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

2008 Legislative Wrap-Up – 05/08/08

NHELD would like to thank everyone who assisted us this past year in trying to get legislative approval for SB162, An Act Concerning Withdrawal of Children from Enrollment in Public School, as well as amendments that contained the O'Neill/Children's Committee language. Although it was a valiant effort, sadly, the bill and the language we sought, was not adopted.

By way of background, (a detailed historical account is below), in 2007 NHELD conducted a Freedom of Information search of the files of the State Department of Education’s Office of Legal Affairs, because of continuing problems since 2003 regarding parents being reported to DCF after trying to withdraw their children from the public school system. NHELD discovered proof in those files that the State Department of Education was directing local boards of education to “try to attain compliance” of parents to file the Notice of Intent form, and if parents were not “complying”, the State Department of Education “encouraged local boards of education to report the families to DCF”. This was being directed, despite the fact that the State Department of Education had no basis in law to compel parents to submit a Notice of Intent form as the NOI is part of a “Suggested Procedure” only. As time went on, the local boards of education not only tried to “attain compliance” of parents in signing the Notice of Intent form, but also tried to compel parents, upon threat of being reported to DCF, to do any number of things that they were not required by law to do. We also began to see that even parents who followed the “Suggested Procedure” and filed an NOI were being threatened to be reported to DCF, or were reported to DCF. The stories of abuse of authority by these school administrators and DCF were horrendous.

The legal definition of the crime of Coercion pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-192, is to “compel or induce another person to engage in conduct which such other person has a legal right to abstain from engaging in…by means of instilling in such other person a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor…will…take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.” The actions of many state and local public education officials regarding this issue amounted to just that: coercion.

NHELD then brought this information to the attention of the legislative leadership in the Democrat and Republican parties, to the State Education Commissioner, the DCF Commissioner, and to the Governor. No one took any action to stop the abusive practices. Coincidentally, however, from February of 2007 until April of 2008, a total of 46 families informed NHELD that they were either threatened with, or actually were, reported to DCF and/or to Juvenile Court when they notified the public school district that they were withdrawing their child from enrollment.

In 2007, Rep. O’Neill suggested that we hold informational sessions throughout the state and invite legislators to attend to hear parents tell their stories about why they homeschool, and about any positive or negative experiences they were having. These legislative forums took place in each corner of the state. At one of them, held in Branford, Senator Edward Meyer, co-Chairman of the Select Committee on Children, attended, and offered to raise Rep. O’Neill’s bill in his committee for a public hearing.

At the beginning of this past legislative session (2008), Rep. O’Neill gave to Senator Meyer the language of the bill O’Neill originally proposed in the previous legislative session as an amendment (when Rep. Fleischmann and Senator Gaffey refused to raise it in the Education Committee), and Senator Meyer used that language as the language to propose in his bill this 2008 legislative session. That language was what Senator Meyer handed to the Legislative Commissioner’s office in the beginning of the 2008 session to be drafted into bill form for his Committee on Children. That bill would become SB162. Unfortunately, despite the fact that Rep. O’Neill’s language had been drafted and approved in the previous session by the Legislative Commissioner’s Office, for some reason, that Office re-drafted the language, without being asked to do so by Senator Meyer, in a mysteriously changed form that was substantially different than what Senator Meyer sent to LCO. Senator Meyer held a public hearing on SB162, and after testimony by parents and legislators who attended, the Select Committee on Children changed the language back to the language originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill, and unanimously approved it as such.

After being approved by the Select Committee on Children, SB162 then went to the Education Committee for further approval. Before the Education Committee took any action, however, State Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan handed to Rep. O’Neill a version of the bill the Commissioner wanted to have approved. Rep. O’Neill consulted with parents and rejected the language from the Commissioner. A week or two later, at a meeting of the Education Committee, Senator Gaffey provided the Committee with a revised version of SB162 that looked almost identical to the version drafted by State Education Commissioner, Mark McQuillan. That version drastically changed the intent of the bill from its original purpose of directing the local boards of education to accept a letter of withdrawal from parents when provided and to immediately consider the child withdrawn, to its new purpose of imposing additional burdens on parents in order to withdraw their children giving no guarantee that the boards of education would accept a letter of withdrawal or consider the child withdrawn.

