![[Home]](home.gif)
![[Contents]](contents.gif)
![[Additional Info]](add_info.gif)
| Cynthia Weatherly spent a considerable amount of time discussing various aspects of this article with HSLDA lawyers, Sen. Grassley's office, the U.S. Dept. of Education, attorneys and other experts. This article has generated a great deal of controversy. Although recent revisions of the PRRA have removed portions of the disturbing language, there are some excellent points about interlocking legislation and agendas that are still very relevant. For the record, we do not agree that a scholarly review of very public federal legislation constitutes a Matthew 18 matter involving a private offense. |
As an eight-year-old, fire was fascinating. My neighborhood playmates had discovered how to strike matches -- I was amazed! The night I tried it by myself I was in the downstairs bathroom of the wonderful old Victorian-era house in which I grew up. It never occurred to me that all those squares of tissue on the "bathroom stationery" roll were connected; I only wanted to burn the one on the end!
After smoking up the yellow-flowered wallpaper, setting the bathmat aflame, and scorching the linoleum by bouncing the flaming roll around trying to extinguish the fiery mess, for the first time in my parents' memory I went straight to bed after my bath without being threatened! And before nine o'clock! When I was summoned from my bedroom -- not awakened, you understand -- two hours later by my father, it was also the first time I admitted "I did it!" without applying the "Peter-before-the-cock-crowed-thrice" denial tactic. Needless to say, my parents "explained" very thoroughly the implications of burning paper in a house constructed of fifty-year-old heart pine! A very healthy respect for fire and its consequences has been a lifelong effect of that experience.
I discovered as an eight-year-old that actions have consequences and chain reactions can be devastating. A "grown up" case in point involves some proposals originating from the National Center for Home Education/Home School Legal Defense Association in the form of the Parents Rights and Responsibilities Act and The Restoring Local Schools Act. Both of these proposals are "attached" to social and political issues which are potentially volatile.
When propositions are being discussed in policy circles about the licensing of parents -- defining parenthood as a "privilege" endowed by the state, rather than a God-given right -- it doesn't seem to be the appropriate time to pass Federal legislation designating parental "responsibilities." That is exactly what is being encouraged by support for The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (HR 1946 and S 984 respectively).
Both HR 1946 and S 984 place the federal government in the position of
protect[ing] the right of parents to direct the upbringing ofo their children as a fundamental right; ... [Sec. 2(b)(1)].
To place the government in the position of "protecting the rights of parents" is tantamount to trying to burn one square of bathroom tissue apart from the rest, or to ask the wolf to guard the henhouse. To ask the government to protect a right is to ask the government to define, regulate and enforce it. This is not a simple nor desirable proposition.
It is with dismay and amazement that I have read this bill; without knowing the authorship I would not have attributed it to a friend. Authorship by Michael Farris, head of the National Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and National Center for Home Education (NCHE), and Vice President of Christian Solidarity International -- a "protector of human rights organization" -- came as quite a shock! I had hoped that someone with the reputation enjoyed by Michael Farris would understand the implications of such wording in the law.
To add fuel to that potential fire, as it were, is to include language such as the following:
(3) while protecting the rights of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility to see that their children are educated for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency, as specified by the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 05 (1972):...[Sec. 2(b)(3)][emphasis added]
Never, to my knowledge, has anyone proposed placing conditions in federal law requiring parents to "see that their children are educated" for the purpose of literacy or anything else -- let along "self-sufficiency"! As I recall, Yoder upheld a right of parents to educate children in their own way for religious reasons when faced with a threat by a state compulsory attendance requirement. It did not plow new ground by adding federal statutory authority to the situation. The Parents Rights and Responsibilities Act definitely adds a new dimension to the concept of government interference in the rights of parents to raise their children.
The terms "literacy" and "self-sufficiency" are not defined in this Act. Given the open debate in the education community over literacy and what it means, and the emerging evidence that our education policies are focusing on producing an international workforce rather than a traditional educated populous, causes one to have grave reservations about using those terms lightly in federal law.
