IT’S A TRAP.  

NHELD has found out about the secret bill through Freedom of information Requests. Details are explained below. Key takeaways - The draft bill requires: homeschool and private school parents to show up at the public school, once every year, with their children in tow, to prove they are not being abused and that they are being educated in a manner the public school officials deem appropriate. Legislators set up a “working group” to lead local homeschool advocates down the garden path to accepting regulation, all the while keeping the draft bill hidden from them. All this is being done to distract attention away from the abject failures of State agencies who did nothing to save a Waterbury public school child from starvation and abuse, for twenty years, by his public school teacher stepmother. The details are unmistakable. See for yourself.

The background to this update can be seen in the previous articles on this page. The short version is that multiple State agencies failed a child who had been in the public school system for FIVE FULL YEARS and was KNOWN by all to be emaciated and starving, stealing food, and going through garbage to find anything to eat. For FIVE FULL YEARS they watched this, until his stepmother stopped letting him go to school. He remained locked in a small room in his home for TWENTY long years, until he finally rescued himself by setting fire to his house to escape. At one point, during his captivity, some children who had known him reported his disappearance to police, and someone told police they thought the child was being homeschooled. There is no evidence that he was. There is evidence that he remained enrolled in the public school but the stepmother stopped sending him there. That makes no difference to the legislators in our State, many of whom have been waiting for any excuse to jump in and regulate homeschooling in Connecticut. Apparently, this is their long awaited chance, and a fantastic way to distract the public from looking at the disastrous failures of our State agencies, who could have done so much more to save this child. This is NOT a homeschool issue . This is a physical abuse issue that the State knew about and ultimately failed to save the child. But the legislators cannot allow their precious State agencies to be blamed. No, they need a scapegoat. So they have announces that they are having an “informational hearing” on homeschooling, scheduled at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, at 2 p.m. on Monday, May 5, 2025. Who will be there? The State Commissioner of Education, the State Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, the State Child Advocate, and the Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents. Gratuitously, these legislators have said through the grapevine that representatives of three State homeschool groups also may attend. What “information: will be discussed? Of course, the many ways that homeschoolers are to blame, never are the State agencies to be blamed. Will they adopt a bill to regulate homeschoolers? The word is that, yes, they want to adopt an “emergency” bill which, among other things will REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THEIR DISTRICT; REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO FOLLOW THE MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS MUST ADHERE TO, EXCEPT FOR VACCINES; AND REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO REPORT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR TO SHOW WHAT THE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED. And that’s just for starters! Make no mistake, your cherished freedom WILL BE GONE if this bill is adopted. You will NO LONGER HAVE ANY ESCAPE from public school oversight and control. YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPLY. You will NOT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM ENROLLMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL. So wake up Connecticut parents - If you don’t want your freedom lost, you better show up at the Legislative Office Building Monday, May 5, 2025 at 2 pm in Hartford t o make your presence and your opinion known to each and every legislator you can find. Even if you cannot speak directly to your legislator, your mere presence there will let them know that parents will not tolerate what they are about to do.

The Waterbury Captivity Case is eerily similar to what happened in Connecticut in 2018, Only this time, the abused child didn’t die. The State agencies learned nothing from their abject failures in the Matthew Tirado case in 2018. They apparently corrected nothing , and no one in any of the State agencies was held accountable for their failures. The result - another child was abused, starved, and held in captivity for twenty years before he finally had to rescue himself - by setting fire to the house where he was held captive. NHELD wrote about that story in the previous post. What readers need to know is that the Waterbury case is a virtual repeat of another Connecticut case - one in which the abused child, Matthew Tirado, was not so lucky. He died. Here’s the sad saga of what happened to Tirado that we posted at the time, back in 2018. See if you can spot the similarities, and let's hope this time, agency officials will be held accountable before another child is harmed. May 8, 2018 HOMESCHOOLERS RESPOND TO CHILD ADVOCATE’S REQUEST FOR “DIALOGUE” The State’s Child Advocate initiated her call for regulation of homeschoolers as a direct result of Matthew Tirado’s death. We question WHY, when Matthew Tirado was NEVER withdrawn from public school. He was NEVER homeschooled . He was enrolled in the Hartford Public School District for his entire life, until the day he died. While his Mother did file a Notice of Intent to homeschool Matthew’s sister, two months before Matthew’s death, homeschooling had absolutely nothing to do with Matthew’s tragic life or death. While the Child Advocate stated in her first report on Matthew that she was “examin[ing] how Matthew, and then his sister, came to be hidden or invisible in the months prior to Matthew’s death,” the so-called “hiding” or “invisibility” of those children had absolutely nothing to do with homeschooling. In fact, these children were neither “hidden”, nor “invisible”. They were well known to the Hartford Public School District, and to the Department of Children and Families, for years before Matthew died, as victims of abuse and neglect. It was well known by the District, and by DCF, that Matthew’s Mother wasn’t sending him to school. In other words, he was truant, and for a very long time, and periodically over a number of years. That means that these agencies could have taken many actions about that truancy, for years before Matthew died, and could well have prevented his death. The School District could have held a due process hearing to override the decision of the parent, to order his evaluation and his placement in a residential school setting. The District didn’t do that. Why? Who knows? DCF could have done a “welfare check” at any time, especially after DCF knew that he hadn’t been seen in a year, his Mother’s phone was disconnected, and his sister told the school officials that his Mother hit her and her brother. That’s more than enough reason for DCF to call the police to have them go and check on the children, without a warrant. DCF also could have gotten a warrant to do a 96 hour hold on the children to have them evaluated; or, DCF could have filed a neglect petition with the court years before they finally did. DCF did none of those things. Why? Who knows? Instead, DCF asked the court to close the case because the Mother refused