator'
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Homeschoolers in recent months have weathered the turmoil of a California court opinion that appeared to ban the activity, and while the threat later was removed, proposals that would hinder parents who want to teach their own children remain pending.

That's according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which monitors the situations closely. The newest warning, the organization said today, comes from New Hampshire.

Pending in the state legislature is a plan by Rep. Judith Day that would "radically" rewrite the testing and assessment demands under the state's existing laws.

"If passed, New Hampshire would have one of the most restrictive homeschool laws in the nation," said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney for HSLDA.

WND reported just weeks ago the homeschooling movement is sweeping the nation – with 1.5 million children now learning at home, an increase of 75 percent since 1999.

The Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reported homeschooling has risen by 36 percent in just the last five years.

"There's no reason to believe it would not keep going up," NCES statistician Gail Mulligan told USA Today.

HSLDA noted homeschooling is thriving "since all the research shows that homeschoolers significantly outperform their peers on standardized tests."

In New Hampshire, the existing law already is more burdensome than many other states, because in addition to an annual notice to school districts, homeschoolers must give an annual statement of academic progress and maintain two years' of records.

But the new proposal, HSLDA said, would "require all homeschoolers to take both a test, and to submit to a portfolio evaluation by a 'credentialed educator.'

"It then places subjective authority in the hands of a superintendent or non-public school principle to terminate a family's homeschool program," the HSLDA said.

"It’s amazing that New Hampshire is considering these kinds of additional restrictions when it already requires parents to provide annual assessments," said Donnelly. "This new law is unnecessary. It would simply waste taxpayers' money and parents' time."

He said hearings on the issue are scheduled in Concord Feb. 11. Such battles have become common in recent years in the state, Donnelly told WND.

"There is a concerted effort by a group of legislators in the state House to try to impose more restrictions," he said. "We're always having to fight that."

In a 2007 survey, parents cited providing religious and moral instruction as the most important factor in the decision to teach their children at home (36 percent). The second most important issue was concern about the school environment (21 percent), while the third reason was dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools (17 percent).

[UnReconstructed]

I wouldn't give a damn what the law is. I educate my children. If the time comes when they send men with guns to drag my children off to a welfare school then I have instructed them to not cooperate.

They will have dragged me off to a cage first... or a graveyard.

[dannno]

HSLDA noted homeschooling is thriving "since all the research shows that homeschoolers significantly outperform their peers on standardized tests."


Can't have that.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wouldn't give a damn what the law is. I educate my children. If the time comes when they send men with guns to drag my children off to a welfare school then I have instructed them to not cooperate.

They will have dragged me off to a cage first... or a graveyard.

Now THAT'S a good parent! :D:)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Can we stop with the Free State Project thing already? It's never going to work with New Hampshire. The so-called "free state" giving only 8% of its vote to Ron Paul in the republican primary is a joke. New Hampshire is being over-run by Massachusetts Massholes looking to escape that state's high taxes and then subsequently voting for more democrats. They're mindless.

The free state project needs to shift from a declining lost cause like New Hampshire to Montana or Idaho. Montana is the preference but they may have too many from California moving in. But they're both states that are sparsely inhabited and highly receptive and sympathetic to Ron Paul and the message.

[Expatriate]

I think some people should blatantly disobey these laws, and speak to local media openly about why they are not following the law.

I get tired of people who say " When they cross this line, I'll resist" but simply move their line farther back when it is is crossed.

I know most of us hate adversity, but for crying out loud, THEY ARE TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN NOT TEACH YOUR OWN CHILD IN YOUR OWN HOME. That might fly in Canada but I can't see it being implemented without some kind of protest in NH.

[Expatriate]

Can we stop with the Free State Project thing already? It's never going to work with New Hampshire. The so-called "free state" giving only 8% of its vote to Ron Paul in the republican primary is a joke. New Hampshire is being over-run by Massachusetts Massholes looking to escape that state's high taxes and then subsequently voting for more democrats. They're mindless.

The free state project needs to shift from a declining lost cause like New Hampshire to Montana or Idaho. Montana is the preference but they may have too many from California moving in. But they're both states that are sparsely inhabited and highly receptive and sympathetic to Ron Paul and the message.

At least they're visible. I've seen countless FSP ads on the net; it's one of the things that turned me on to Ron Paul in the first place.

Most of the people in the FSP are already settled in NH, they can't just relocate to Montana all of a sudden.

If you think MT is a better candidate, why don't you start Free State Montana? But I'm sure it'd be easier for you to stay in GA :D

Hell, start Free State Georgia. I don't think there can be just one FSP at a time. The best scenario would be for all states to be free states, right?

As to the primary in NH, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM) (and the other vids on that account) and tell me you still trust the results. I'll believe the results when ballot security is treated with common sense.

[heavenlyboy34]

Can we stop with the Free State Project thing already? It's never going to work with New Hampshire. The so-called "free state" giving only 8% of its vote to Ron Paul in the republican primary is a joke. New Hampshire is being over-run by Massachusetts Massholes looking to escape that state's high taxes and then subsequently voting for more democrats. They're mindless.

The free state project needs to shift from a declining lost cause like New Hampshire to Montana or Idaho. Montana is the preference but they may have too many from California moving in. But they're both states that are sparsely inhabited and highly receptive and sympathetic to Ron Paul and the message.

Nevada has some redeeming traits too-for example, giving RP 2nd place in the primaries. ;):)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Nevada has some redeeming traits too-for example, giving RP 2nd place in the primaries. ;):)

Too populated and the fastest growing state in the U.S.

It, in my opinion, needs to be a state with a small population so that it takes less voting people moving in to have a noticeable impact.

[UnReconstructed]

Why do you feel that Ron Paul is the standard for freedom? Do you even understand what the Free State Project is? The NHLA ran over 150 liberty minded activists for office this past election season.

How many did Montana run? How many did Idaho run? NH and the FSP are the single largest freedom movement in this landmass.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why do you feel that Ron Paul is the standard for freedom?


He doesn't have to be at all. Just look at whom they voted for in the republican primary:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2aa0w0g.jpg

Look at all those votes for neocons.

[Expatriate]

Nevada has some redeeming traits too-for example, giving RP 2nd place in the primaries. ;):)

What I'm sayin' is each state needs it' own Free State Proj. I'm as dedicated to liberty as they come, but I can't be persuaded in the near future to move from Ontario (a libertarian's nightmare) to New Hampshire even though it isn't all that far. People like to stay where they are for the most part.

I know the whole purpose of the FSP is to concentrate liberty-minded individuals in one spot where they can make a difference, but they haven't exactly drawn hundreds of thousands. Yet look at the amount of visibility they have on the internet and locally in NH. They are making a difference.

Most people are followers, not leaders. I am myself not comfortable starting a "Free Province Project" in Ontario. But if you feel you are up to the task, there are likely many individuals in your state who would love to be a part of an FSP if given the chance. Could you be the one to kick it off?

[Expatriate]

To the post above with the picture of Clinton and McCain:



As to the primary in NH, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM) (and the other vids on that account) and tell me you still trust the results. I'll believe the results when ballot security is treated with common sense.

[pinkmandy]

Think that's bad? Check out this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87929


A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."


The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

[The_Orlonater]

You guys think I can get a FSP here? :D