"Literacy" is many different things. During a debate with William Spady (the "Father of OBE"), Farris suggests that "cultural literacy" could apply to knowledge about pop singer Madonna. There are also many other types of literacy referenced in educational circles: "global literacy," "ecological literacy," "spiritual literacy," "earth literacy," "vocational literacy," "sexual literacy," and "academic literacy," just to name a few. It is easy to see where a problem could arise if parents were required by law to be responsible for the education of their children for the purposes of an undefined "literacy." While one might cite Yoder's provisions as protection, the law would still nationalize and regulate its effects.
These are hard questions, but I think they illustrate just how far the social reformers could take this.The obvious danger here is that enemies of parental authority can use such language to further their agenda. There are plenty of social reformers who would love to get a chance to define "responsibility" and "literacy", but it is not likely that we would agree with their meanings!
Later in the bill under Section #3, "Definitions," (4)(c) states:
NO APPLICATION TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT -- The term "right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child" shall not include a right of a parent to act or refrain from acting in a manner that constitutes or neglect of a child, as the terms have traditionally been defined. [Emphasis added]
While it is accepted practice to allow that balance of acknowledging the extenuating circumstances in instances of documented abuse and neglect, the Act would place into law a totally new set of circumstances that "constitutes abuse and neglect" by adding the specific responsibility of parents "to see that their children are educated for the purpose of literacy and self-sufficiency." Certainly no one is in favor of child abuse and neglect, but the social reformers have entirely new definitions of what constitutes abuse and neglect, and some of them even place home schooling in that category!
There is another equally perplexing point made by Farris at the National Christian Home Educators Leadership Conference on Oct. 4-8 in Orlando, Florida. During the closing of a debate between Farris and Spady, Farris stated that
This group rejects vouchers, but would like some method of school choice... If we... let people be free to move from place to place -- economically free as well as legally free -- to do their own thing, we can solve this values conundrum... [Emphasis added]
If, as Farris suggests, the group rejects the concept of vouchers, what other method is he referring to when he promotes the idea of being "economically free as well as legally free" to pursue school choice?
At the present time we are already free -- as demonstrated by the attendance of a large group of home schoolers at the leadership conference -- legally to choose from many options available in the education market, including public school, private school, sectarian school, home school, and even transfer among public schools. The only issue unresolved is the issue of being "economically free" to choose. This suggests that there should be some equalized availability of funds to support these choices. What source other than government does Mr. Farris have in mind?
In The Parents Rights and Responsibilities Act is says that "parents have the responsibility to see that their children are educated for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency." Existing law on this subject is mostly found on the state level and is worded in such a way that the state has the responsibility to provide educational opportunity for all citizens, but only requires parents to have them attend an educational setting during certain years of the child's life -- and that "setting" can be of the parents' choice, thanks to many hard-fought legislative efforts to protect home schooling and private education as viable options. These laws have stood many tests. Much of this effort can be credited directly to the efforts of HSLDA.
However, if a Federal law requires that the parents provide the educational experience, does that not mean that the Federal government must economically equip the parents as it does the state? Would that economic equipage not come with the same propensity for regulation of the process?
Has there been some confusion of goals within these proposals? Surely this was not intentional? [For some other concerns about government-funded choice, please see "When Is Assessment Really Assessment?" in the October issue of The Christian Conscience.]
In another statement by Farris on the same occasion he asserts that he is not of the opinion that "one size fits all" in education. He laudably emphasizes the pursuit of individual excellence and mostly spurns the idea of centralized planning. He illustrated his assertion that not all children should be made to take algebra by pointing out
It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig! Give them something that is meaningful to them that will meet their individual needs, desires, and goals...
I don't want all people reaching the same results... My system is twenty-five kids at individual rates toward individual goals... individualize the process. We need to assess ourselves and realize that only individualizing the process will work... Community schools work a whole lot better... individualize instruction in this country... implement true freedom of choice.