to come to court five times in a row. And the Court, in a 45 second hearing, agreed with DCF to close the case, instead of ordering the Mother’s arrest. Yet, the Child Advocate seeks to regulate homeschooling? This makes no sense. Why is the Child Advocate considering this to be a homeschooling issue? It certainly seems to be not for a rational reason. In her report, she says that “OCA’s investigative process encompassed extensive record reviews, interviews and correspondence with multiple stakeholders, including DCF personnel, Hartford Public Schools officials, the Judicial Branch, Oak Hill School, and the Office of the Chief Public Defender. It sounds as if she did a thorough and comprehensive review. She says she based her conclusions and recommendations to the legislature on that review. I’m sure she did. If, indeed the Child Advocate’s “investigation” of Matthew’s death led her to her conclusions, then the logical thing to ask is what exactly did she discover in her investigation? What is the evidence that she found? What records did she review? Whom did she interview? What correspondence did she have with interested persons or agencies? We wanted to know these things months ago, and we still want to know, especially now that she is asking the legislature to take action to change the law, and, curiously so, regarding homeschooling. Obviously, the logical thing to do, especially when there is such a disconnect between what actually happened to Matthew and her recommendations about homeschooling, is for everyone involved, the legislature and the public, to be able to review everything that the Child Advocate reviewed, so that logical conclusions can be made before anything is changed. We took that logical next step, and we asked the Child Advocate, in a Freedom of Information Request, to provide us with all of the documents that she reviewed as part of her investigation. That was on February 1, 2018. It is now May 8, 2018. The odd thing is - to date, she has not provided us with one single document. She has not provided the legislature with one single document, to date, either. Yet, she claims she wants to have a “dialogue” about her conclusions and recommendations. How can anyone expect to have a reasonable, rational dialogue or discussion of the need for regulation of homeschooling based on the death of Matthew Tirado, when the Child Advocate is the ONLY person in the entire state that has seen all of the documents and evidence upon which her recommendation is based? That is simply irrational and illogical, and beneath the status of the Office of the State’s Child Advocate. The Child Advocate may claim she cannot release the documents and evidence because they are “confidential”. That is simply not true. The Child is authorized by Conn. General Statute 46a-13n to release all documents initially deemed “confidential”, if she believes it is in the public interest. Well, she certainly has deemed her recommendations based on that evidence to be in the public interest. She has leaked certain of those documents to the media already. She has written op ed pieces in the newspaper, and has made the rounds of various broadcast media discussing her investigation and recommendations. Therefore, she has no real basis to claim that any of the documents and evidence underlying her recommendations must remain confidential. They are “in the public interest”. They are the basis upon which the Child Advocate wants the legislature to make changes in the law. Nothing could be more profoundly in the public interest than those documents and evidence upon which the law would be made. Because she has made this an issue in the public interest, because she has drawn her conclusions and based her recommendations on these documents and evidence, and because it is the reasonable, rational, fair, and the only logical and appropriate thing to do, we are calling on the Child Advocate to release all of the documents and evidence underlying her investigation to the public immediately. Only after those documents and evidence are released can anyone hope to have a rational dialogue about the need for regulation of any kind. While we always are open to providing information on homeschooling, and remain open to dialogue on these issues, there can, and will, be no dialogue before release of all of the documents and evidence the Child Advocate reviewed for her investigation. Only she is preventing any rational fact based dialogue by withholding those documents. It’s just this simple: Give us the documents, we’ll give you dialogue. We hope that the Child Advocate will see the wisdom, and necessity, in releasing all of the documents and evidence, immediately, so we can have a rational dialogue. We hope she will stop acting on emotion in pushing her narrative, and will assist the legislature and the public in seeing all of the evidence upon which she claims to be making her recommendations. Again, the sooner she gives us the documents, the sooner we can have a dialogue. But, make no mistake, the documents must be released first. Note: No documents were ever released to the public. No documents have been released in the Waterbury case either. Will we ever know the truth? Will no one in any of the State agencies ever be held accountable? Time will tell.

Inquiries have been made regarding NHELD’s assessment of the horrific incident of a child being held captive at his home and starved for twenty years in Waterbury, Connecticut, before setting fire to his home in order to escape. Our assessment, of course, is it is evil incarnate. We would like to make it clear, however, about what is known as fact, under oath, what is being said, not under oath, by those involved, and what questions remain. What we know as fact we can take from the arrest warrant affidavit submitted by police to the Waterbury court, which facts were taken directly from the statements of now released person known as male victim 1 (MV1). Among the most crucial facts are the following: 1. MV1 had to sneak out of his room at night at the age of three in order to try to get some food to eat from the kitchen; 2. His sneaking out of his room prompted him being locked inside his room at night from the age of three ; 3. He was enrolled in the Waterbury school system by age five , where he was “constantly hungry” and began to steal food from others and eat food from the garbage; 4. He remained in school until he was at least ten years old . What did the principal have to say about the situation when asked, not under oath, by the media? 1. He and his staff had concerns about the boy when he was in school; 2. He knew the child was extremely small and thin; 3. The boy told them he wasn’t allowed food at times at home; 4. Everyone really was concerned with this child since he was 5 years old; 5. You " knew something was wrong" . It was "grossly wrong" ; 6. Teachers would bring him food after they saw him stealing food and eating out of the garbage, saying he was constantly hungry ; 7. He “was told” at one point that the boy was homeschooled; 8. He “was told” that the student enrolled in Wolcott Public Schools; 9. By fifth grade “he never came back to school”. 