Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homeschoolers React to State of the Union Education Demand
Home School Legal Defense Association ^ | January 25, 2012

Posted on 01/25/2012 12:27:51 PM PST by scripter

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last night in his State of the Union address President Obama called on all states to raise their school compulsory attendance age to 18, unnecessarily adding to bureaucratic requirements for homeschoolers.

Homeschool advocates at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) are dedicated to protecting the educational relationship between parents and their children. Parents—not the federal government and certainly not the president—are the ones who should decide how children are educated and when they’re ready to graduate from high school.

But President Obama presumptively spoke on behalf of parents and the states: “So tonight, I am proposing that every state—every state—requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.”

Michael Farris, founder and chairman of HSLDA, expressed the shock felt by homeschoolers: “There appears to be no limit to the president’s desire for power. Car companies, banks, doctors, and now schools and the family. He’s gone way too far this time.”

State-mandated attendance has not been the historical norm. In 1642, the Massachusetts Bay Colony stipulated that parents provide religious instruction for their children. For the next 200 years, most education laws were minimal and focused on family-centered education, giving children the tools to read, write, and do arithmetic, helping them understand what it meant to be virtuous citizens, and allowing them to learn a trade.

Ultimately, a formulaic and compulsory approach to education fails to instill in children a love of learning or a quality education. HSLDA President J. Michael Smith confirmed, “HSLDA has consistently protected homeschool families from the harmful effects of compulsory attendance education in their states, reinforcing the parental right to choose the method and duration of education most fitting to the individual needs and gifts of their children.”

Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms. Visit us online at

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arth; backoffbarry; bhofascism; democrats; fedzilla; frhf; govtabuse; homeschool; liberalfascism; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: G Larry
I see two problems:

1) The need to report to some sniveling government bureaucrat for two extra years.

For example: My children were accepted to college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. Even though they were in **college**, I was still required to hand in time consuming portfolios of their work every 6 months. The unctuous earth worm ( Ph.D.) accepting these portfolios would **not** accept an official transcript from the community college as proof that they were being adequately educated.

2) Many states will use this mandate to raise the minimum age for taking the GED to 18 or higher. In Maryland at the time we lived there, the age was 16. Passing this exam would have immediately made my children available for state university scholarships and aid. We moved to a different state and there the age for taking the GED was 18. Well!...Two of my kids were **finished** with their B.S. degrees in mathematics by the age of 18 and there were state or federal government scholarships available for them!

If children are denied access to scholarships, then more children will remain in the government schools just to qualify for them.

It even effects those applying to the military, whose rules vary from year to year. At times just having a GED was enough. Other times, some community college was needed if one did not have an official high school diploma. If the GED age is 18, then scholarships for those community college courses will be withheld from the younger student.

The GED and high school drop-out age are closely tied in many states. In my opinion, any child of any age who passes the GED should be given an official diploma from their local high school. All children should be able to pass it to graduate. ( Nearly all would fail.) And...All teachers should take the GED every three years, if they fail they should be fired.( Most would fail the mathematics section.)

51 posted on 01/25/2012 3:38:40 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

This is ridiculous!
I graduated from a public High School at age 17.
(simply by virtue of a late b’day, not superior intellect)
If the requirement is “graduation” what does “age” have to do with anything?
Now, if you suggest the states may further encumber “graduation” requirements, that is a different story and should be slammed at the state and local level.

52 posted on 01/25/2012 3:45:00 PM PST by G Larry (We need Bare Knuckles Newt to fight this battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

unctuous earth worms work for somebody and a public pounding is a suitable alternative.

I recognize your frustration, but it is the implementation of Obamas “words” that require scrutiny.

As usual, the words are delivered with butter, but is his intent that must be suspect.

53 posted on 01/25/2012 3:49:58 PM PST by G Larry (We need Bare Knuckles Newt to fight this battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Mike and I were in Park Jr. High Chess Club, back in the 60’s, I’ll try again to contact him to see how we can help.