While one can respect Mr. Farris's opinion on the matter of individualized instruction, to offer it as the total solution to America's educational problems can be narrow and short-sighted.
Farris also made an exception to his objection to centralized planning: he pointed out that the preparing of school bus schedules could be centralized and that he could see the need for centralized accounting. Perhaps the full import of the combination of 1) individualized instruction, 2) "true freedom of choice" in education, 3) centralized bus routing, and 4) centralized accounting has not fully impressed itself on those in the home schooling movement. Perhaps "individualized instruction" as applied to Title I, Speede Express, and social service delivery has been excluded from consideration of policy by those outside the public schools.
There is so much to consider just covering law, policy and philosophy as it applies to home schooling, much less keep up with all of the implications that could cross over from the public sector were the private and home schooling sectors to find themselves operating under government regulations which would flow from public subsidies for private education choice and meeting standards that could be imposed under provisions within The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act.
Most home schooling parents would not realize that the combination of alternative instruction -- which could mean individualized -- choice, centralized transportation (at government expense), and centralized accounting constitutes the basic elements of what is known as a "charter school." An important point to remember about charter schools is, as John Chubb (Director of the Edison Project, a design team of the New American Schools Development Corporation, and a former fellow of the Brookings Institute, a think tank noted for its liberalism) has stated, "Charter Schools are answerable to the state." (Second Annual Model Schools Conference, Atlanta, GA, 1994).
The move to mainstream handicapped and special education students into regular classroom settings has led to the proliferation of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), even for average and high-achieving students. These IEPs contain provisions for not only academic processing of the students, but provisions for many other services -- social, psychological, and health, for example -- which facilitate the acquisition of MEDICAID funds for the delivery of those services under the IEP. This co-mingling of funding for educational, health, and social services involves the student and his/her family in an extensive web of potentially privacy-invading activities.
One must be very careful about embracing quick-fix, soundbite solutions for today's educational problems. Freedom from social, moral, and regulatory tyranny is bought with a high price. Presently, there is evidence that the education establishment would like to move all children into an IEP process, since so many children are presenting themselves into ever-expanding "at-risk" categories. Could this be where the embracing of the idea of being "economically free" to choose individualized instruction could lead? -- straight into the arms of the "central planners" we wish to avoid?
HSLDA is also proposing The Restoring Local Schools Act. This legislation was prepared by Jim Jacobson and Mike Hammond for the National Center for Home Education (NCHE), the research arm of HSLDA, and is primarily focused on abolishing the Federal Department of Education.
This particular bill was meant to be a replacement for HR 1883, after that bill ran amok at the hands of congressional staffers. When a group of conservatives who had been meeting with freshmen Republican congressmen became concerned that their proposal to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education had been altered when put through the sieve of congressional staff, Farris, Jacobson, Hammond and others proceeded to reconstruct a proposal they thought would be more thorough. The results of this effort turned out to be The Restoring Local Schools Act (RSLA).
After passing it around to select congressmen, Farris and Chris Klicka of NCHE made it available to the state leadership persons involved with HSLDA and NCHE. Home schoolers were to help start the drumbeat for the approval of this alternative bill to deconstruct the federal role in education. Since that time there has been considerable comment and attention given to the bill.
Presently, the possibility is being explored to not introduce the bill as a bill, but to amend or substitute another bill with the RSLA. The most likely vehicle with which to achieve this would be HR 1883, a possibility which is already being discussed with the principal sponsors. The reasons given for this legislative marriage include the fact that they so closely resemble each other -- The Restoring Local Schools Act names more programs for repeal and transfer -- and that the sponsors are having difficulty raising grassroots support and need the home schoolers' network to bring attention to the bill.
Both bills place the responsibility for performing all functions that had been the province of the U.S. Department of Education in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS) -- the very department responsible for meshing social services with education by way of school-based clinics, etc. This would put education in America under the auspices of Donna Shalala, who has an extensive track record as one of the leading liberal social and family reformers in America.