10. He says “You don’t disappear off the face of the earth at 10 years old”; 11. He “hopes the student remembers the staff and how much they really loved him. Sorry we couldn’t do more.” Apparently, he did disappear off the face of the earth, for twenty years, when the alleged perpetrator’s apparent lies were believed by one and all in their wholly inept investigation and follow up, leaving the poor child to suffer for two decades. What did the Waterbury Police Chief have to say? 1. Officers investigated the stepmother years ago over treatment of the victim, in 2005 when he was in school, when other children told DCF they were worried about him; 2. The arrest warrant affidavit says two reports to police are in their files, from April of 2005, regarding the well being of MV1, noting that DCF had been sent to check on him and that staff at the school was “contacting different agencies to check on MV1”; 3. Police officers apparently reported that the house was clean, the victim said there was no cause for alarm, and officers believed he had a normal childhood. Clearly, the police failed to follow up on any kind of investigation, but simply believed, what now turns out to be an apparent lie, that there was nothing wrong with the child, despite the reports of him starving. What did DCF have to say? 1. They “looked extensively at current and historical databases” and were “ unable to locate any records of the family ” or of any others connected who indicated they made reports; 2. Now they want “anyone with information to contact police”; 3. They say they “will be as transparent as possible”. What did the Child Advocate have to say? 1. She “will be doing a preliminary review of the case”. What did the Governor have to say? 1. He “vows to get to the bottom of what happened”. What did the Chair of the legislature’s Children’s Committee have to say? 1. DCF has an “obligation to pursue” people at DCF that were working there and “figure out what was done and what could’ve been done differently”. Let’s look at each of those statements again - The evidence taken under oath indicates that: 1. MV1 was being starved at the age of three ; 2. at the age of five, he was enrolled in the public school , where everyone who knew him and knew he was constantly hungry, because they saw him steal food and eat from the garbage; 3. He was in school for at least five more years and he continued to be constantly hungry such that the teachers would bring him food. So for five years this child was starving right in front of the public school staff, and in front of other children, who all recognized he was effectively starving. The principal claims staff “loved” the boy, and he’s “sorry we couldn’t do more”. Really? Does love and effort stop at a knock on a door and a couple of calls to another agency when you are watching a child starve for five years? Couldn’t do more? Really? Of course they could have done more. They didn’t. They washed their hands of it, and the child starved for the next twenty years. The principal claims the school filed a complaint with DCF, or multiple complaints. DCF says they have no record of any complaints. Who is telling the truth? Anybody? Where is the evidence? Clearly, if complaints were made, DCF took no further action because the child continued to starve, again, for the next twenty years. The police say they have a record of two reports to them, in 2005, and apparently they saw nothing wrong. Their investigation appears to consist of visiting the house and believing what the alleged perpetrator told them, which we now know was not true. This is the kind of thorough investigation we can expect from local police? How many other perpetrators lie to police and get away with their crime? What about the Child Advocate? Where was she all of this time? How well does her agency work in overseeing DCF or the safety of children in this State, when all of these agencies failed this child? Does the Child Advocate ever follow up on how any of the agencies “investigate” alleged child abuse? Apparently, if she does, the protocols involved clearly failed. For five years, everyone in the school who had contact with the boy knew something was “grossly wrong” because he was starving, and although they may have contacted DCF, when DCF did nothing about it, why didn’t the school staff take any further action? Why didn’t they go to the DCF Commissioner? Or to the police? Or to the Child Advocate? Or to the Governor? Or to the Children’s Committee? Or to the media? The school could have complained that they made a report about a starving child and nobody helped the poor child. Apparently, they did nothing further, for five years and thereafter. Did the principal contact the Board of Education and ask for official assistance from the Board in following up to help this child? Did the principal or the Board contact its lawyer and ask what else could be done for this child? Did anyone from the school, or any of these agencies, do even a modicum of research of the existing law to see what else could be done? Just one quick glance at the law in existence in 2005 shows that a whole team could have tackled the case. Under General Statutes §17a-105a, at the time, that law stated, “within the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety a c hild abuse and neglect unit which, within available resources, shall (1) a t the request of the Commissioner of Children and Families or the head of the local law enforcement agency or such person’s designee, assist a multidisciplinary team established pursuant to section 17a-106a in the investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect…” Did anyone contact the State Police to seek or obtain team assistance? Did DCF perhaps think to go to a court for permission to temporarily remove the child for a 96 hour hold to determine if the child actually was starving, when everyone at the school knew he was starving? Clearly, they did not. After all, they claim they have absolutely no records, at all, about this child. What’s worse, they are not asking to receive any information about this child. They only are asking the public to report anything they know about this child to the police . So, the school knew f or at least five years that the child was starving , and while they may have reported it to DCF, they failed to follow up to get him the help that he needed. The child was in front of their eyes starving for five years - think about that. The police went to the house and also did nothing further. DCF may have gone to the house and did nothing further either, and kept no records about it even being reported. The school did nothing further, although being on the front lines, they could have done so very much more. Instead, all of these government agencies utterly failed this child to the point of near death. Why? These questions need to be answered, now, before any other child gets hurt. NHELD finds the failures of all of these agencies absolutely abhorrent and totally intolerable. We sincerely hope that the apparent and continued passing the blame along to someone else, which seems to be a pattern with these agencies, does not continue. Passing the buck from one entity to another is childish and sickening. All of these agencies need to be held accountable for their abject failures to save the horrendous physical abuse of this child for an astounding twenty years or more. Therefore, NHELD calls for the immediate appointment of a Special Inspector General to investigate all of the involved agencies as to their culpability in allowing this person to be held in captivity and starved for 20 years, and to hold all those responsible criminally and civilly liable for their abject failures to protect this child. In addition, NHELD calls for an immediate federal investigation into the agencies involved for the very same reasons, and to hold all those responsible criminally and civilly under federal law as applicable. Finally, NHELD calls for the immediate halting of all state and federal funding possible going to these agencies until all answers are obtained, persons are held fully accountable, and truly long lasting corrective action is taken within each agency. March 21, 2025.