54 posted on 01/25/2012 3:52:36 PM PST by G Larry (We need Bare Knuckles Newt to fight this battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Mike Farris, I should clarify, since there are two “Mike’s” in the article.
That was 1965/66.....
He was 2 years ahead of me.

55 posted on 01/25/2012 3:56:01 PM PST by G Larry (We need Bare Knuckles Newt to fight this battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Jim Robinson; Brad's Gramma; SouthTexas; Pete-R-Bilt; Eaker; NormsRevenge; Squantos; ...
My state law requires compulsory attendance for ages 6-18. I graduated at 17 (enough credits allows one freedom prior to 18).

My youngest home schooler is 15, and is going to start college this summer (when he gets his driver license). As a home school parent, under the state law, I define how he studies to meet the general requirements of studies, and those would be served by his going to college. Here's the state code on what subjects are expected to be taught (home, private and public):

High Schools (9-12): language arts, math, science, social studies, the arts, physical and health education, career and technical education, educational technology, general financial literacy, and library media skills. Utah Admin. Code R277-700-6.

However, if the CIC's (commie in chief's) proposed federal mandate is that all children attend government school until they turn 18, that's a whole nuther matter.

If the tenth amendment is toast, then so's the first and second. Nullification? Game on!

I'm gonna go read that old time declaration just one more time, and La Bamba Zero Soretoroski can kiss my grits.

56 posted on 01/25/2012 3:58:09 PM PST by glock rocks (I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
It's a point that HSLDA should know about but the issue is moot for our family.

That there is an age restriction on taking the GED meant that our children never qualified for state university or community college scholarships. I do know that it could impact those homeschoolers wanting to join the military.

My three homeschoolers are now past their mid-twenties. Two have masters degrees. Of these, one has a masters in accounting and the other a masters in mathematics. The youngest earned a B.S. in mathematics and is currently working full-time and working on a second undergraduate degree.

57 posted on 01/25/2012 4:23:21 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

You forgot the fourth which will be violated to Big Brother you and finally the fifth to incarcerate you.

58 posted on 01/25/2012 4:44:12 PM PST by Eaker (Remember, the enemy tends to wise up at the least convenient moments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

So true.

59 posted on 01/25/2012 6:01:39 PM PST by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t cite the 9th, as it supports the tenth...

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.

Every year federal courts are asked to recognize new Unenumerated Rights “retained by the people,” and typically they turn to the Ninth Amendment. However, the federal judiciary does not base rulings exclusively on the Ninth Amendment; the courts usually cite the amendment as a secondary source of fundamental liberties. In particular, the Ninth Amendment has played a significant role in establishing a constitutional right to privacy.

Ratified in 1791, the Ninth Amendment is an outgrowth of a disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the importance of attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. When the Constitution was initially drafted by the Framers in 1787, it contained no Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, who generally opposed ratification because they believed that the Constitution conferred too much power on the federal government, supported a Bill of Rights to serve as an additional constraint against despotism. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights because they believed that any enumeration of fundamental liberties was unnecessary and dangerous

60 posted on 01/25/2012 6:44:51 PM PST by Pete-R-Bilt (I love guns... and coffee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

More people need to stand up to him. If enough people do it, they can’t control everyone.

61 posted on 01/25/2012 6:44:58 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: scripter

Gee.... wasn’t the Department of Education one of those that loony ol’ Ron Paul wanted to be rid of?

62 posted on 01/25/2012 11:11:32 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Just a reason to try to justify more money to “schools and education”.

And more union jobs...

And more kickbacks...

and more indoctrination...

Besides, it keeps criminals off the streets and lets them roam the halls instead.

63 posted on 01/25/2012 11:13:03 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

DoE was on Perrys’ hit list and is on Pauls’ hit list, Newt wants to shrink it. Perry wanted to axe two other departments, Paul wants axe four others.