While putting education under DHHS is supposed to be a temporary measure solely for the purpose of winding up any outstanding affairs associated with those functions, Secretary Shalala is also allowed to allocate or reallocate any function that had been the Department of Education's, and may "consolidate, alter, or discontinue any organizational entities" the Secretary deems appropriate.
Does this instill confidence that major efforts at social engineering will not be attempted while resources are available?
DHHS is given four years to accomplish this task. Since the introduction of RSLA into consideration, there has been some discussion of changing the reallocation of the department's functions from Health and Human Services to the Office of Management and Budget. Because this would be the first time a cabinet-level department had ever been dismantled (if, in fact, this comes about), no one has a clear idea of exactly how it can be achieved. Also, since the Office of Management and Budget has never been involved in anything like this operation before, no one knows what rules or regulations would apply to this procedure; in fact, no one is even certain that this dismantling is even consistent with the duties of the OMB. OMB has traditionally been identified with government efforts centered on management by objective procedures and implementing planning, programming, budgeting (PPBS) systems perfected by Harvard's former Russian professor, Vasily Leonitef. In a phone conversation, Mr. Jacobson told me that this was "all new ground -- uncharted territory" and that this was all "going to take a very long time."
A good portion of the wording of both HR 1883 and the Restoring Local Schools Act is identical. One portion that does differ is "Section 201. Repealers." The main difference is that in the RSLA this section is longer and includes more whole acts of education legislation, but it is redundant in several places. For instance, HR 1883 targets Part D of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA); the RSLA targets Part D of GEPA, and also targets the entire GEPA for repeal.
This Part D of GEPA is significant for another reason; it contains the Enforcement section under the Office of Administrative Law for the Department of Education. This Enforcement section contains the law dealing with hearings on recovery of funds, withholding, cease and desist and other causes for complaint hearings to be held. This section sets forth all the terms of expediting complaints and recoveries from and through the Department of Education, including remedies for violations, compliance agreements, and judicial review.
Recently the Grassley Amendment to the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) (Sec. 98.47 of GEPA) had its proposed regulations advertised for comment by the Department of Education. In the notice there was a section entitled "How does the office enforce decisions?" dealing with how complaints would be handled when filed and found to be of valid concern. The answer to the question is "to employ the procedures outlines in Part D of GEPA."
It has been difficult enough getting any kind of satisfaction from complaints under the Hatch/Grassley/Protection of the Pupil Rights Amendment! These conservative plans do away with what help the PPRA has been by repealing the enforcement provision! What is going on here?! Do we really want to abolish the Grassley Amendment?
In both HR 1883 and The Restoring Local Schools Act there is a provision for "Transitional Block Grants." These funds are based on population figures targeting children ages 5 through 17 years of age. In order to receive the block grant, the state must submit an application containing "assurances" required in the bill. The funds must be used to improve education; establish a procedure by which to distribute funds; assure that those funds are actually used to improve education; involve members of the community in decision-making; comply with civil rights statutes; make 98% of the funds available to local educational entities; develop programs that improve education; and ensure that not more than 2% shall be used for administrative purposes.
Each "local educational entity" will prepare a proposed budget and provide an accounting of the actual use of the money received. There is even a provision for a waiver by request of a state's governor to provide funds for private schools for materials and equipment, as well as educational services which shall be secular, neutral, and non-ideological.
Under both bills, "Local Education Entity" is defined as meaning "a local educational agency or a public or private elementary or secondary school."
Is this a change in meaning for "Private elementary or secondary school"? Does the "Local Educational Agency" definition place private schools under government authority? The definition of the word "agency" as applied to government operations means "an administrative division." This certainly implies a superseding of private authority by government entity. As with choice, money is the critical factor for control -- government control.