SB162 arrived at the Education Committee in the form O'Neill and parents had intended from the Committee on Children, but Sen. Gaffey refused to raise the bill in that form and inserted Commissioner McQuillan's version, instead, as a substitute bill to be raised. While there was bipartisan support on the Education Committee to reject this new version of SB 162 proposed by Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, and to reinstitute the version as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill and as approved by the Select Committee on Children by amending this new version brought forth by Senator Gaffey, Gaffey remained adamant and told the Committee members that if they dared to propose an amendment such as that, he would not allow SB162 to be voted on at all in his Committee, effectively killing it. Senator Gaffey even went so far as to claim that Rep. O'Neill "was fine" with this new version. Rep. O'Neill later indicated that he never told Gaffey that he was “fine with” Gaffey’s version. Senator Meyer even sent a hand written letter to Senator Gaffey requesting that the language passed out of his committee not be changed. Senator Gaffey ignored the request. In the end, the supportive legislators informed NHELD and parents present at this Education Committee meeting that because of Senator Gaffey’s opposition and threat, they were going to vote to adopt the bill no matter what form it was in, so that the bill would not be killed in the Education Committee, and so they would have another opportunity to change the bill back to the original version on the floor of the Senate or the House.

NHELD applauds those legislators as true heroes for standing up to the bullying tactics used by Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann.

Unfortunately, this is what happened in the Senate:

Senator Gaffey coaxed the Democrat leadership into placing SB162 at the foot of the calendar, effectively killing it. Parents had requested that the bill be brought from the foot of the calendar, and it was, but when Sen. Meyer and Sen. Gaffey proposed a compromise amendment, the bill was again put to the foot of the calendar when parents protested the compromise and asked for the bill to be killed. While the bill was on the Senate calendar, Democrat Senators attempted to coax Senator Gaffey into adopting the O’Neill and Select Committee on Children version of SB162, and Senator Gaffey effectively told them that if they didn’t go along with him and the party leadership, there may be consequences in terms of not getting their present or future legislation raised by Senator Gaffey’s Education Committee. As a result, although there were many Democrat Senators who would have voted for the O’Neill version, none were willing to sign their names to the Republican amendment revising SB162 to the O’Neill/Select Committee on Children language.

Meanwhile in the House, supporters of the O’Neill language had put forth amendments to other education bills to affix the SB162 language to them in the hopes of getting the O’Neill/Select Committee on Children version tacked onto other bills. Rep. Fleischmann worked to kill that effort. Rep. Fleischmann coaxed the House leadership into not calling any bill that had attached to it any amendment that contained the O’Neill/Select Committee on Children language.

Suffice it to say, that Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, and the Democrat leadership in the Senate and House, worked together effectively to prevent passage of this very simple, but very important legislation which would have amended CGS10-220 and directed school administrators to accept a parent’s letter of withdrawal and immediately take the child off the school’s enrollment. One can only conclude that Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, along with the Democrat leadership, Senator Donald Williams, Senator Martin Looney, and Rep. James Amann, by their actions in killing the O’Neill/Select Committee on Children bill, condone the abusive practices of the State Department of Education.

NHELD was very much encouraged, however, by the hard work many supportive legislators subsequently undertook on behalf of the parents of this state in both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, twelve of the thirteen Republicans in the Senate co-signed an amendment to a total of twenty bills that would have adopted the original language as proposed by Rep. O’Neill and approved by the Select Committee on Children as SB162. In the House, a similar amendment was attached to a total of seven bills which were co-sponsored by a total of eighteen legislators from both parties.

A Chart is shown below which shows the amendments which were proposed, but uncalled, and the legislators who co-signed on them. Please take the time to thank these and any other legislator who voiced support for Rep. O’Neill’s version of SB162.

Even though neither SB162, nor any amendments identical to the O’Neill version of SB162, were adopted, parents of this state should not be discouraged. This is the third year Rep. O’Neill has tried to get this legislation adopted, but this is the first time that so many Democrats and Republicans have joined forces and worked so diligently to obtain its passage. In fact, if any of the amendments revising the language to the O’Neill/Select Committee on Children version had been called and voted on, more than likely the amendments would have been approved in both houses. That is precisely why Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann worked so hard to prevent a vote from taking place.

