Parents are desperately seeking alternatives to public school.

Some, who believe it is a good fit for their children and who can afford it, choose private schools.

Those who cannot choose either public or private school, are finding a possible solution from enterprising individuals have created new alternatives.

Some created “micro schools” or “mini” schools designed to replicate a school-like atmosphere, where only a very small number of students gather regularly during the week for classroom learning.

Still others have created, or joined, private membership associations, or private education associations, otherwise known as “PMAs” or “PEAs”, where they are members, and enjoy a modicum of freedom to have their children learn jointly in that association’s facility.

Homeschooling parents always have sought support from other homeschooling parents. At first, those gatherings were called “support groups”. Parents would be, usually once a month, to share information, plan activities or field trips, invite a guest speaker to give a presentation on a particular subject for the kids, and generally have parents and kids socialize.

Later, those groups began to call themselves “co-ops”. Slowly, co-ops became more formalized and began to have parents provide group lessons, meeting one day a week. Parents stayed throughout that time, sharing in the responsibilities of group learning, socialization, as well as set up and clean up.

Unfortunately, through time, “co-ops” morphed into something more than that. Some “co-ops” began to charge fees, hire instructors, allow parents to drop off their children, and meet on multiple days of the week. Yet, they still advertised themselves as “homeschool co-ops”. When parents drop off their children, multiple days a week, for large portions of the day, handing over the responsibility for instruction to someone else, that looks and sounds awfully like a private school. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck, and at least someone could call it a duck. In other words, that entity may be operating a private school, in reality, and become liable for all laws relating to private schools. If the children are young enough, also, that entity may become liable for all day care laws, not to mention a myriad of other zoning and health care laws. The parents who drop-off their children to allow the entity to be responsible for the education of the children also are no longer “homeschooling”. That’s because under the statute that delineates the duties of parents, the parents “shall instruct” the children. If parents are no longer instructing their own children, but allowing another entity to do so, then the parents are no longer “homeschooling”. Parents, of course, may supplement their homeschooling by seeking assistance from tutors, or by having their children attend certain supplementary “classes”, usually that are limited to once a week for a set number of weeks, with the parents being responsible for the overall education of the children. It is imperative for parents to understand not only their own duty, but also that these “co-ops”, that advertise or promote themselves as a “homeschool co-op”, in reality may not be that which they purport to be, whether even they realize it or not. Parents must to their own research and beware of either being duped, mistakenly believing they are “homeschooling” when they are not, or otherwise are risking losing their rights or engendering disputes with government entities who then may seek to regulate these type of entities, and potentially regulate the parents whose children partake of those services.

The latest invention, however, may be the most disconcerting. It is called a “Homeschool Hub”. This type of entity sounds terrific. It purports to be everything a homeschool parent could need. A place to go for group learning, resources, facilities, social interaction, and all for an purportedly affordable fee. What could be better? One thought - freedom could be better.

Here’s the thing. The buyer must beware, especially of this new phenomenon.

This appears not to be a new creation growing out of the homeschool community. It appears to be a new creation spawned from public school supporters, public school academia, public school supportive think tanks, school choice advocates, and those involved in, or connected with, federal and state government education agencies. Why are those people involved? Could it be because they want to save their jobs and control now that statistics show a massive exodus from the failing public school system and the demand for parents for alternatives? Think about it. Do your own research.

This new entity, in many cases, is not all that it seems to be. In fact, there is more than meets the eye to them.

In many cases, these entities, or “homeschool hubs”, also seek to make money, to promote the founders’ reputation, and to ensure job security for themselves. Worse than that, however, are the “homeschool hubs” who also collect data from the homeschool families “enrolled” in their hubs. These “hubs” are proud of their data collection and the sharing of that data with government entities in order to utilize that information to effect “policy” or “legislation”.

Unfortunately, many of the “homeschool hubs" have been spawned by big name academics, who are bold about collaborating with governmental agencies. They tout “researching” homeschoolers, collecting their data, and utilizing that data to effectuate policy changes and legislation, purportedly designed to “help” homeschoolers and to give better “understanding” of homeschoolers to government officials and academia. Think this is far fetched? Do your own research.

If you do just a modicum of research, for example, among the many, you will find entities such as Bob Jones University, or Johns Hopkins University involved in this pursuit of establishment of “homeschool hubs”. Yes, they are among those involved in this enterprising effort at data collection and distribution.

Bob Jones University Press has a “Homeschool Hub”. It has a biblical worldview, and bills itself as “an all-in-one learning management tool, assignment scheduler, and planner”, offering, among other things, lessons, tests, quizzes, and grade books with “reporting” options. It advertises that the Homeschool Hub was established as a “replacement for Distance Learning Online”. It even has “The Academy of Home Education”, advertising standardized testing, and that “enrollment” in the Academy “gives you proof and recognition of academic excellence”. Sounds innocent enough and seemingly very helpful. But one thing it is NOT is “homeschooling”. Calling their entity a “homeschool” anything is a misnomer. This is a business entity marketing its varied products to the homeschool community, while assisting homeschoolers in their “reporting” to government officials.

There are many other “homeschool hubs” across the country, including, among others, those in Florida, Texas, Washington, Colorado, and even right here in Connecticut. Look it up. You will easily find them.

More importantly, however, is the fact that many of these so-called “homeschool hubs” are the brainchild of those who seek to control, regulate, or otherwise change legislative “policy” regarding homeschooling. One prime example of this is the “homeschool hub” set up by the Johns Hopkins School of Education’s Institute for Educational Policy. That name, alone, should shoot up a dozen red flags for any true homeschooler.

That Institute is headed by a former Maryland State Board of Education member, not a homeschooler. Yet, this academic institution has grandiose plans regarding homeschoolers. On the school’s website, the Institute says the “homeschool hub” is “your one stop shop for current information on homeschool data, regulations, and research across the United States.” They also say they “deliver evidence to policymakers”, provide “easy access to current homeschool information and downloadable data for all fifty states”, and their “goal” is to “remove barriers to research, increase transparency, and expand awareness to encourage evidence driven policy” about “homeschooling and related education models in the US”. They say the data comes “from federal and state sources and academic institutions”. In fact they have a “Homeschool Research Lab” at Johns Hopkins, touting it’s a “thought leader in homeschool research and policy”, including research in “homeschool regulation over time”, “how grassroots expansion networks develop” and “dismantling negative tropes about homeschool and who homeschoolers are” with “longitudinal data” (code for tracking homeschoolers over a lifetime) for the purpose of “legislation across the country”. In fact, they say they are “excited” to “improve the transparency of homeschooling data and legislation across the country” and coming soon is a “lab expansion that will include a curated consortium of affiliated researchers from leading institutions across the country and an annual convening of researchers and policymakers”.

That should be enough to put a boatload of fear into any sane person. In essence, academics, who have studies, advised, and taught public school teachers how to teach children for decades, who now realize that the public school system across the country for which they were instrumental, is imploding and failing miserably. What could be more logical for them but to plan how next to keep their jobs, and their government funding, by jumping into “helping” all those parents who have left their failing system, and by keeping the government fully informed about these homeschoolers in order to formulate new “policies” and “regulations” concerning homeschoolers all across the country, collecting their data and coming up with these policies and regulations over a lifetime! That sounds like job security for the academics and government officials to me.

Ask yourself, why would any homeschoolers, who have decided that the public school, government controlled system has failed, or will fail, their children want any purported “help” from these academics, who admit that they know nothing about homeschooling but are going to gain that knowledge from the homeschoolers through collecting their data? They are offering “help” and “resources”, all kinds of bells, whistles, and benefits to homeschoolers precisely because they want to study homeschoolers, collect research on them, and then use that data to formulate “policies” and “regulations” all across the country. It’s a research project, and admittedly so. Homeschoolers are the mice being trapped in order for the researchers to study them so they can control the mice in a fashion that suits the researchers.

Think about it. It’s a trap. Benefits sound great, but lead to control and power by the researchers. The mice are trapped, indefinitely. The mice have given up all of their freedom for the glittering piece of cheese proffered by the kindly researcher.

Be wiser than the mice. Do your own research on the researchers and see them for who and what they are. Then decide if you are willing to give up your freedom for the “benefits” with which they are enticing you.

So, data collection and affecting regulations of homeschooling most definitely is a very big part of the “homeschool hubs” cropping up.


