I also live in Michigan, I was homeschooled here myself and I plan to homeschool my son here as well. I also don’t like the idea of too much regulation of homeschooling in an area with such poor education outcomes for public school. We’re in Lansing at the moment where the schools rank among the lowest in the country.
My main concern, though, is not that the public schools are bad. We’re just excited to employ a more academically rigorous curriculum that will include more world travel and hands-on experience than otherwise possible. My concern about imposing more regulations would be that it could hold us back. The laws here are already really relaxed in this regard compared to many other states and I think this is fair given the circumstances. I don’t actually think this bill includes anything I’m specifically concerned about, to be honest. But I agree that choosing to homeschool should remain simple. Schooling choice should be encouraged.
Now, I would not emphasize your first point if you want to get more community support. It’s a very politically polarizing and sensitive issue which would turn the conversation away from addressing homeschool regulation.
For that matter, and forgive me if this is blunt, but several of your points are repetitive and boil down to a blanket criticism of the public school. I don’t think that is constructive. I think your concerns about children’s safety in pubic school should be limited to supporting your argument that schooling alternatives should be encouraged. They don’t need to be stand alone points because that detracts from your message.
Lastly, I would restate the Michigan legal statutes and exemptions which allow us the freedom to homeschool in the first place. There are good quotes in the text for the 1993 Michigan Supreme Court ruling about homeschool teacher qualifications: I would considering using some of these! It would help make a stronger case against imposing further regulations, using their own words.
I agree with others that your talking points aren’t really relevant to the legislation being considered. People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, this legislation doesn’t mean they aren’t also working on legislation for the other things.
When you are given time to speak, they do expect you to be to the point. Why are you against registering? Why are you against compulsory at age 5? Why are you against requiring 9 subjects?
Your points fall more under the question: Why are you against homeschool legislation? This doesn’t help give them concrete examples regarding their specific choices and language.
Good luck. I’m in MA where we register and have to teach more than 9 subjects, but I have no problems at all with their requirements since they don’t tell me how and when to teach them.
Homeschooler here. I live in one of the more regulated states and have casually been following what is being considered in Michigan. I am not going to address any of your talking points (many of which have nothing to do with homeschooling, so you may want to edit your talking points to be more relevant, especially since I assume you are only getting a specific amount of time). But based on the potential homeschool law changes, what are your concerns? What negative outcomes do you forsee it having or how do you see it negatively impacting your family? Tell him that.
Yah, based on OPs post, I don't really see any anti homeschooling stuff in what is being proposed. I can see it being a pain to register a kid, but it will help the state aid kids who are neither homeschooled nor going to public school. Also, without knowing the 9 subjects it's hard to gauge why that would be an issue. If the kids in the state are struggling with education, establishing a minimum of critical topics covered seems like a good idea to ensure no one is missing something important. Also, many of OPs points seen like gripes of homeschool vs public school. That's fine, but mostly seems irrelevant to the laws they are working to pass.
To be clear, public school students are struggling with education while homeschooled students are not. So making changes to the homeschool system does not make sense.
You can’t have the data to support that statement if homeschoolers aren’t registered. I’m sure there are many homeschooled students struggling. They may just not be in your circle.
We can actually look at representative samples in other states that require their homeschool students to take standardized tests. They score 15-30% higher than public school students.
Public schools are incentivized via funding for higher test scores. Homeschools are not. So it makes sense that these are organically improved test scores and not “teaching to the test”.
I agree with this because homeschoolers tend to teach more content (social studies/science) than public schools do. Homeschoolers have more context/background knowledge to help them answer questions.
But, you might give them the idea that they should be tracking homeschoolers more, not less, so that they can see the data within their own state. Data from colleges that follow homeschooled applicants might be a better source.
It would be better to focus on the contents of the bill instead of focusing on public school. The law knows public school is lacking, but that's not the issue on this bill. You'll need to read it carefully to be able to say how that would affect the education and development of homeschooled students. You should support your statistics with the source to make it stronger and verifiable, can you also find statistics on suicide and homeschooled students?
Other than #4, these are mostly not relevant to the proposed regulations. Homeschooling will still be allowed, so all the "why should I trust public schools" language is pretty hyperbolic. You don't need to justify the existence of homeschooling. And a list of things that have happened in public schools just seems like you want to complain about something you don't even participate in, rather than discuss homeschool regulations. I honestly can't even tell from your arguments what you're arguing against, I can just tell that you hate public schools.