Our work is not over. We have gained the understanding and support of many, many legislators. We know who is preventing this legislation that we sought, from being approved. We know whom these legislators are working with at the State Department of Education. Many more legislators know about the abuse of authority and want it to stop.

We must continue to educate our legislators. Despite the enormous support we’ve garnered, there remain those who were noncommittal. If your legislator did not respond to your calls or emails during the session, try contacting the legislator again now that the session is over. Schedule a face-to-face meeting with him. Tell him why you think this issue is important, and ask his opinion about it. Keep in mind, not only will we have another opportunity in the next legislative session to have similar legislation adopted, but also the State Department of Education will have another opportunity to try to get its version of this legislation adopted. Just as informational meetings with legislators prior to this session helped in gaining bipartisan support for us, informational meetings with legislators before the next session will help to gain even more bipartisan support.

Equally as important, remember that elections soon will be upon us. If you don’t approve of what your legislator did during this session, you don’t need to vote for his/her re-election. Encourage others not to vote for him or her as well. Tell everyone you know in your community why they should not vote for him or her. Work for his or her opponent’s campaign. Contemplate running for election yourself.

In the next legislative session, we will try once more to get this legislation approved. With the help of the voters, perhaps we will have a change of leadership in the Education Committee, legislators will stop being bullied by the current powers that be, and parents’ rights will stop being usurped.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, NHELD continues to receive calls from parents some of whom now are being told by DCF that they “are not allowed to” or “cannot” choose to homeschool. NHELD will continue to work for these parents on an individual basis to uphold their right to use the educational system of their choice and to halt the abuse of authority by DCF and the public school system.

Further Background on the issues surrounding SB162:

For those who may not be familiar with the history about why parents sought this bill may be helpful.

In 1989, parents fought long and hard against an attempt to put in place a set of regulations into law that were drafted using the National Association of Boards of Education (NASBE) guidelines. That battle was successful and resulted in 1990 in a compromise document that we now know by several names: the C-14 Guidelines; the Suggested Procedure for Home Instruction; or the Notice of Intent procedure. That Suggested Procedure for Home Instruction remained just that: a Suggested Procedure. It was not adopted as a statute or as an administrative regulation.

Through the years, however, from time to time, parents and school districts would have disagreements because of the compromise language contained in that Suggested Procedure. Even though that was its title, and its legal status, the document stated within it that parents “must file” a Notice of Intent form or the school district “may” report the child as “truant”. The “must” was, and is, an unenforceable “must” as it has no basis in law. The threat of “truancy” also was, and is, unenforceable because the truancy statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-198a provides that only children who are “enrolled in a public or a private school” and who have a certain number of unexcused absences shall be considered “truant”. Because children being educated by their parents are not “enrolled” in a public or a private school, they cannot legally be considered “truant”.

Periodic disputes between parents and school districts were resolved throughout the years when the school districts were educated about these legal distinctions and the rights of parents to educate their children freely.

In 2003, however, things began to take an ominous turn. An East Hampton family’s child who was withdrawn by her parents from a public school, by certified letter, return receipt requested, who chose not to file the suggested Notice of Intent form, was reported to DCF by the school district as “truant”, and the family was reported to the Juvenile Court by the school district as a “family with service needs”. Both actions can result in loss of custody of the child. During the ten month long litigation, the Juvenile Court prosecutor indicated that the State Department of Education told the local Board of Education to continue to pursue the litigation because “only the school district has the authority to determine when a child is no longer enrolled in a public school.” This was the first time in our state’s history that the state government usurped the authority of what traditionally had been the right of parents: to withdraw their children from enrollment in a public school at any time, for any reason. The State Department of Education took the position that parents no longer had that right, only the school districts did. The school districts then, even though the parents sent a letter of withdrawal to the school, could ignore the parents’ directive, keep the child “on the enrollment books”, and then report the child to DCF as truant and the family to the Juvenile Court as a family with service needs.

Ultimately, the prosecutor withdrew the case against the East Hampton family. For the next few years, from time to time, other families were similarly told by public school districts the State Department of Education advised them “only the school districts had the authority to determine when a child is no longer enrolled.” These cases were mediated individually and resolved.

