Tel.: (860) 354-3590

P.O. Box 704, Southbury, CT  06488

Cell: (203) 206-4282

Email: info@nheld.com

Fax: (860) 354-9360

Web: www.nheld.com

 

Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson, Executive Director

 

 

NOTICE TO CONNECTICUT PARENTS:

GAFFEY AND FLEISCHMANN PUSH THROUGH DETRIMENTAL REVISIONS TO SB162 THAT EFFECTIVELY GRANT AUTHORITY TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO APPROVE CURRICULUM AND PREVENT CHILDREN FROM WITHDRAWING FROM ENROLLMENT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.

 

     Senator Thomas Gaffey and Representative Andrew Fleischmann, the Co-Chairmen of the Education Committee, revised SB162.  Instead of changing Connecticut General Statute §10-220, the Duties of Boards of Education, the revised substitute bill makes multiple changes to Connecticut General Statute §10-184, the Duties of Parents.

 

     The revised substitute bill essentially grants to the local public school superintendent the authority to review the curriculum of home schooled students to determine whether the parents are providing “equivalent instruction”. 

 

The revised substitute bill also allows public school superintendents to refuse to allow students to withdraw from a public school if the parents are not providing what the school districts deem to be “equivalent instruction”.

 

 The revised substitute bill contains a provision for parents to notify the public school superintendent of their intent to withdraw the child from enrollment in the public school and requires the school superintendent to accept the notice, but does not require the school superintendent to consider the child withdrawn from enrollment.

 

A copy of the exact language of the revised bill is attached.

 

     In other words, under the revised substitute bill as proposed by Gaffey and Fleischmann, for the first time in our state’s history, public school districts would have the authority to determine whether a parent could withdraw a child from enrollment in a public school, based on their opinion of whether or not the parents are providing “equivalent instruction” to the child, presumably after reviewing the child’s curriculum.  Essentially, the public school district would have the authority to “approve” the child’s curriculum before the child would be allowed to withdraw from public school.   

 

     Not only does this represent an extreme departure from centuries of existing law, but it also represents the first step toward more “regulation” of homeschooling in Connecticut in the future.  This must not be allowed.  We must act now to stop this.

 

     Just prior to beginning the Education Committee’s March 18, 2008 meeting, Democrat members of the Committee, led by Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, caucused behind closed doors considering what to do about the bill.  Gaffey and Fleischmann apparently were insistent that the Committee vote on the revised bill changing Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184.  This language is remarkably similar to the proposed language Education Commissioner McQuillan handed to Rep. O’Neill two weeks ago who then forwarded it to us for comment. We, of course told O’Neill that we disapproved of that language. During the caucus, some of the supportive Democrat members of the Committee apparently argued against the change and, along with some of the Republican members, wanted to offer an amendment to change the language back to the original language as adopted by the Select Committee on Children, as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill.  Gaffey and Fleischmann told them, however, that if they offered the amendment, Gaffey and Fleischmann would not allow the bill to be voted on by the committee, effectively killing it.  Gaffey even went as far as to say that Rep. O’Neill said, “That he was fine with the language”. Rep. O’Neill later informed us that he did not say he was fine with the language in Gaffey’s bill and that he still does support the original language as approved by the Select Committee On Children and as he originally proposed it.

 

     As a result, the supportive members of the committee decided that it was better not to allow the bill to die in committee, but to allow it to be adopted in the revised form that Gaffey and Fleischmann wanted so that there could be another chance of amending it back to the original language on the floor of the Senate.  When the bill was called for a vote, therefore, the members of the Education Committee voted to approve it.  The revised substitute bill as proposed by Gaffey and Fleischmann now goes to the floor of the Senate.

 

     We do not know when the Senate will put the bill on the agenda for a vote, but it may happen within the next week or two.  

 

     It is extremely important for all parents to contact their Senators now to explain to them that we need to have SB162 amended so that it reverts back to the language as approved by the Select Committee on Children, which is the original language as proposed by Rep. Arthur O’Neill. 