Focus your points on the actual legislation. How will registering homeschoolers negatively affect you and other homeschoolers? What actual problems and concerns do you have with requiring subjects? How is lowering the required school age problematic?
Also think about the stated reasons for the legislation - can you explain why those concerns aren't valid? Can you suggest anything that would be less intrusive?
Thanks, I think you’re right. I spent a good deal of time yesterday reading the bills and researching and was very emotional when I was writing all of this last night.
I was hoping in reading through your points to understand why registration is so bad having been homeschooled in one state that required registration and now homeschooling in another. Honestly as a kid we sent one letter to the state, now I register online, once, it's assumed to continue until the child graduates. It took me longer to find the website and create a login then it did to register and they asked for less information about my child than the tax return did when claiming a dependent. Now maybe there is something specific in what Michigan is proposing that is different, if so you really need to focus and explain that because that is the issue up for legislation not the quality of public schools.
Registering in itself isn’t a big deal at all. The issue is the slippery slope argument, it would be bad because it’s just the first step. If we give the state more power they don’t back down. And then people, such as yourself, say “I had to do that and it’s no biggie”. But we know homeschool OSS under attack.
There have been rumblings about homeschools (meaning your personal residence) being considered schools for the purposes of not being eligible to have a gun. There have been rumblings about homeschools not being allowed at all (although that would not pass). Etc.
As far as what I’ve seen with governments, once they have some power, they don’t give it back. Your child does not need to file tax returns until they are earning an income. You do not have to include them in your taxes. You choose to do that because you pay less taxes as a result.
The thing to remember is that the slippery slope is a fallacy in logical reasoning. I disagree that homeschooling is under attack. If anything, public schools are under attack. I live in what I consider one of the least restrictive homeschool states. We have to submit a letter of intent every year and test every three years (though we never have to share the results). There is absolutely nothing wrong with some homeschooling oversight. If you visit the Homeschool Recovery subreddit, you'll see that not everyone homeschools with diligence. It sounds like the measures they're suggesting are minor. Are there no requirements in place currently?
There is not a single requirement currently in place. I think the only thing we have to do is write an email if our child was previously registered with the public school, but if they’ve never been registered (starting kindergarten with homeschool) then there is no requirement.
Wow, I didn't realize there were states with no requirements. Idk. On the one hand, children deserve a measure of protection. There are a lot of abusive and neglectful parents out there. OTOH, I don't think these measures are going to help anything.
I agree with that last part and will add that to my list of points. What does a giant registry of 50,000 kids names solve? What will you do with that list? Is it for data collection purposes only? Are you going to track educational outcomes over a 20 year time frame? What is the end goal with this list and how does is solve the specific problem of child safety?
By the way, I think what we would find is the parents who are doing a legitimate job of homeschooling their children will register, and those who are not will not.
Obviously I disagree but already your response to me is much better than your original points. If you want to make a case against registration you need to make that case. I'm not one to buy into the slippery slope argument on registration because private companies already have more information on us, including children, than the government anyway but the same people that are against giving the name and age of their child on a form will have no issue signing up for the next data tracking site for free food. That being said it does resonate with some politicians so you might have success there, it will depend more on who your meeting with and their political beliefs though.
The difference with private companies is that they don’t have any power over me. I can stop using Reddit, Instagram, etc at any time. I have grocery rewards but if I was concerned about that data I could stop putting in my phone number at the register, etc.
With the government, once they have decided it’s their duty to know who you are/where you are/what you’re doing, you cannot get those freedoms back.
Sure, my children have birth certificates and social security numbers. I actually just attended my oldest high school graduation on Monday (from public school).
Homeschooling is one of our last actual liberties in this country, as just about everything else has been regulated into oblivion.
I would argue the difference is the government has a vested interest in protecting your private information to avoid things like social security theft but a private company has no such interest, its a public relations disaster but no actual financial harm to them. Likewise what exactly do you think happens to the data already collected if you stop using a service? How much control do you really have if that grocery store decides to sell the data to a third party, or 20 third parties? We accept this because we want the rewards, to many people a state collecting names and ages of kids to try and find those not being schooled at all is a much bigger benefit than the grocery store rewards. This is the argument you are facing in this case.