64 posted on 01/25/2012 11:18:15 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Thanks. I am actually married to a really great guy, and he and I have talked extensively about homeschooling; we have decided that when we have kids that we will either put them in a private Christian school or homeschool them. Unfortunately, we have no idea what state we might end up in, since he will be ordained as a Lutheran (LCMS) pastor in May 2013.

Usually the first call is picked for you by the seminary.

Thanks for the advice, though. When we started dating I mentioned that I someday wanted to homeschool my children and he started spouting “homeschool kids are sheltered and have no idea what the real world is like blah blah blah...”

Yeah, he’s lucky I didn’t dump him on the spot. He’s seen the light since then. :)

65 posted on 01/26/2012 7:08:27 AM PST by Conservaliberty (25 and conservative. I guess I have no heart, Oh, well, makes shooting the bad guys easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“Okay students, now it’s time to learn about our duty to the Party!”

66 posted on 01/26/2012 7:12:16 AM PST by Conservaliberty (25 and conservative. I guess I have no heart, Oh, well, makes shooting the bad guys easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conservaliberty

Well at least you straightened him out!

TalonDJ and I met on FreeRepublic; our homeschool backgrounds was one of the things we liked about each other right off. So nice to be debating how we will handle homeschooling and not whether we will! Our little girl isn’t quite three yet and already excited about doing “school” with mommy.

I would encourage you to stand up for homeschooling. Even private Christian schools can’t match the devotion, love, and potential that a homeschooling mom and dad can give!

67 posted on 01/26/2012 7:19:22 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation
Remember, homeschoolers are not allowed typos, misspellings, or grammatical errors!
68 posted on 01/26/2012 10:20:00 AM PST by aberaussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aberaussie

I’m not sure what your point was. I guess it was sarcasm.

But using ‘excepted’ instead of ‘accepted’ is neither a misspelling, a typo, or a grammatical error.

I wasn’t trying to be a school marm or hypercritical.
You did notice the 3 smiley faces ?
Was just having a bit of a Freeper tease.

69 posted on 01/26/2012 4:42:17 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

I thought I was being funny, sorry to offend. Even homeschoolers can do those things, but people are quick to point out mistakes and say things like, “And you teach your kids at home?” So most of my homeschool friends joke with each other like that. I forget that it is hard to joke like that on FR. No offense intended. Joke...

70 posted on 01/26/2012 6:48:35 PM PST by aberaussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Here's an update to the article:


We received some questions from homeschoolers asking if President Obama’s statement was actually a threat to homeschool freedom.

First, it is important to note the venue for the president’s statement: it was during the State of the Union address, where the president outlines the legislative agenda he hopes Congress will take up in the upcoming year. The president wasn’t making a statement to the media encouraging the states to change their compulsory attendance laws; he was speaking to Congress. We know that there are certain members of Congress who would gladly pass legislation that would require the states to raise their compulsory attendance ages, and many of these same members of Congress would like nothing better than to establish federal control over homeschoolers. We must speak up strongly to discourage any legislation from being introduced in Congress.

Second, this administration has a history of outlining a policy and then not waiting for Congress to pass legislation. We have seen Race to the Top, the president’s signature education policy, mandate that the states adopt the Common Core Curriculum Standards, and other education policies that are priorities for the Obama Administration, as a condition for receiving federal funds. Race to the Top is primarily driven by administrative regulations, not laws passed by Congress. We are concerned that the White House may try to draft regulations that force the states to raise their compulsory school attendance ages without waiting for legislation from Congress. We want to send a strong message to the White House that such a move will not be tolerated by homeschoolers.

If there were a federal mandate (either passed by Congress or through regulations) that required the states to keep students in school until they graduate or turn age 18, this could lead to a federal definition of what constitutes “graduation from high school.” Once the federal government creates federal guidelines or definitions in this area, additional and harmful federal regulations on homeschoolers could easily follow.

It is imperative that we remain united and show Congress and the White House that homeschoolers—and all people who believe that parents should make education decisions for their children instead of federal bureaucrats—strongly oppose any federal compulsory attendance mandate.

71 posted on 01/31/2012 5:49:21 PM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson