From the HSLDA@Capitol Hill E-lert Service...

Federal Education Reform Wednesday, 07-Apr-99 14:40:58 204.60.13.194 writes: >Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:22:02 -0500 >From: "Chris Klicka" >To: HSLDA.chris@mail5.allegro.net >Subject: Federal Education Reform >Content-Disposition: inline > > >Dear Home School Leaders, > >Four major education reform bills are beginning to move in Congress. HSLDA supports each of these initiatives, since they are reducing the federal role in education. > >We are also working on securing committments to repeal Goals 2000 and the School to Work Opportunities Act this Congress. > > A. The Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1999, H.R. 7/ S. 677. > >The Education Savings Account (ESA) proposal is the same bill that was introduced last year and passed the House 225-197 and then the Senate 59-36, but was vetoed by President Clinton. > >Both the Senate and House bills would expand existing college education savings accounts by increasing the maximum allowable contribution from $500 to $2000 and by allowing the accounts to be used not only for college costs, but also for expenses for K-12 education in public, private, religious, or home schools. Although contributions to an ESA would not be tax deductible, the interest that would accumulate would be tax-free and withdrawals would not be subject to taxation if used for qualified expenses, which include private school tuition. > > B. Ed Flex Bill: H.R. 800/S. 280. > >Currently, twelve states are authorized to participate in the Education Flexibility Partnerships Demonstration Program (Ed Flex). The new Ed Flex bill allows all 50 states to waive certain federal regulations and requirements. Ed Flex provides greater state and local flexibility for federal educational funds to support local education efforts. Ed Flex would essentially block grant billions of education dollars to the states for certain programs. States would have to *opt in* to use the Ed Flex process. If a state decides against opting in, it could continue to choose to receive the money for the limited federal educational programs with the federal regulations attached. > >The long-term plan is to establish a *beach head* with Ed Flex, creating a vehicle for adding more and more federal education programs in order to cut the federal strings and end many failed education programs. States could use the monies for their education needs; thus, moving us in the right direction towards restoring local control over education. > >Both the House and the Senate, on March 11, by overwhelming margins, passed the Ed Flex legislation. The President has promised to sign the bill. > > C. Dollars to the Classroom Act. > >The Dollars to the Classroom Act is being reintroduced by Senator Paul Coverdell in the Senate and Representatives Goodling and Pitts in the House. Last Congress, the Dollars to the Classroom Act passed the House 212-198. > >The *dollars* bill would direct federal elementary and secondary education funding directly to public school classrooms and require that 95 percent of these funds be used for instruction purposes. The act would virtually end 31 existing federal education programs, allowing the monies for those programs to be used without the federal regulations. The bill will consolidate 31 federal education programs totaling $2.7 billion and send the money in a single flexible block grant to the states. > > D. Federal Tuition Tax Credit. >Senator Kyl (R-AZ) has introduced a tuition tax credit bill for K-12 expenses which explicitly includes home schooling. It is fashioned after the Virginia tuition tax credit bill (which did not pass this year) in that it gives a tax credit to parents for their children*s education expenses and to other individuals who contribute to a nonprofit scholarship program to fund education for disadvantaged students. The amount of the credit will start at $100 for 1999 and phase in to $250 by 2002. > >Sincerely, > >Chris Klicka > >

HSLDA Dear Connecticut Member/Other Interested Parties:

A number of bills have been introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly which will significantly affect home educators if they are passed and signed by the Governor. These bills need your immediate attention in order to safeguard the freedoms now enjoyed by parents who have selected home education for their children.

TESTING

Senate Bill 517, introduced by Senator LeBeau, would require all home school students to take the state mastery test. This would be the first law enacted in Connecticut specifically regulating home education. There is no indication that this type of government oversight is needed. Only eight states require testing as the only method of evaluating the academic achievement of home school students, so this bill would place Connecticut in a small minority of states. The national trend is to deregulate home schools to treat them the same as conventional private schools. This legislation is contrary to the evidence that home educators in Connecticut are doing well enough to be left alone.

CHANGES IN COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE

Six bills now being considered would increase the compulsory attendance age from 16 to 18: House Bill 5016 introduced by Representative Green, House Bill 5284 introduced by Representative Tymniak, House Bill 5521 introduced by Representative Shea, House Bill 5575 introduced by Representative Simmons, Senate Bill 204 introduced by Senator Upson, and Senate Bill 283 introduced by Senator Kissel.

Two bills before the General Assembly would remove the option for the parent of a child six years old to choose not to send the child to school until the child becomes seven: House Bill 5079 introduced by Representative Green and House Bill 5519 introduced by Representative Shea.

The obvious effect of these bills changing the ages for compulsory attendance would be to subject home schoolers in Connecticut to the compulsory attendance requirements one year earlier than is now required and for two years later than is now required. For the vast majority of home educators in Connecticut who are following the guidelines established by the State Board of Education adopted on November 7, 1990, this would mean three additional years of submitting the Notice of Intent form and three additional years of portfolio reviews.

Many education experts have concluded that beginning a child's formal education too early in order to obtain an academic advantage for the child actually results in burnout and poor scholastic performance in later school years. Besides the potentially adverse academic effects, legislation lowering the compulsory attendance age from seven to six years old further erodes the authority of parents who are in the best position to determine when their child's education should begin.

On the other end of the scale, studies have shown that persons 16 years old who lack the self-motivation to continue in school receive little benefit from compulsory attendance, and, in fact, have a negative influence on other students their age who are attending school voluntarily. Given the breakdown of discipline in the public schools, legislators should not impose any requirement of attendance over age 16 on students who do not wish to be there and who will further disrupt efforts of teachers to instruct those students who desire to learn.

Another significant aspect of expanding the compulsory attendance ages would be the need for additional tax revenues from Connecticut citizens to pay for the added cost of educating more children in the public school system. More classroom space will have to be constructed and more teachers hired in order to accommodate all of the additional students who will be compelled to attend school, some against their will, under the proposed law. School systems can also expect to incur the additional expense of security personnel necessary to deal with the inevitable increase in discipline problems.

There is no statistical data or research to support the position that raising the compulsory attendance age will reduce the dropout rate. To the contrary, according to U.S. Department of Education statistics charting 16 to 19 year olds not attending or graduating from high school, the top five states with the lowest dropout rate only require attendance through age 15. Significantly, Connecticut has the 14th lowest dropout rate in the nation at 9.2%, the national average being 11.2%. Statistics indicate that the states with the highest compulsory attendance ages also have the highest dropout rates in the nation. Therefore, there is no true need to raise the compulsory attendance age from 16 to 18 years old in Connecticut, nor is there any statistical data to prove that this has any effect of reducing dropout rates in any other state.

ACTION

We are urging all of our Connecticut members to contact their senators and representatives to express opposition to these bills. Given the number of bills being considered by the House and Senate affecting the compulsory attendance age, it appears that there is a great deal of interest on the part of legislators to change existing law. Your legislators need to hear from you before these bills gain too much momentum to stop.

You may contact your senator and representative by telephone through the Connecticut General Assembly as follows: Senate--(860) 240-0500 and House of Representatives--(860) 240-0400. Even more effective would be a letter written to them at the Legislative Office Building; Hartford, CT 06106.

Very truly yours,

Dewitt T. Black, III

Home School Legal Defense Association
P.O. Box 3000
Purcellville, Virginia 20134
540-338-5600
www.hslda.org