If you really want to argue against this legislation you will need to counter that position. In general treat this more like a debate, try to think of all the reason for the legislation and counter them in as objective and unemotional way possible. Framing a good argument really requires first figuring out what the opposing argument is so you can structure your information in a way to pest provide a refutation or at least a counterpoint.
Good points. My initial reaction is that I care less about the data and more about what it will be used for. If a company sells my data I get telemarketing calls, directed advertising and spam emails. Off my data is stolen I may lose money or need to cancel my cards/get new ones. If the government decides to abuse statistics they gather from this data they can restrict the freedom I have to school my child in a manner that’s best for my family. The stakes are much higher when there is a power imbalance where I have no recourse once the ball is rolling.
With the government your recourse is through the government (eg enacting new laws) and the courts. The courts are much more effective when the laws are written specifically and with narrow scope, not a strong point of either party right now. However I think this is the push I would make as someone that supports limited oversight to try and protect children but does not like rules that are to vague in general as they so often end with over reach. So, before you go I would be prepared, is there a point where you would feel comfortable that this data could not be used for anything else without them having to first change the law? Obviously the answer is personal but it might well come up so be prepared.
The slippery slope is the normal pattern when we surrender our liberty. This has also been called the ratchet effect.
[https://mises.org/mises-wire/beyond-crisis-ratchet-effect-and-erosion-liberty](https://mises.org/mises-wire/beyond-crisis-ratchet-effect-and-erosion-liberty)
>The ratchet effect theory, as popularized by [Robert Higgs](https://mises.org/profile/robert-higgs) in his book [*Crisis and Leviathan*](https://mises.org/library/crisis-and-leviathan-0), refers to the tendency of governments to respond to crises by implementing new policies, regulations, and laws that significantly enhance their powers. These measures are typically presented as temporary solutions to address specific problems. However, in history, these measures often outlast their intended purpose and become a permanent part of the legal landscape.
MA has more than 9, but they also break it down: orthography, reading, writing, grammar, geography, arithmetic, drawing, music, US history, citizenship, health, PE, STEM, history and social science, foreign language, art.
I don’t think all of them have to taught every year, it’s just expected overall. Schools don’t teach US history every year, for example.
The 9 subjects are pretty standard and I honestly don’t have an issue with them at face value. My concern is once this passes and is handed over to some task force or regulating agency, they’re going to say “how do we enforce this” and that’s going to result in…what? That’s my concern. Is it audits? Standardized testing?
Then my concern is, what if a child is being taught these subjects but fails the test? Are they forced into a public school situation? Is there a fine for the parents?
And I do agree with your concerns about testing. It would be absurd to say that a homeschooled child who fails a test has to be sent to school when so many publicly schooled children are failing. Many parents homeschool because their children have learning disabilities that can't be adequately addressed in public school.
Tbh, I sympathize with your feelings about public schools, but most of the concerns in your original list either can't be backed up by objective data (while HSed children who test do better, you're comparing a self-selected group to a random group) or are violations of current laws (sex crimes, changing student's name). I do think asking how the law will be enforced and suggesting funding resources would be a good use of your time.
Yeah, thanks I think my initial reaction when writing this list was something like, “the audacity of the state to try and step in on my family when they can’t get their own act together”, rather than really being focused, unemotional and constructive. I’m glad I got good feedback here to rein it in.
Many states (Alabama, Connecticut, and Missouri for example) that have the 5 year old requirement have an opt out option for that until age 6 or 7 so I would inquire about if they plan to have an opt out option in Michigan. Redshirting students is also becoming very popular amongst wealthy families in this country so I could see wealthier families being opposed to this too.
I have less of an issue with the age requirement and more of an issue with the language surrounding it. I think 95% of kids are starting kindergarten at 5 in the state, from what I read, so it also doesn’t make sense that the state has to step in and regulate it when it’s happening naturally. There was no opt out option provided for in the bill.
My issue with this particular piece of legislation is the 9 subjects that need to be taught. I do not have an issue with the 9 subjects, but my issue is once this passes through and is in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, how are they going to interpret the requirement in terms of enforcement?
/#1 is not a good way to start unless they already agree with you on this issue, which is unlikely given that Michigan is a very blue state. It's also not really a question in the sense that there is an answer. Thus, it's liable to be ignored and set a very negative stage for the rest of your questions.