From time to time periodically throughout the years, across the country, we hear of those who lobby State legislatures to adopt resolutions calling for an Article V Convention of the States in order to amend the United States Constitution. NHELD has remained steadfast in its opposition to an Article V convention of the states, for a variety of reasons, explained below. What does Article V of the U.S. Constitution say? What it says: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution , or , on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments , which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Translation: Method One : Congress proposes amendments when two thirds of each house deem it necessary Method Two : Two thirds of the States apply to Congress for Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments. Ratification : In either method, amendments must be ratified by three fourths of the legislatures of the states or by conventions in the states. NHELD opposes an Article V convention for the same reasons that the founders feared it. While seemingly helpful as a means to fix problems, it, very seriously, risks eliminating rights and the existence of the Constitution itself. James Madison, the “father of the Constitution” feared it. In Madison’s letter to G.L. Turberville, Esq., November 5, 1788. Madison warned that a convention would not be conducted in harmony or terminate in the general good. In fact, he said, having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, he “trembles for the result of a Second” convention. “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. It is not unworthy of consideration that the prospect of a second Convention would be viewed by all Europe as a dark and threatening Cloud hanging over the Constitution just established, and, perhaps over the Union itself; and wd therefore suspend at least the advantages this great event has promised us on that side. Alexander Hamilton also feared it. In Federalist No. 85 Hamilton said he “dreads the consequences” of another convention. “I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape. ” The founders knew from experience that a convention of delegates from the States, called together to amend their existing written authoritative governing document, instead, could decide to eliminate that document altogether and adopt an entirely new document. After all, that’s exactly what happened in their lifetimes when a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, and, instead of amending it, the delegates chose to adopt an entirely new document, our now existing United States Constitution. Why did the founders include in the Constitution Article V? They included it because they knew from the Declaration of Independence that the people had a right to alter or abolish their form of government, but they feared the consequences of doing so. Today, the proponents of an Article V convention argue that such a convention is limited in what it can do. They claim, for example, that the delegates to the convention would be bound by what their State legislators directed them to do. The delegates to the convention discussing amendment of the Articles of Confederation also were directed by the colonial legislatures to act as the legislators directed. It didn’t work then, because once the delegates are chosen, they are empowered to “amend” or “change” the then existing rules of existing government, and they did, completely. So, too, could the delegates to a new Article V convention. You saw above what the existing Constitution says in Article V. Consider what it does NOT say. What it does NOT say : Doesn’t say that the application from all of the States has to ask for a Convention for the same purpose, topic, or amendment; Doesn’t say that Congress has to call the Convention for any particular purpose, or for the purpose requested by the States; Doesn’t say that Congress establishes rules for the Convention, including timelines and other procedural issues Doesn’t say that Convention delegates are precluded from establishing rules, or changing rules once established by Congress after the delegates convene; Doesn’t say how delegates to the Convention are chosen; Doesn’t say Congress is precluded from choosing the delegates; Doesn’t say that the States can choose the delegates; Doesn’t say who may be a delegate; Doesn’t say that members of Congress can’t be delegates; Doesn’t say upon what basis or criteria one can be a delegate; Doesn’t say how many delegates can represent each State; Doesn’t say If there is more than one delegate from each State, or how are disputes among those delegates are decided before a vote is cast; Doesn’t say that States can bind the delegates to any action to be taken at the Convention; Doesn’t say how would votes are to be taken; Doesn’t say that there has to be one vote for one State; Doesn’t say whether each State’s vote would be proportional based on population as in the House, or based on equal representation as in the Senate. Doesn’t say how many amendments may be proposed; Doesn’t say what the subject matter of the amendments must be; Doesn’t say that the Executive Branch has any role in the process; Doesn’t say that the Judicial Branch has any role in the process; and it Doesn’t say that the amendments may not fundamentally change our entire system of government - eliminating three branches, granting exclusive power to one branch. In short, NHELD agrees with the founders that while the people may have a right to call an Article V convention, there are many reasons to be very concerned about the outcome of such a convention, concerned enough to fear that our existing system would no longer exist, and a better system would not result. NHELD urges everyone, as always, to do their own research and to formulate their opinion based on knowledge, and not based on what anyone else claims. NHELD has done its own research, and based on that research, has concluded that we do NOT support an Article V convention at this time. Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. For more information you can go here: Or join us on Facebook - < https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707> ;

CRHE, [Coalition for Responsible Home Education], that “wonderful” (sarcasm intended) radical anti-homeschooling entity is proposing “Model Legislation” for each State to adopt, purportedly to crack down on all those freedom loving homeschoolers across the country, claiming that it is just too “unsafe” for children to be educated by their parents. And they launched their effort with the proposed made-up “Make Homeschool Safe Act” on July 2, oddly enough, on the exact day 248 years ago that the Founders voted to enact the Declaration of Independence. You know, the one that says our rights come from our Creator, not from the government, and they cannot be taken away, especially without the consent of the governed. Coincidence? Such an interesting juxtaposition, don’t you think? Freedom versus Government Control? Just exactly how is the government going to make homeschooling “safe again” under this made up “Model Legislation”? Let me count the ways CHRE has proposed in their “Make Homeschool Safe Act”. The “Model Legislation” first states its “Findings” and “Purpose”, including: 1. The “true number of homeschooled children is likely to remain unknown without adequate notification and oversight. Comment: Unknown to whom? Parents certainly know how many of their children are being homeschooled. Does any State Constitution grant authority to any State government entity the right to tell parents how many of their children they are allowed to homeschool or that the number of them being homeschooled must be reported? If not, why should parents report that information to the government? It shouldn’t matter to the government, if the government is not educating the children in the government school system. Ah, but that appears to be the precise goal of this “Model Legislation” - to allow government to control the education being given to homeschooled students. The “Model Legislation” continues. 2. State laws do not provide adequate protection for homeschooled children, leaving them vulnerable to child abuse and educational neglect. Comment: What is the definition of “adequate protection”? What is the definition of “vulnerable”? What is the evidence for such claims? Why single out children who are homeschooled, when every State already has laws against child abuse and neglect affecting children, no matter where they are being educated? The mode of education is not the issue. The abuse and neglect are the issue and that issue already has been dealt with by the myriad of laws against it and the myriad of agencies and courts that deal with abusers wherever the abuse occurs . 