Many people think "block grant" means "no strings attached." Please read carefully the above recitation of the "assurances" that must be given to receive these funds. Also, be aware that there is no definition of "to improve education" in these bills. Presently, all of the GOALS 2000 provisions come under the umbrella of "improving education" and The Elementary And Secondary Education Act (ESEA, or what was commonly known as HR 6 earlier last year) has been retitled Improving America's Schools Act.
There are many troubling implications within The Restoring Local Schools Act and HR 1883. Enough troublesome issues that are not resolved to encourage calm consideration and pause before whole-heartedly and blindly embracing these proposed solutions for a very complex and pitfall-laden problem. The interests of home schooling and private education and their protection from the seemingly endless, problematic reforms plaguing public schools must be thoroughly analyzed and understood before encouraging support for these existing proposals. There is an old axiom that seems appropriate: "Haste makes waste." Let us not "waste" our freedom.
Freedom comes in many shapes and sizes. Presently, in the United States of America we can still pursue any career or job we want -- even if it seems out of reach. It has been to the credit of this great country of ours that we have allowed our youth to experience many trial runs before they take on a lifetime vocation. Certainly the choice exists for young people to decide early in their lives how to spend their productive working years and beyond: to answer a "calling" at any time it is heard. However, keeping the option of choice open in the area of careers or jobs is meeting with resistance from more than one source today. The concentration on workforce preparation and certification applied to what should be education by an ever-demanding business community, and manipulation of industry and labor standards by the likes of UNESCO, represent one side of the squeeze play. The other side seems to be represented by the introduction of apprenticeships and community-based education and service. Oddly enough, the pressures from both sides originate in the private sector.
Workforce preparation to meet particular industry standards is facilitated through public-private partnerships with schools. Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery are also tied to the "partnership" concept. Both of these practices are still presented within the framework of existing school time limits. Community-based education and service are also both tied to the present schooling timetable. Apprenticeship is the one concept which can operate outside the traditional school base.
This will not be an exhaustive exploration of the idea of apprenticeship, but a look at the idea in the context of the other ideas which we have explored in this article. During the Farris/Spady debate at the National Home Educators Leadership Conference, Mr. Farris put forward a model of education that works as being primarily parent-directed, and suggested that home schooling is a perfect example of that working model. He also projected a picture of a "very successful" national system that worked: Switzerland. The two things that make the Swiss system so exemplary, in his estimation are: 1) a great educational system, and 2) a belief in hard work. While their economy is number one in the world, according to Farris, 75% of their students never go to high school or college! How extraordinary! Those 75% of the Swiss students are apprenticed.
The Swiss system is one of classical apprenticeships -- master to student. This one-on-one process begins in the eighth grade. Their K-8 system prepares students to enter apprenticeships; only 25% of the students go on to higher education even at the high school level. Mr. Farris enthusiastically cited an example of the president of one of the largest banks in Switzerland as a product of the apprenticeship system.
With most ideas there are two sides to the issue. A very interesting side to the Swiss system was put forward during the debate. But, might I also suggest that there may be another when attempting to apply or duplicate that success in this country. First, let's examine the country. A very small spit of land in the middle of the European continent, which has a land mass the size of one of our large cities. Its political structure is that of a social democracy. The population demographics of Switzerland are such that the issue of minorities and their civil rights is almost unheard of in their country. A high school attendance rate of only 25% would be deemed unacceptable in this country; most likely would be prosecutable as illegal. Given the availability of apprenticeship opportunities in this country which could lead to lifetime careers, particularly in rural areas, equity of opportunity would certainly be problematical.
One need only read Bettye Lewis's article on the School-to-Work reform movement in this issue of The Christian Conscience to understand the wide range of potential pitfalls with embracing the apprenticeship movement without discernment. It is clear the social planners for education/workforce reform do not have true freedom of choice in mind when they use the term "apprenticeship".
All other arguments aside, the idea of suggesting to youngsters in the eighth grade -- age 14 -- that they make a decision about what they will do the rest of their lives goes against every tenet of traditional American freedom to choose or change your mind. Also, in most models of apprenticeship the success of the venture is measured by an outside, independent source. What entity would play that role in this country? The government? Haven't we been around this track before? The issue of government standards and control as an outcome of proposals coming from conservative sources is beginning to be repetitive.