What Johns Hopkins’ Homeschool Hub is touting already is underway across the country, and, yes, even in Connecticut. There are individuals in this state, who are connected with Connecticut academic institutions, and who have started such a “homeschool hub”, not surprisingly touting that they will “help” homeschoolers do it the “right way”, that is, the “right way according to state law”. These individuals also are advising homeschoolers that they will help the homeschoolers align their instruction with “state standards”. These individuals, of course, also are collecting data on the homeschoolers who “join” the “hub” for these “benefits”, and are keeping records of those who “join” the “hub”.

While there definitely is a need for many parents to search for an alternative model of education, or just some help or resources, parents must understand that many of those who purport to “help”, actually have an agenda to monetize their entity, to collect data from homeschoolers, to “help” homeschoolers by encouraging reporting of homeschoolers to academic researchers and government entities, to effectuate “policy”, “legislation”, and “regulation” of homeschoolers.

Homeschooling, a nickname for the statutorily mandated duty of parents in Connecticut, is the duty of parents to instruct their OWN children. Are parents able to supplement their instruction of their own children? Yes, but the parents are solely responsible for all of the education the child receives. Parents in Connecticut are allowed to freely do so. No “oversight” is required or necessary by anyone, especially not by those who have never homeschooled their own children or who are trained only in the public school educational system.

In Connecticut, we have protected the right of parents to instruct their own children in freedom for decades. Parents need to understand the tremendous effort that it took by thousands of parents across the state in protecting that right. That freedom has been threatened from time to time in the past, but that freedom is being threatened even more by this new phenomenon of the “homeschool hub”, particularly those who are providing the “benefits” but also who are collecting data from the homeschoolers for “policy making” or “regulation”, and who are sharing that data with other academic institutions and governmental entities for that purpose.

We have stood together before to oppose threats to our freedom. We must do so now, and always. First, parents need to understand that these wonderful sounding benefits and purported beneficial organizations exist and have their own agendas and goals, which do not comport with freedom.

Don’t be duped into accepting any “resources” or “help” that may threaten parental autonomy. Remember always, buyer beware. Stand firm for autonomy and freedom. Otherwise, be prepared to accept the negative consequences and governmental intrusion that is bound to result.



Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC.

For more information you can go here: << https://www.facebook.com/share/YTSK1GgyAfYYBQ5c/?mibextid=K35XfP>> ;

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.
Just exactly how is the government going to make homeschooling “safe again” under this made up “Model Legislation”?
The “Model Legislation” first states its “Findings” and “Purpose”, including:
Comment: What is the definition of “adequate protection”? What is the definition of
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”.
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.
     Yet the law is quite clear, the government simply cannot compel government education.
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:

<<responsiblehomeschooling.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Make-Homeschool-Safe-Act-July-2024.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3v7v3Gj3K3eevV6uA-lf-baBliQLukB6CX7MxqlkBcjogkahI_p0Z4pTE_aem_xT3gx-5nK-6eyNa8nrXkQg>>

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?

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: <nheld.us>

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: <nheld.us> 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: <nheld.us>

Or join us on Facebook - < https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707>

      There is no doubt, these days, that parents have had to make important decisions about how and where their children will be educated.   Luckily, parents do have many options, and more creative options inevitably will become available in the future.   Change may be difficult, at times, but it also can be a very good thing.  

        Here, at NHELD, of course, we advocate for the freedom for parents to instruct their child as they see fit, particularly by the education model people have nicknamed “homeschooling”, something that parents have done forever - teaching their own children.  

        We also recognize that with the advent of new educational models from which parents may choose, confusion exists, especially when some of the new models co-opt the term, “homeschooling”, when in reality the educational model may not be “homeschooling”.   To try to simplify the distinctions in the types of educational models from which parents may choose, we offer the following information.  

 

What Are The Educational Models Available and How Do They Differ?

 

    The Government School Model is well known.   It is the model that includes public schools, magnet schools, charter schools, and even some of the micro-schools that developed during the pandemic, which were nicknamed “Pods”. Pods were formed of necessity, primarily by public school parents who saw that remote school instruction was not appropriate for their children.   Instead, they formed “Pods” or what was sometimes called “pandemic pods”. These were small groups of children who would meet regularly and be taught, in person, by a hired instructor, generally following the public school curricula. The public magnet and charter schools generally are funded, in part or in whole, by taxpayer dollars, offers full time classroom instruction, and the curricula is controlled by the government in varying degrees, with or without oversight by a board of education.  