3. The “Model Legislation” indicates further that “It is in the interest of the legislature to ensure homeschooled children are safe and receive a sufficient education”. Comment: Again, what does the State constitution say about government control over the rights of parents or children? What does the State Constitution say about the legislature’s authority to interfere with the right of parents to the upbringing and education of their children? The “Model Legislation” leaves gaping holes. It recommends that States “consider” “if there are studies of homeschooling” in each State that “can be incorporated” in the law “to show that homeschooling can lead to abuse”. CRHE, again, has no facts or evidence to support its recommendations. Instead, CHRE simply recommends that each State should go out and find some facts or evidence to support CHRE’s already unproven, biased, fact less conclusion that “homeschooling can lead to abuse”. 4. The “Model Legislation” says, “The law is enacted to affirm and protect homeschooled children’s right to a comprehensive education and a safe home environment.” Comment: CRHE ignores the fact that it is well known, and accepted, that children’s rights do not supersede the rights of their parents to the upbringing and education of their children. This purported law proposed by CHRE, thus, improperly stands this accepted Constitutional doctrine on its head. CRHE, in this “Model Legislation openly states its primary goal is for each State to adopt “effective oversight” of homeschooling by the government, no matter how homeschooling is defined in that state. In addition, 5. CRHE wants each State “that allows homeschools to operate as individual private schools” to “ensure that this category of private schools” has government oversight “by creating a separate definition of private schools composed of a single family in an individual home”. Comment: Did you hear that? This radical group wants “Model Legislation adopted” in each and every State to have government oversight even of a “single family in an individual home”. Do take note, and seriously contemplate such overreach, and if you think that you could escape such government oversight by enrolling your children in an umbrella private or church school while parents teach their children at home, think again. CHRE wants the Model Legislation to ensure that these umbrella schools also receive government oversight. Under their Model Legislation, there is no escape from government oversight, seemingly at all times, at all places. 6. CRHE then goes even further in its extreme proposal, stating the Model Legislation should define “homeschool” as qualifying as a “school” under State law, including for the purposes of the subjects required to be taught, as well as “immunization/medical examinations required for school students”. Comment: Government oversight appears to morph into government control at this point, does it not? 7. CRHE’s “Model Legislation” continues, stating that a “home educator” “shall” “furnish the superintendent [of the local public school district], “at the beginning of each school year”, the “name, age, and and grade level” of each student; the “name, address, and contact information of each parent or legal guardian of the homeschool student”; “immunization or immunization exemption documentation…[and] medical documentation” of each student. If the home educator “fails to follow” those requirements, the “superintendent shall provide written notice of the violation to the home educator” who then has 30 days to comply, and if the home educator does not comply, the “superintendent shall report the omission to the [local child protective services], which shall initiate an investigation into the safety of the child”. Comment: Comply or be investigated for endangering the safety of your children. Sounds a bit like Nazi Germany, doesn’t it? And don’t forget, the “home educator” also must have certain “qualifications” under this “Model Legislation”. 8. A home educator “shall possess” “a high school diploma”, a “GED”, or pass an “examination that the state recognizes as the equivalent of a high school diploma”, or “an academic transcript demonstrating successful completion of at least a two year post secondary program that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor’s degree”. If a home educator does not have any of those qualifications, they “may act as a home educator ” but only “under the supervision of a qualified educational professional ” who will “assist in instructing the child”, “plan academic objectives for the child”, “oversee the quality of the academic curriculum”, and “review the child’s academic progress” . If that “professional” “believes” that the student “is not making satisfactory progress”, they “shall submit a request for an assessment of the homeschool”, and if the home educator “no longer fulfills the requirements”, then “the educator shall enroll the child in a school within 30 days.” Comment: Enough said? Shall I continue? There’s more. 9. The Model Legislation also requires home educators to “ensure a homeschooled child receives instruction in the same branches of study required to be taught in the public schools”, including minimum number of hours to be taught, and minimum number of “units” of particular subjects to be taught. Comment: Can we say, “public school at home” anyone? 10. Under the “Model Legislation”, a homeschooled student also “shall be eligible to enroll part-time in any public school” for curricular or extracurricular activities. Of course, for the home schooled student to participate in extracurricular activities, they would have to demonstrate to the government public school system “satisfactory academic progress”. Comment: In other words, for the benefit received by the student of curricular or extra curricular activities, the public school would gain control over the academics of the student by means of determining whether it is “satisfactory” or not, and there is no guarantee in the “Model Legislation” that the student would be awarded any “academic credits” for time spent homeschooled should the student choose to enroll full time in the public school. It actually gets better than that, particularly for those students who remain fully homeschooled. 11. The “Model Legislation” states, “the academic progress of the homeschooled student shall be assessed” “on an annual basis” to “ensure that the student is making satisfactory progress”. Comment: Naturally, the term, “satisfactory progress” is not defined anywhere in the 23 page “Model Legislation”. Why define it when the government authorities can use their subjective discretion? 12. The Model Legislation states that the annual “assessment” of the homeschooled student can be by alternate means, including by “state organized standardized tests”, “norm referenced achievement tests” “approved by the State Department of Education”, or by an educational portfolio. The “assessment” is then reviewed by an “educational professional” who conducts an in-person interview with the student. Comment: No government intrusion there, of course. 13. The “Model Legislation” continues…If it is determined that the student has not made “satisfactory progress”, the homeschool “is placed on probation” during which the homeschool may or may not continue. The superintendent of the public school then appoints other “professionals” “to meet with the home educator to conduct [a] student support meeting”. “Remediation plans” may be developed and put in place for one year, during which the “educational professionals” will meet with the home educator periodically to make “adjustments” in the plan. After the year is up, the “professional” will make a report to the public school superintendent. If the child is still not making “satisfactory progress” after an additional year of remediation, “the child must be enrolled in a public or a non-public school”, and “must remain enrolled in a public or non-public school for at least two years” “before the child may be homeschooled again”. If the child does not remain enrolled, “the child shall be considered truant”. Comment: Again, can anyone say, “public school at home”, or complete government control? This certainly is not parental freedom to home educate in a manner in which the parents believe best suits the needs of the child. This is full blown government control and subjective determination of “progress” according to government public school standards and whims of government public school paid so-called “professionals”. 14. The “Model Legislation” restricts parental rights even further regarding children with disabilities. It requires parents to “develop, either privately or through the school district, an educational services plan”, to set goals and measurements of progress, to identify services needed, and when services are to be provided, and all that is entirely similar to what is required in a government public school IEP, [individualized education plan]. Then the public school Superintendent appoints “qualified personnel to serve as the child’s services plan team”. Then, once a year, the home educator is required to produce “a report on the child’s progress”, which will be “reviewed by the services plan team”. If the services plan team determines that the child has not made “appropriate progress”, the team “shall assist the home educator in revising the educational approach and provision of services” to the child. This goes on each year. Comment: Again, government control over the education and services needed by disabled children, leaving little or no recourse for the parent to dispute the appropriateness, efficacy, or success of what is provided, once the “team” makes its decision. 