In 2003 also, a legislator, State Rep. Cameron Staples proposed a bill to regulate homeschooling that mirrored the regulations the state was attempting to put into place in 1990. Over a thousand homeschool parents and children showed up at the legislature at a public hearing to testify against that bill. Needless to say, the bill was defeated. The awesome presence of that many families that day is remembered with respect and admiration by many legislators to this day.

At a legislative breakfast held by Connecticut Homeschool Network, sometime after that, NHELD distributed information about this issue to legislators. When Rep. Arthur O’Neill was informed, Rep. O’Neill suggested to us that one way to resolve the issue was to state it clearly in the law that when parents notify the school district that they wish to withdraw their children, school districts must accept the notification and immediately consider the child withdrawn. He offered to propose such legislation in the next session. NHELD brought the idea to the leadership of CHN and TEACH. It was agreed that if there was ever a time in which to attempt legislation, this probably was it, given the fact that the legislators were aware of how many parents could appear again at the Capitol, if warranted. Rep. O’Neill then proposed the first version of the “withdrawal bill”. NHELD also approached Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, co-Chairman of the Education Committee, (along with Senator Thomas Gaffey), and sought his support for the bill. Rep. Fleischmann purported to support homeschooling, but, ultimately took the side of the State Department of Education on the issue and refused to raise the bill for a public hearing. Undaunted, Rep. O’Neill proposed the bill as an amendment to another bill. The amendment almost passed in the House. It failed by only ten votes.

The following year, again, Rep. O’Neill proposed the bill, revising its language a bit to satisfy certain stated objections by Rep. Fleischmann about how the parents were to notify the school districts. Again, Rep. Fleischmann, and Senator Gaffey, refused to raise the bill for a public hearing. Again, Rep. O’Neill proposed it as an amendment to another bill. Again, it was narrowly defeated.

That brought us to the 2008 legislative session as described above.

For further information, please contact NHELD. Please also continue to educate your own individual legislators to prevent further abuses from happening.

========================================================================

Uncalled Amendments

LCO#	URL on General Assembly website	Bill #	Where amendment was attempted	Bill Title
4143	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04143-R00-AMD.htm	SB 162	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A CHILD FROM ENROLLMENT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL."
4055	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04055-R00-AMD.htm	SB 162	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A CHILD FROM ENROLLMENT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL."
5633	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05633-R00-AMD.htm	SB 337	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING JUVENILE JUSTICE."
5629	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05629-R00-AMD.htm	HB 5677	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF CHILD PERFORMERS."
5931	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05931-R00-AMD.htm	SB 418	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE HIRING OF SUPPORT STAFF FOR TEACHERS OF THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED."
5732	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05732-R00-AMD.htm	SB 216	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING MINORS IN THE WORKPLACE."
5697	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05697-R00-AMD.htm	SB 216	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING MINORS IN THE WORKPLACE."
5478	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05478-R00-AMD.htm	HB 5826	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT."
5226	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05226-R00-AMD.htm	SB 613	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY SCHOOL SCHEDULING ISSUES."
5116	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO05116-R00-AMD.htm	HB 5545	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MILITARY CHILDREN AND GRADUATE DEGREES FOR MEMBERS OF T
4585	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04585-R00-AMD.htm	HB 5645	Senate	"AN ACT CREATING AN EXEMPTION FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION CONDUCTED BINGO."
4584	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04584-R00-AMD.htm	HB 5825	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS."
4583	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04583-R00-AMD.htm	SB 611	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS."
4580	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04580-R00-AMD.htm	SB 404	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE MINIMUM BUDGET REQUIREMENT
4579	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04579-R00-AMD.htm	SB 405	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING EARLY READING SUCCESS GRANTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIORITY SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANTS."
4576	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04576-R00-AMD.htm	SB 339	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS."
4573	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04573-R00-AMD.htm	SB 648	House	"AN ACT CONCERNING STATE CHARTER SCHOOLS."
4318	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04318-R00-AMD.htm	SB 646	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING GIFTS AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO ELECTED AND APPOINTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE NE
4315	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04315-R00-AMD.htm	SB 435	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING ORDERS AND CONTRACTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
4317	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04317-R00-AMD.htm	SB 403	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REVOCATION PROCESS."
4173	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04173-R00-AMD.htm	SB 647	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE BILINGUAL EDUCATOR CERTIFICATE PILOT PROGRAM."
4147	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04147-R00-AMD.htm	SB 614	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS FOR TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO EDUCATION STATUTES."
4146	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04146-R00-AMD.htm	SB 644	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF THE OPEN CHOICE PROGRAM."
4145	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04145-R00-AMD.htm	SB 648	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING STATE CHARTER SCHOOLS."
4144	http://cga.ct.gov/2008/lcoamd/2008LCO04144-R00-AMD.htm	SB 613	Senate	"AN ACT CONCERNING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY SCHOOL SCHEDULING ISSUES."