      The Non-Government School Model also is familiar.   It includes private schools and business entities that offer tutorial or academic class instruction. The Non-Governmental School Model generally is funded, in part or in whole, by parents, offers full time classroom instruction, and the curricula is controlled by the school or entity, with or without input from parents.  

      Newer to the educational models are alternative group educational associations.   These are formed under federal IRS laws, as tax exempt organizations, under 26 U.S.C. §508.   They are called Private Educational Associations, or Private Membership Associations.   Colloquially, they are also known simply as “508 organizations”. The PEAs, of course, are formed for educational purposes.   The association organizers define what those educational purposes are, and what the rules are, under which the organization and its members follow. The PEA is funded by membership fees or donations, and may offer varying types of education or curricula as defined by the association rules. The association is set up in accordance with that federal law, and must operate in accordance with it to maintain its tax exempt status.

      Of course, there also is the original, time immemorial educational model - that of parents instructing their own children.   It always has been the fundamental duty of all parents to raise their own children and to instruct them sufficiently so that they become knowledgable and capable citizens of society. This is the basic family structure of all societies. Today, we call this educational model, “homeschooling”.   This homeschooling model is one in which the parents take on their inherent right and responsibility to instruct their own children.   Under this model, the parents are fully responsible for the instruction being given, although they may seek support in that instruction by the hiring of individual tutors, or by paying for other forms of particularized classes or activities.   Parents may even form their own support groups, or cooperative meetings, to help each other in their individual family journey as they homeschool.   Sometimes those cooperative meetings are nicknamed “co-ops”.   These “co-ops” generally meet infrequently, and parents remain with their children to actively participate in the educational activities or events they have agreed are appropriate at each meeting. In these “co-ops”, parents remain fully responsible for the instruction of their children, as these “co-ops” are merely gatherings to supplement and support that parental instruction. Homeschooling also operates under state law.   Each state may have its own unique set of laws that govern how parents undertake their obligation to instruct their own children. Some states are more free than others in this regard.   Of course, NHELD exists to protect the freedom of all parents to undertake their responsibility under this model of education.  

      NHELD offers this brief outline of the different currently existing educational models so that parents may choose whichever model is most appropriate for their families.   Whichever one parents choose, NHELD urges all parents to do their own research into each model, and into each entity that purports to be the model it says.   Sometimes, people are confused and may   use the term, “homeschooling” in their advertising for their particular educational model, but upon further inspection, what actually is being offered is a different educational model altogether.  

      NHELD absolutely believes in the freedom of all parents to choose whatever educational model is best for their families.   We simply offer this information to urge you to make sure that you understand the types of educational models that are available, and that you do your own research, first, to make sure the model you choose is the right model for you.  

      As always, we stand ready to assist you in protecting your freedom to educate.  

 

 

   

Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC.  

 

For more information you can go here:

 < www.nheld.com >

 

Or join us on Facebook -  

< https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707 >

3/15/2021

There has been discussion lately about a bill in Congress, H.R. 485, that proposes to establish what is being called a “national child abuse registry”.  The bill is entitled the “Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act”.  

While a national child abuse registry is disturbing, what parents should be more disturbed about is the fact that we have the federal government involved with children and parents, at all. 

NHELD warned parents for decades about the potential for the federal government to establish a national department of child protective services by amending the Constitution through a so-called Parental Rights Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment was unnecessary, anyway. however. Congress simply ignored the Constitution, altogether, and established that entity anyway.

They did so, unfortunately, when they adopted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in the first place.  That’s right.  The Act is not new.  It was adopted in 1993, while most of us were asleep.  You can find it in the United States Code at 42 U.S.C. 1501.  Congress simply is amending that Act, now, supposedly to make it  even “stronger”.  

Hence, it’s newly proposed title.

What’s wrong with this, is not just the amendment.  What’s wrong with this, is that the entire Act is unconstitutional, and has been since its inception.  

NHELD has been warning parents for decades about the potential harm, and unconstitutionality, of the federal government adopting laws having anything to do with parents and children.

NHELD has railed against all of those laws, including the ones that seem like a good thing - you know, the ones that supposedly are designed to “help” parents with tax breaks, or other kinds of so-called “benefits”.  

NHELD has warned that parents should really read and understand the Constitution, and the fact that it specifically enumerates only very limited power as granted to the federal government, and that any other power not specifically granted to the federal government, remains a power belonging to the States and to the people. 