15. And, of course, there are a few other details to be included in this “Model Legislation”. It requires, “Upon initial enrollment of a student in a homeschool”, the home educator is required to provide the superintendent of the public school with a “certified copy” of the student’s birth certificate, or other proof of identity and age; and, annually “the home educator shall submit immunization or immunization exemption documentation” to the public school superintendent; shall “maintain adequate academic records” “for the entire duration that the student is being instructed in a homeschool and for three years thereafter”, and those records are to be provided to the public school superintendent and maintained by the superintendent or the Department of Education “until the student’s 21st birthday”. Comment: And this is freedom to home educate? Or is it public school government control and coercion? 16. Of course, the “Model Legislation” forbids anyone who committed a crime from homeschooling, and if you did commit any “disqualifying offense” and you still “wish to operate a homeschool”, you must first prove to a court “by clear and convincing evidence that the child is not endangered by being in a homeschool”. It further says that If a parent has been investigated by a child welfare agency for “potential abuse or neglect of a child within the past 3 years”, “regardless of the outcome” of that investigation, “no person can withdraw a child from enrollment in a public or a non-public school to operate a homeschool”, unless that same agency conducts a “risk assessment”and finds that the child “will not be endangered by enrollment in a homeschool”; and unless the “home educator agrees to a continued monthly risk assessment” for not less than a year. Comment: The government will be watching you, making you jump through hoops, or can even forbid you from withdrawing your child from public school, even if any prior investigation showed you did nothing wrong. Basically, under this "Model Legislation", parents who homeschool would have to submit to pretty much all of the same things the government public schools require when a child is enrolled in that government public school, and if you do not comply, there are severe consequences. Overall, this made up “Model Legislation” is being proposed by CRHE, a group composed originally in large part of disgruntled former homeschooled kids, many estranged from their family as adults, who, one could opine that they appear to be exacting some sort of revenge or an outlet for their personal anger or hatred of the past purported wrongdoing by their parents. One might wonder what their parents’ side of the story is. Ostensibly, this apparently self-assigned group of disgruntled radical extremists seek to “help” or “protect” children from their evil parents who were, are, or are presumed to be out to do children harm by ostracizing them from the vaulted and coveted safety and advantages of the government’s oversight and protection in the public school system. While the goal of protecting children is one that is valued by most sane people, the extreme radicals in this organization appear to have no compunction about doing so in a manner so extreme as to violate an overwhelming number of Constitutional provisions, and wrenching from all parents across the country their unfettered and well established legally protected right to the upbringing and education of their own children. Under this “Model Legislation”, parents across the country effectively would be compelled to provide a government education, virtually identical, in most, if not all, aspects to the government public school system, save one - the instruction would take place at home. Yet the law is quite clear, the government simply cannot compel government education. This made-up wish list, purporting to be “Model Legislation”, would do just that - compel a government-controlled education. Don’t be duped by this group of disgruntled extremists who claim that the government and their public school system keep children safe. Your Constitutional rights are too precious to lose, and so are your children. Next up in our series: A note to these radicals, and to parents everywhere - “Let’s Make Public School Safe Again, And, By The Way, Make Public School Effective in Actually Teaching Children How to Read, Write, And Do Math, While We Are At It.” That just might make CRHE’s “Model Legislation” obsolete. Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson Web: nheld.us FB: National Home Education Legal Defense - www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707 ### This is the 23-page “Make Homeschool Safe Act”, July 2024, that Attorney Stevenson’s article is in response to: < >

In an effort to continue our policy of transparency with the homeschool community, NHELD (National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC) and CHN, (Connecticut Homeschool Network), are setting forth the following information. It recently came to our attention that HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association), was providing to its members, behind a paywall, a sample letter of withdrawal from public school, which also contained reference to the children being “privately educated” and a promise that the parents would educate their children “in accordance with the procedures established by the State Department of Education”. This was quite disturbing, given that there is no law in Connecticut requiring any parent to educate their children “in accordance with the procedures established by the State Department of Education”. The actual law only requires parents to instruct their children in certain subjects as identified in Connecticut General Statutes §10-184. Needless to say, we began researching, and reached out to the local HSLDA affiliate, TEACH CT, to find out more information about the HSLDA withdrawal letter. WE found out that the HSLDA letter of withdrawal apparently had been provided to parent members of HSLDA since about 2009. While this information was new to us, we have been aware that HSDLA, for decades, has urged Connecticut parents to file the “Notice of Intent”, which was developed by the State Department of Education, which also is not required by law. It was part of a “Suggested Procedure for Home Instruction” adopted as the state’s “policy”, but was never adopted as enforceable law. HSLDA traditionally has advised parents to do as the state and local government request, even though the things requested by the government are not required by law. HSLDA has noted in many of its writings that complying with government requests is biblically required, citing several scriptures. While NHELD and CHN are secular organizations, they are open to everyone of every faith who believe in the freedom of parents to instruct their own children. CHN, for example, has noted that a large number of its members are Christians, but many dispute the biblical interpretations espoused by HSLDA that it is necessary to comply with whatever the government requests, regardless of whether required by law. NHELD and CHN believe in the freedom of choice, but, unlike HSLDA, we urge parents, after doing their own research about the issue, to not file the Notice of Intent, and to not simply acquiesce to whatever the government requests parents to do that is not required by law. We believe that is the fastest way, and the surest way, to losing parental freedom. Regarding the new knowledge to us that HSLDA, from approximately 2009, has provided to its new member parents, that letter of withdrawal, NHELD provides the following information underlying the reasons why submitting such a form, and/or advocating for compliance with government requests not required by law, are very bad ideas. In order to inform the homeschool community, and in the nature of true transparency, we are the following facts as we know them. In Connecticut, there is only one law that parents must follow describing the “Duties of Parents”. It is General Statute Section 10-184. Only the first sentence of that statute applies to parents who choose to instruct their own children, aka ,“homeschoolers”. That sentence is as follows: “All parents and those who have the care of children shall bring them up in some lawful and honest employment and instruct them or cause them to be instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of the town, state and federal governments.” In other words, parents are required to instruct their children in those subjects. They are otherwise free from governmental control, supervision, or oversight to do so. The parents in this state have fought long, and hard, for decades, to retain their freedom to instruct their children in those subjects in whatever manner they choose that meets the needs of their children. Notice in that statute, there is no requirement that parents “must file” anything, with any government official. There is no requirement to follow any “procedures established by the State