NHELD thanks Candy Mueller for taking the time to carefully read the language in the latest version of SB162 and making an inqu

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

Updated Interpretation of the Gaffey Version of SB162 – 03/21/08

NHELD thanks Candy Mueller for taking the time to carefully read the language in the latest version of SB162 and making an inquiry to us. (As of today the new version has NOT been posted at the CT general Assembly website). As with all bills and statutes, sometimes it takes even the most knowledgeable persons reading the document multiple times to really understand all that it truly means. While we did notice many detrimental provisions, and informed the public about them as quickly as possible, after further reviewing the language, and thanks to Candy’s inquiry, NHELD now more fully appreciates the meaning of the Gaffey version of SB 162 (read it at http://nheld.com/sb162gaffeybill.pdf ).

Because the language that Rep. O'Neill originally wrote spoke about a letter, or notice if you will, of "withdrawal", in our anger at reading the Gaffey version, we may have assumed that the "notice" this version talks about concerns "withdrawal" also. Unfortunately, a careful reading of the bill reveals that the “notice” this version talks about, is not a “notice of withdrawal” at all. It is a notice of intent to provide equivalent instruction. The Gaffey version of the bill actually appears to have nothing at all to do with any letter of withdrawal from enrollment.

Assuming that this is the correct meaning, as we have to take the plain language to be, then without the legalese, subsection (d)(1) of what would be the new Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184 according to the Gaffey version says:

"If the parent...elects to provide the equivalent instruction...such parent...shall provide written notice to...the principal of the school the child is attending...or...would otherwise attend...or to the superintendent...each time such child resides in a school district other than the district for which such notice was initially provided."

Translating that into usable English...If a parent chooses to homeschool, the parent would be required to provide the principal or superintendent notice...not just once but also each time the parent moved to another district.

Without the legalese, subsection (d)(2) says:

"Notice...shall...state that the parent...intends to provide the child with equivalent instruction....[shall] be signed by the parent... [shall] be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested. The principal or superintendent....shall immediately accept such notice as evidence that the child is receiving such equivalent instruction."

In English...The notice the parent provides must say that the parent intends to provide equivalent instruction. The school must accept the notice of intent as evidence of equivalent instruction.

Thus, parents would be statutorily required to provide the school district with a "Notice of Intent" that they are providing equivalent instruction, and the school shall accept the notice as “evidence” that the child is receiving equivalent instruction.

Until now, parents have not been required to file any notice, of intent or otherwise, to the public school district. The Gaffey version of this bill would render the current "Suggested Procedure for Home Instruction", i.e., the Notice of Intent procedure, moot and irrelevant. The notice would become mandatory under the Gaffey version of this bill.

In addition, the Gaffey version of this bill does absolutely nothing to require school districts to accept a letter of withdrawal from a parent, or to actually consider a child withdrawn from enrollment.

Under this bill, parents would be required to file a notice with the school district. The school district would accept the notice as “evidence” that the child is receiving equivalent instruction, but the bill would not require the school district to actually find that the child is receiving equivalent instruction.

It also does not define "equivalent instruction”, and, in essence, for the first time in our state’s history, it would give the authority to the school district to assess the “evidence” of "equivalent instruction", an authority the school district never has had and never should have.

It is reasonable to assume that school districts, having been granted the authority to accept the “evidence” of "equivalent instruction" will take it upon themselves to make determinations as to the quality of that evidence in order to claim that the instruction is not "equivalent". If and when they make such a determination, under what would become their new authority, they would have an even stronger argument to make as to why a report to DCF for "educational neglect" is necessary.

The question was asked "if the schools have to accept the NOI as equivalent instruction, then how can they turn the parents in for educational neglect..."

They can, because the Gaffey version of the bill does not actually say that the schools "have to accept the NOI as equivalent instruction. They only have to accept it as "evidence of" equivalent instruction. You can receive evidence and then make a determination based on the evidence. They could receive the notice as evidence of equivalent instruction, yet still make a determination based on the evidence that what you intend to provide, or are providing, is not equivalent instruction. In essence, the school district would have the statutory authority to require you to provide a notice of intent, and to evaluate what you intend, or are providing, as “evidence” of equivalent instruction. That's a power they never had before and never should have.

Equally as important, the Gaffey version of the bill leaves the school districts just as free as they are now to refuse to accept a letter of withdrawal from a parent and free to refuse to consider a child actually withdrawn, leaving the parents still open to false reports of truancy and neglect.

All parents should be aware of all of the implications of this bill, and there may be even more implications of which we are unaware.

We need to kill the Gaffey version of this bill.

We need to seek an amendment that would have the language in SB 162 revert to the original O’Neill language as approved by the Select Committee on Children.

That language simply states:

“when a parent or guardian of a child provides by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the principal of the school that the child attends, to the superintendent of schools for the school district in which such school is located or the local or regional board of education for such school district, written notice originated by and signed by the parent or guardian of the child stating that the parent or guardian is withdrawing the child from enrollment in a public school and will provide instruction for the child as required pursuant to section 10-184, the principal of the school that the child attends, the superintendent and the local or regional board of education shall accept such notice and shall deem the child withdrawn from enrollment in the public school immediately upon receipt of such notice”

Because the Gaffey version of the bill raises complicated issues, ones that most legislators have not taken the time, or probably will take the time, to go into in depth (except for Gaffey and his cohorts), what we would suggest as a strategy for talking with legislators is to simplify it as much as possible. We would suggest telling them the Gaffey version is not acceptable for a variety of reasons, most importantly because it does not address the issue raised in the O’Neill version. It DOES NOT REQUIRE school districts to accept a LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL from parents and DOES NOT REQUIRE the school districts TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER THE CHILD AS WITHDRAWN. The O'Neill version as approved by the Select Committee on Children does do both of those things.

Try to leave it at that.

If they ask for more information, tell them that the Gaffey version places other burdens on parents which the school districts could use as an excuse to refuse to allow children to be withdrawn from enrollment and to report parents to DCF for truancy and neglect.

A shorter version is probably easier for them to understand than to go into the complexities of explaining the "Suggested Procedure", the Notice of Intent versus a notice of withdrawal, and all the other issues involving "equivalent instruction". We may need to argue those points at some time in the future, but for right now, the simpler we make it for them to vote on the correct version, the better off we’ll be. That way the legislators can quickly and simply explain it to other legislators so that we can maximize on our ability to gain support.

Please do what you can to contact your legislators, and particularly Democrat Senators and leadership in both the House and the Senate.

Please also know that Rep. O’Neill said to us that he did not approve of the new language proposed by Gaffey and that he has issued a position statement that we will post as soon as we obtain it.

Thank you for your continued support. If you have questions or comments please feel free to contact us.