Is it possible that in the effort to work so hard to prevent this country's potentially disastrous ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child -- at which HSLDA/NCHE are doing a great job of analyzing the problems and alerting the public to the dangers -- that perhaps not enough time has been devoted to projecting potential harmful effects of proposed legislation originating in their own efforts? Solving one problem sometimes only leads to another. Looking so closely at a problem from one perspective can blur the perception of it from all others.
Since Mr. Farris and, now, Mr. Jacobson are both involved in an international outreach -- Christian Solidarity International -- for which one is the Chairman of the U.S. Board of Directors and International Vice President, while the other is Executive Director of the North American Post, respectively, they bring a more global perspective to these issues. Through CSI, Mr. Farris also possesses "Observer Status" at the United Nations and since the founder of CSI is a Swiss pastor and the headquarters are located in Zurich, this could account for Farris's knowledge or enthusiasm for the apprenticeship program as it is carried out in Switzerland.
Other international connections are present in the issue of apprenticeships. At the same conference in Florida where William Spady addressed the Christian home schoolers and debated Michael Farris, Dr. Allan C. Carlson of Rockford Institute delivered a workshop presentation entitled "Apprenticeship: The Answer to Shifting Social Values in Workplace Education." The quotation which opened Dr. Carlson's presentation was taken from a publication by Sue Berryman entitled, "Apprenticeships as a Paradigm for Learning" from Youth Apprenticeship in America: Guidelines for Building An Effective System (New York: W.T. Grant Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, 1992).
Sue Berryman is affiliated with the human develop division of the World Bank. It is through the writings of Sue Berryman that some researchers first caught a glimpse of the extensiveness of the emphasis on training a global workforce. The World Bank uses the classical Skinnerian, behavioral "carrot and stick" concept to coax emerging nations and other nations who borrow development funds from the World Bank to accomplish the goals set by its directors, including imposing workforce development and training standards and ecological protection requirements for their fund users. The World Bank is a primary sponsor of Global Education efforts and curriculum, and has played a role in requiring birth control programs to be adopted by its fund users. Because of this, one should be highly suspicious of any plan originating from the World Bank!
As I reflect on the points that have been covered in this article, the concern continues to center around the belief that somehow the gravity of the potential for harm inherent in proposals discussed has eluded the people involved in promoting them. This is certainly a time when nothing is simple and being able to anticipate every eventuality is nearly impossible. If this recitation can serve as an alarm to prevent wandering into dangerous territories then it will not have been in vain.
In closing, let me return to my original analogy of the experimentation with matches in what could have been turned into a tinderbox had the fire not been extinguished. As I looked for a way to relay my concern over the issues in this article the Lord brought this painful episode to mind. I truly did believe that only one square of tissue would burn. As I recall my plan I am reminded of the good intentions that probably gave rise to The Parents Rights And Responsibilities Act. However, as the flame touched the rest of the roll I remember being horrified that I might not be able to stop the fire from spreading. Oh, how I wished someone could have helped me then!
Well, I hope that in some small way this warning about some of the potential dangers will help put out the fire that will surely flare up if this legislation should pass. Just as the smoke and heat scorched the wallpaper in that old Victorian home, the damage that can be done with The Restoring Local Schools Act might cause costly repairs to material which might be old and a little tired, but might still be serviceable.
The smell of melting wax on the linoleum and a burning cotton bathmat have stayed with me for more than forty years. The consequences of entanglement with privacy-invading, social engineering through Skinnerian Mastery Learning/OBE/Limited Learning for Lifelong Labor, involvement with individualization and government-supported choice could be disastrous, especially for home schoolers, for many years to come.
A time-honored warning seems to apply:
Cynthia Weatherly is the head of Education Analysis Research Systems in Georgia.