Department of Education”. There is no authority given to any government official to grant “permission” to a parent to withdraw. The parent has an unconditional right to withdraw a child from school, unilaterally, at any time the parent wishes. Again, we fought long and hard to retain the freedom from any government regulation or so-called “procedures” of any kind, and we will continue to do so. It also is important to note that for children under 17 years of age, Connecticut General Statute §10-184 is silent as to how to withdraw a child from enrollment in a public school. Nonetheless, NHELD and CHN have always recommended that parents withdraw the child, in writing, by sending their own letter of withdrawal to the superintendent of the public school district, by certified mail, return receipt requested. That way, there is proof that the parents sent the letter of withdrawal, and proof that the school district received it. The sample letter of withdrawal, that NHELD and CHN have recommended parents sign and send to the superintendent of the local school district, contains only the following language: “As of ______(Date)_____, my/our child/children, _____Name(s)______, Age(s) _________, no longer will be enrolled in ______(Name of school district)______. They will be instructed in accordance with Connecticut General Statute §10-184.” That is all that parents need to say to inform the school district that their children are withdrawn. (As an aside, parents should note that as of July 1, 2023, the parents of a seventeen year old, who wishes to withdraw from enrollment in a public school in order to attend adult education, does have to appear in person at the public school and sign school paperwork. Similarly, the parents of an eighteen year old who wishes to withdraw from enrollment to basically “drop out” of all education, also must appear personally to sign school paperwork. Parents of children of other ages who wish to withdraw to instruct their own children, however, are not required to appear in person or to sign any school paperwork of any kind.) Yet, the template for withdrawal of children that HSLDA developed and provided to new homeschoolers to send to public school districts, apparently since 2009, stated the following: “This is to notify you that I will be withdrawing the above-listed children from your school as of ___________ to privately educate them pursuant to the procedures established by the Connecticut State Department of Education . I will file a notification with the superintendent as stated by these procedures. ” This was disturbing to us on many levels. First of all, parents in Connecticut who instruct their own children are not considered to be “privately educating them”. When a parent “privately educates” a child, most people understand that to mean that the parents have enrolled the child in a “private school”. Why would HSLDA use that term? Could it be that they want parents who homeschool in this state to be considered as “private schools”? You may think that’s a stretch to believe, but, in fact, HSLDA was pushing for parents who homeschool in Connecticut to be considered “private schools” way back in 1989. The parents of this state, however, resoundingly rejected that idea, for good reason. Private schools already were, and are, subject to a certain amount of government regulation - in sending attendance records to the state, for example, in complying with truancy and vaccination statutes, and in making reports and returns about the private school to the state’s Commissioner of Education. That’s called government control and regulation. That’s what Connecticut homeschoolers rejected. HSLDA went on to other states across the country, however, and, guess what happened? They convinced parents in other states to accept the terminology that homeschoolers are “privately educated”, i.e., “private schools”. In many states, to this day, homeschoolers are considered to be “private schools” or under the umbrella of a “private school”, and in those states, those homeschoolers are subject to many government regulations and control, as a result. Parents may have thought it was a good idea to be called private schools or privately educating their children, but they lost their freedom in the process. It remains a mystery why HSLDA, for so long, and up until this point, would want Connecticut homeschoolers, the parents who are the most free in this country, to be considered as “privately educating” their children. Let’s look at the next portion of the form letter, in which those who would sign that form letter, not only would be saying they will be “privately educating” their children, but also would be saying that they will be doing so “pursuant to the procedures established by the Connecticut State Department of Education”. Why, when parents are not required by any law to instruct their children “pursuant to” any “procedures established by the Connecticut State Department of Education”? Why would HSLDA want parents to sign a document telling a government official that they will follow those “procedures”? What “procedures” would the parents be committing to follow? In the HSLDA form, there was no definition of the kind of “procedures” they would be agreeing to follow, so that would leave it open to agreeing to follow any “procedures” that the State Department of Education has adopted, or will adopt in the future. Why would HSLDA want parents to agree to that? In addition, think about what the term, “procedures” means, legally speaking. “Procedures” are not enforceable law. Statutes adopted by the legislature are enforceable law. Administrative regulations adopted by state agencies after public hearings and approval of the state legislature are enforceable law. “Procedures” are meaningless. They are simply whatever a government official tells someone that’s the way they do things, and you should do what we tell you to do. Nobody is required to follow any government official’s “procedures”, unless those “procedures” were adopted by the state legislature as statutes, or, by a state agency as administrative regulations. Simple “procedures” outlined by a government official are not enforceable law. So, why would HSLDA want parents to agree, in writing, to educating their children “pursuant to the procedures established by the Connecticut State Department of Education”? There’s more. In that form letter, HSLDA would have parents confirm, in writing, that they “will file a notification with the superintendent as stated in these procedures”. What notification? Does HSLDA mean a “Notice of Intent”? If so, the “Notice of Intent” that the State Department of Education would like parents to fill out, and to file with the superintendent, is not required by law. That “Notice of Intent” was adopted by the State Board of Education as its “policy”. Again, a “policy”, just like the term, “procedures”, is not enforceable law. A “policy” is, once again, something that a government entity thinks is a good idea, and that’s they way they do things, so you should do it too. Nobody outside that government entity is required to follow any “policy” of any agency. Unless, and until, that “policy” is adopted by the legislature as a statute, or by an agency as an administrative regulation, that “policy” is not enforceable law. Again, why, then, would HSLDA want parents to confirm that they “will file a notification” with the superintendent, that remains only a “policy”, as a condition of withdrawal? Through three decades, many parents in this state have questioned the position of HSLDA and its affiliates as to why they encouraged parents, voluntarily, to file a Notice of Intent, as the state desired. Many parents have had discussions with HSLDA ,and their affiliates, about the fact that a “Notice of Intent” is not enforceable law in Connecticut, and filing it would threaten the loss of the hard fought freedom from government interference that we have retained. Yet, HSLDA and its affiliates remained steadfast in encouraging the voluntary filing of the “Notice of Intent”. The HSLDA developed form letter of withdrawal, however, would take the HSLDA position much further. No longer would their advice be that filing a “Notice of Intent” should be done. Through this form letter, HSLDA advised parents to put it in writing that they “will file a notification” with the superintendent, and they “will be” “privately educating” their children “pursuant to the procedures established by the Connecticut State Department of Education.” Why would HSLDA, apparently from 2009, do this? Their lawyers knew exactly what the law is, and what the law is not in this state. Their lawyers knew exactly how many parents in this state have fought long and hard to retain their freedom from any government interference. Yet, nonetheless, HSLDA put forth this form letter knowingly. Why would HSLDA intentionally advise parents to comply with government wishes, when parents absolutely are not required by law to do so? We do have to say one last thing. While researching this issue, and just prior to completing this article, NHELD and CHN were informed that HSLDA has now changed its letter of withdrawal form to state the following: “Parent/Guardian Name(s): Place of Residence: Child(ren) to be withdrawn: (Names of any additional children attached.) This is to notify you that I will be withdrawing the above-listed children from your school as of ________________ to instruct them pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 10-184. If you have any questions, please feel free to submit them in writing.” We do not have any confirmation, however, that HSLDA has changed its letter of withdrawal to the above language yet, because HSLDA’s letter remains behind a paywall for members only to see. In any case, assuming HSLDA now has changed the letter of withdrawal it provides to members, ostensibly eliminating the many problematic portions previously included in it since 2009, we do appreciate the change, albeit long time in coming, so that all in the homeschool community, especially parents new to homeschooling, can understand what really is required by law, and what is not required by law. While we strive to provide as accurate information as possible, NHELD and CHN, as always, caution all parents not to take the word of anyone for what the law requires you to do, or for what it does not require you to do. Parents must empower themselves to know the truth, by doing their own research, and by finding and understanding the original source of the law, and not just taking the word of what someone who says the law is. Only then, will parents truly understand whether they are being duped and are in danger of loss of their rights or not. Only then, will parents truly feel confident in standing up and fighting to retain their rights, and their freedom. Freedom is too precious to lose, especially for our children, and their children to come. Continue to be ever vigilant, and ever empowered with the truth. Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. For more information you can go here: Or join us on Facebook - < https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707> ;

There is absolutely no doubt about this - accepting government money means compliance with government conditions . This is true for any federal or state government money, given for any purpose, and is especially important concerning government money offered purportedly to “help” parents pay for the education of their children. Whether it’s called education savings accounts, vouchers, tuition tax credits, or school choice, it’s all the same. When any parent, at any time, for any purpose, accepts any money, or any purported “benefit”, from the government, by virtue of that acceptance, that parent has just consented to each and every term and condition the government has placed on acceptance of that money or benefit. It’s a contract. Without any doubt, whatsoever, parents will be required to submit to each of those conditions if they accept the money or benefit. What are those conditions? Who knows? The devil is in the details, tucked away in obscurity, in the legal language of the legislation that offers that money or benefit. You need to read those details to know exactly how much of your parental rights, and freedom, you have just agreed to lose, before you consent to the loss. Don’t believe me? See for yourself. Just read what the United States Supreme Court actually has held, and repeatedly upheld, in many of its decisions. Here’s just one quote from the Supreme Court to prove the point. “ [L]egislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the [recipients] agree to comply with federally imposed conditions. ” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman , 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981); Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C ., 142 S.Ct, 2853 (Mem) (2022). In other words, the Court repeatedly has confirmed that in exercising its spending power, the legislature has the authority to “fix the terms” and “conditions” to which the, perhaps unsuspecting, parents agree . Consent to the terms and conditions necessarily means loss of rights and freedom. So there is no need to debate this issue. It already is fixed in law. Whenever government spends money, it can, and always does, “fix the terms” and “conditions”, and that means by accepting the money or benefit, parents, then are required to “comply” with those “terms” and“conditions” . Do you really want to agree to lose your rights and freedom, without truly understanding what rights and freedom you actually lose? If you don’t, then before accepting the hype, the great sounding title of any government proposal being marketed, and the benefit, you need to read the fine print - you need to know exactly what the terms and conditions are, and what rights and freedom you will lose. Don’t be duped by the hype. Don’t be duped for the momentary seeming benefit. Don’t so lightly and unknowingly give up your freedom. Read the fine print. Take the time to understand how much of your freedom, in the long run, you are giving up. For heaven’s sake, don’t believe anything that any politician and bureaucrat tells you. Empower yourself. Become fully informed. Research the actual facts for your self. Don’t be duped into giving up any, or all, of your parental rights, at any time, for anything. Freedom is too precious to lose, especially when it comes to protecting your children. Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. For more information you can go here: Or join us on Facebook - < https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707> ;

With the popularity of homeschooling, inevitably come those who seek to profit from selling their wares to this relatively untouched “new” market. Homeschooling is not “new” - only the title given the act of parents instructing their own children, as they have for eons, is “new’, at least to some. Actually parents have been “homeschooling” in the modern sense of that word for decades. What is “new” and growing, is the trend for increasing numbers of people and entities to market to homeschoolers. The problem is not that people want to “help” homeschoolers, or want to establish and entity providing resources to homeschoolers for profit, or who want to establish a common location for homeschoolers to jointly receive resources supplementing their home instruction. The problem is that, sometimes, these well meaning individuals or business entities market themselves as “homeschooling”. Individuals providing a service, or entities providing resources, are not “homeschooling”. They are simply individuals or entities who are marketing their wares to homeschoolers, that is, to parents who already have undertaken the responsibility to teach their own child. Those homeschoolers may need, or simply wish, to supplement their homeschooling by receiving these services or resources, and it is fortunate that there are individuals and entities that can provide the services or resources. Parents must be wise purchasers of these services and resources, however, lest they think that they can drop their children off at these entities, have the entities provide all of the instruction, and think that the parents remain homeschoolers. In that case, the parents are not homeschooling. Instead, they may have just enrolled their children in a private school, or, relinquished their responsibilities to a full time tutorial service. If parents continue to think they are homeschooling, when, in fact, they no longer are doing so, there may be laws, rules, or regulations that they no longer are following, unbeknownst to the unsuspecting parents. Individuals or entities holding themselves out as a “homeschool”, or as “homeschoolers”, may not be what they claim to be. Some of the names that these individuals or entities call themselves are: “Homeschool hubs” or “Micro pods” If someone advertises as a “homeschool hub”, or “pod”, but which charges tuition, membership, or a fee; which advertises that parents may drop off their children for academic instruction, testing, evaluation, or therapeutic services; which provides space in a building for a “homeschool experience”; or which otherwise acts like a business entity; the entity that advertises as such, is not a “homeschool”, nor is the provision of those services or resources the act of “homeschooling”. That advertiser, in all likelihood, is either a private school, or a business entity, and it should not be calling itself a “homeschool” anything. It should advertise itself as the thing that it is - a private school or a business entity, which, more correctly, markets its services and resources to homeschoolers as potential buyers of their products and wares. Holding oneself out as something one is not, is never honest. Quite simply, it is deceptive. Hence, caveat emptor - buyer beware, lest you be fooled, and quite possibly lose your own rights to homeschool, by unknowingly “enrolling” in a private school, or by failing to do what homeschoolers are required to do in order to be considered as “homeschoolers” under your state’s existing laws. Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. For more information you can go here: Or join us on Facebook - < https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707>