 

      The following is a list of Senators to contact

S16 - Caligiuri, Sam S.F.       Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S24 - Cappiello, David J.      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S31 - Colapietro, Thomas A. Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S02 - Coleman, Eric D.         Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S17 - Crisco, Joseph J.         Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S33 - Daily, Eileen M.           Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S21 - Debicella, Dan             Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S06 - DeFronzo, Donald J.    Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S09 - Doyle, Paul R.             Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S25 - Duff, Bob                    Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S34 - Fasano, Leonard A.     Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S01 - Fonfara, John W.         Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S26 - Freedman, Judith G.     Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S13 - Gaffey, Thomas P.       Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S23 - Gomes, Edwin A.        Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S35 - Guglielmo, Anthony      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S04 - Handley, Mary Ann     Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S10 - Harp, Toni Nathaniel    Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S05 - Harris, Jonathan A.      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S15 - Hartley, Joan V.           Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S08 - Herlihy, Thomas J.       Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S32 - Kane, Robert J.           Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S07 - Kissel, John A.            Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S03 - LeBeau, Gary D.         Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S11 - Looney, Martin M.      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S18 - Maynard, Andrew M. Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S27 - McDonald, Andrew J. Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S28 - McKinney, John          Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S12 - Meyer, Edward           Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S36 - Nickerson, William H.  Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S19 - Prague, Edith G.          Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S30 - Roraback, Andrew W. Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S22 - Russo, Robert              Mail ToLegislator Web SiteR

S14 - Slossberg, Gayle S.      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S20 - Stillman, Andrea L.      Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

S29 - Williams, Donald E.     Mail ToLegislator Web SiteD

 

      Here are some points concerning the legislation:

 

  1. In 2003, the State Department of Education’s Office of Legal Affairs began telling school superintendents that “only the public school districts have the authority to determine when a child is no longer enrolled”, thus, without any statutory authority, effectively changing centuries of tradition holding that parents have the authority to determine when a child is no longer enrolled in a public school.

 

  1. School districts began to refuse to acknowledge the withdrawal of children by their parents who withdrew their children from enrollment, by certified letter return receipt requested.  The school districts relied on the advice of the state Department of Education, which encouraged the school district to report the parents to DCF.

 

  1. Filing a false report of truancy violates the law.

 

  1. In 2007 and 2008 more than 40 families, in various communities across the state, were threatened with being reported to DCF or were reported to DCF after withdrawing their children from school to either homeschool them, or to send them to private school.  DCF ultimately found all reports to be unsubstantiated, or the reports were withdrawn.

 

  1.  The version of SB162 as adopted by the Select Committee on Children, as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill, amends Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-220, the Duties of Boards of Education.  It very simply requires boards of education to “accept” a letter of withdrawal by a parent, and to “immediately consider the child withdrawn from enrollment”.  That’s all the bill would do.  It places the burden on the local public school district to respect the parent’s withdrawal of the child from enrollment by actually taking the child off the enrollment books so that no claim of truancy can be made. Children who are educated by their parents are not truant.

 

  1. The revised version of SB162 as approved by the Education Committee at the behest of Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, amends Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184.  It does not require the local superintendent or board of education to consider the child withdrawn from enrollment.  It effectively grants authority to the superintendent, based on the superintendent’s opinion, to determine whether a child is receiving “equivalent instruction”, and if in the opinion of the superintendent the child is not receiving whatever he deems to be “equivalent instruction”, then the superintendent would have the authority to determine that the child may not withdraw from enrollment and the school district may consider the child still enrolled in the public school.  In other words, this version of the bill effectively puts into statutory form the “authority of the public school district to determine whether the child is no longer enrolled.”

 

  1. The revised bill as proposed by Gaffey and Fleischmann and adopted by the Education Committee would not eliminate the problem of parents being reported to DCF for choosing to educate their children, it would prevent parents from being able to withdraw their children and/or increase the number of parents being reported to DCF for choosing to educate their children.  This must not be allowed.

 

  1. Without saying so directly, the revised bill as proposed by Gaffey and Fleischmann and adopted by the Education Committee effectively statutorily authorizes the local public school superintendent to “approve” the curriculum of children educated at home by their parents.  This is wholly unnecessary and unacceptable.

 

  1. The revised bill as proposed by Gaffey and Fleischmann and adopted by the Education Committee gives the statutory authority to the local public school superintendent to prevent parents from withdrawing their children from enrollment from a public school.  This is an authority that the public school district never has had in the entire history of our state, and never should have. 

 

  1. Parents are the only ones who should have the authority to determine when a child is no longer enrolled in a public school.  Parents should have the right to choose how to educate their children without the threat of being reported to DCF and having their children taken away because they made a choice to educate them in a manner that is different from that of a public school.

 

  1. Legislators must approve only an amended version of SB162 in which the language reverts to that which was approved by the Select Committee on Children, as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill. 

 

  1. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-220 must be changed to compel school districts to accept the withdrawal of parents and to immediately consider the child withdrawn from enrollment. 

 

  1. No changes can be made to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184.

 

Please do your best to contact your Senators and explain to them the dangers of the revised version of SB162 and urge them to adopt an amendment that would change the language back to the language as adopted by the Select Committee on Children, as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill.

 

If this bill cannot be changed back to the original language proposed by Rep. O’Neill, then this bill should be killed in the Senate.

 

Now is the time for parents to stand up for their rights and their freedom.