Co-Signers to the amendments

HOUSE REP. O'NEILL, 69^th Dist. REP. LABRIOLA, 131^st Dist. REP. WITKOS, 17^th Dist. REP. ROWE, 123^rd Dist. REP. FREY, 111^th Dist. REP. GIULIANO, 23^rd Dist. REP. RUWET, 65^th Dist. REP. MILLER, 122^nd Dist. REP. ZALASKI, 81^st Dist. REP. BARTLETT, 2^nd Dist. REP. WILBER, 63^rd Dist. REP. JARMOC, 59^th Dist. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY, 5^th Dist. REP. HEINRICH, 101^st Dist. REP. SCHOFIELD, 16^th Dist. REP. MCMAHON, 15^th Dist. REP. ROY, 119^th Dist. REP. WIDLITZ, 98^th Dist. REP. RITTER, 38^th Dist. REP. HENNESSY, 127^th Dist. REP. CANDELORA, 86^th Dist. REP. HARKINS, 120^th Dist. REP. PISCOPO, 76^th Dist. REP. STRIPP, 135^th Dist. REP. JOHNSTON, 51^st Dist. REP. FAHRBACH, 61^st Dist. REP. MIOLI, 136^th Dist.

SENATE SEN. MCKINNEY, 28^th Dist. SEN. FASANO, 34^th Dist. SEN. RORABACK, 30^th Dist. SEN. CALIGIURI, 16^th Dist. SEN. CAPPIELLO, 24^th Dist. SEN. DEBICELLA, 21^st Dist SEN. FREEDMAN, 26^th Dist. SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35^th Dist SEN. HERLIHY, 8^th Dist. SEN. KANE, 32^nd Dist. SEN. KISSEL, 7^th Dist. SEN. RUSSO, 22^nd Dist

Co-Signers to SB162

Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist.
Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, 86th Dist.
Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, 69th Dist.
Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, 55th Dist.
Rep. Richard F. Ferrari, 62nd Dist.
Rep. Ruth C. Fahrbach, 61st Dist.
Rep. Al Adinolfi, 103rd Dist.
Sen. Robert J. Kane, 32nd Dist.
Rep. Patricia M. Widlitz, 98th Dist.
Rep. Anne L. Ruwet, 65th Dist.
Rep. Richard Roy, 119th Dist.
Rep. Lawrence G. Miller, 122nd Dist.
Rep. Elizabeth B. Ritter, 38th Dist.
Rep. Shawn T. Johnston, 51st Dist.
Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich, 101st Dist.
Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio, 71st Dist.
Rep. Jason W. Bartlett, 2nd Dist.
Rep. Ron Burns, 77th Dist.
Rep. Ed Jutila, 37th Dist.
Sen. Joan V. Hartley, 15th Dist.
Rep. Mike Alberts, 50th Dist.
Rep. David Aldarondo, 75th Dist.
Sen. Andrea L. Stillman, 20th Dist.
Rep. Karen Jarmoc, 59th Dist.
Rep. Kathleen M. Tallarita, 58th Dist.
Sen. Edward Meyer, 12th Dist.
Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri, 16th Dist.
Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, 127th Dist.
Rep. Peggy Sayers, 60th Dist.
Rep. Joan A. Lewis, 8th Dist.
Sen. Judith G. Freedman, 26th Dist.
Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, 14th Dist