Those powers granted to Congress are specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8.  Read them, know them, understand them.  You will not find listed in there any power granted to Congress to have anything to do with parents or children.  

Yet, year after year, federal laws are adopted that do affect parents and children. 

Guess what?  They are all unconstitutional.  

This “registry” amendment to the “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act”, is just the latest of the long string of unconstitutional laws, and the amendment is just one small part of it.  

The Act, amended or not, actually entices States, and private organizations, into accepting “grants”, (under the tax and spending power of the Constitution), in exchange for doing all the things listed in the Act.  Of course, the State and the organizations want the money, and so they do what the federal government wants them to do.  

The question is:  how long are we going to put up with this kind of unconstitutional bribery?

Don’t fall asleep again.  Watch Congress, and watch your own State’s legislature, too, all the time.  

You never know when they will take away your rights, or how they will do it, unless you remain constantly vigilant. 

Don’t be fooled into getting upset about just one part of this Act.  Get upset about the whole darn thing.  

And then do something about it.  And do something about all of the other unconstitutional laws, as well. Do it for yourself, for your kids, and for their kids to come. Otherwise, we may not have any freedom left, at all.

Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. , (NHELD).

For more information you can go here:

nheld.com  

Or join us on Facebook - 

< https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707 >

  Two hundred thirty three years ago today, September 17, 1787, all 12 State Delegations approve the U.S. Constitution.      Let us celebrate today, and thank the founders for providing us with that document, and with our magnificent Constitutional Republic.

Distance learning , i.e., educational instruction offered by tutorial or educational organizations, other than at a brick and mortar school, has worked well for decades for many homeschoolers.

Today, however, “distance learning” is morphing into something else. It is a term that has been taken over by government run public schools to mean that children can receive some, or all, of their government run public education while staying in their home, instead of receiving it in person at the brick and mortar school, by having public school teachers provide the instruction via a live video conferencing system over the internet. While this may be a more convenient, or arguably safer, way for many children to learn, it can be fraught with hidden dangers, legally speaking.

If you, as a homeschooler, have one or more children also enrolled in a public school, or if you have friends with children enrolled in a public school who may be considering homeschooling, there are issues you may want to consider before engaging in such “distance learning” offered by your local public school.

In the law, there is a legal doctrine the courts have fashioned, called “in loco parentis”, meaning “in the place of the parents”. When a parent enrolls a child in a public school, the courts have deemed that action to be that the parent gives up some of his or her legal authority over the child to the public school employees to act “in place of the parents” for the time period the child is in that school building. That legal doctrine has been stretched, over the years, to deem that the public school employees have extended authority over the enrolled child while the child is engaged in certain activities that occur even outside of the brick and mortar buildings, if the activities somehow affect school functioning.

Now, with the advent, morphing, and implementation of “distance learning” by the public schools via live video feed over the internet, the question is, will the courts extend the authority of public school employees even farther, going well into the homes of parents. You can probably bet the farm that the courts will do so.

This will become an even bigger issue when the government run public schools across the country are sending out forms for parents to sign to “choose” the “distance learning” option, full or part time, or to “choose" to have the child attend the brick and mortar school in person. Once a parent “chooses” the “distance learning” option, full or part time, effectively the parent has just put in writing his or her consent for the government public school employees to “enter” their home via video link, and to do so for hours at a time, on a daily basis, for the entirety of the school year. The parent has consented to a government employee to enter the home and remain in the home for all of that time.

This means that not only will the doctrine of “in loco parentis” arguably be extended to apply to allow government public school employees to take the place of the parents, in the parents’ own homes, every day, all day, while that education takes place, but also it means that the parents unwittingly have consented, in writing, to the waiver of their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You know the Fourth Amendment - the one that says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Well, once you consent to allowing any government official into your home, you have waived any right you had to their unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Under those circumstances, anything that they hear, or see in plain sight, is fair game, at that point, to be used against you. You know the phrase - it can, and it will, be used against you, and they don’t have to give any Miranda warnings if you consent to allowing them inside your home.


Attorney Stevenson is the founder of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC. For more information you can go here:

< https://www.dgstevensonlaw.com/national-home-education-legal-defense-nheld/> ;

Or join us on Facebook -
< https://www.facebook.com/groups/57298261707> ;