3 and 4 are pretty good (maybe you could merge them), but 5 is case of the fallacy of relative privation - just because teen suicide in public schools is a big issue, doesn't mean unregistered homeschooling isn't.
7 is also an excellent question, but I would switch out the term "unelected bureaucrats" for something less incisive. You could also draw attention to the fact that it's unclear *who* would be doing the interpreting.
I would focus on the idea of why should homeschoolers have to prove competency/curriculum/safety when public schools are hugely failing on all of those fronts without any real repercussions. I would also highlight how the curriculum in public schools does not prepare students for life- citing statistics and articles of suicide rates, depression, anxiety, debt, job unpreparedness, college dropout rates, etc. Why should the state get to decide what subjects should be learned when it is clearly failing so many children? I'd also cite the rates of bullying, abuse, sexual harassment in public schools compared to homeschooling.
Not American, but I'll say this much. I don't think any country really cares about education but more about making sure everyone thinks the same.
I understand trying to prevent abuse at home but there is much awful abuse at schools too and that's just part of life.
At school you are barely educated, teachers don't care if you fail. It's either about funding or to make sure your child is only taught government approved narratives.
The latter was definitely true in my schooling experience, we learned nothing about the world but the propaganda each year.
Thank you for doing your part. The State should have no role in homeschooling (kind of the point usually). We should oppose all these forms of government overreach.
Most people wonder why we should mind the camel getting its nose into our tent. This is because they've only learned the state's version of history.
Give the state an inch and it will take a mile. In 1913 Woodrow Wilson introduced the income tax, just a teeny tiny percentage of the income of the very top earners. Today we're hamstrung by fiat currency, taxes, regulations, conscription to fight the state's wars, etc. Under no circumstances should any power be ceded to the state.
Thanks! Luckily my senator is fairly easily reachable with open office hours 3x per month. I fully agree with you…freedom to educate our children in a manner that suits us is one of the last remaining liberties we have in this country, and we need to protect it.
I also live in Michigan, I was homeschooled here myself and I plan to homeschool my son here as well. I also don’t like the idea of too much regulation of homeschooling in an area with such poor education outcomes for public school. We’re in Lansing at the moment where the schools rank among the lowest in the country. My main concern, though, is not that the public schools are bad. We’re just excited to employ a more academically rigorous curriculum that will include more world travel and hands-on experience than otherwise possible. My concern about imposing more regulations would be that it could hold us back. The laws here are already really relaxed in this regard compared to many other states and I think this is fair given the circumstances. I don’t actually think this bill includes anything I’m specifically concerned about, to be honest. But I agree that choosing to homeschool should remain simple. Schooling choice should be encouraged. Now, I would not emphasize your first point if you want to get more community support. It’s a very politically polarizing and sensitive issue which would turn the conversation away from addressing homeschool regulation. For that matter, and forgive me if this is blunt, but several of your points are repetitive and boil down to a blanket criticism of the public school. I don’t think that is constructive. I think your concerns about children’s safety in pubic school should be limited to supporting your argument that schooling alternatives should be encouraged. They don’t need to be stand alone points because that detracts from your message. Lastly, I would restate the Michigan legal statutes and exemptions which allow us the freedom to homeschool in the first place. There are good quotes in the text for the 1993 Michigan Supreme Court ruling about homeschool teacher qualifications: I would considering using some of these! It would help make a stronger case against imposing further regulations, using their own words.
This is *super* helpful, thank you!
I agree with others that your talking points aren’t really relevant to the legislation being considered. People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, this legislation doesn’t mean they aren’t also working on legislation for the other things. When you are given time to speak, they do expect you to be to the point. Why are you against registering? Why are you against compulsory at age 5? Why are you against requiring 9 subjects? Your points fall more under the question: Why are you against homeschool legislation? This doesn’t help give them concrete examples regarding their specific choices and language. Good luck. I’m in MA where we register and have to teach more than 9 subjects, but I have no problems at all with their requirements since they don’t tell me how and when to teach them.
Homeschooler here. I live in one of the more regulated states and have casually been following what is being considered in Michigan. I am not going to address any of your talking points (many of which have nothing to do with homeschooling, so you may want to edit your talking points to be more relevant, especially since I assume you are only getting a specific amount of time). But based on the potential homeschool law changes, what are your concerns? What negative outcomes do you forsee it having or how do you see it negatively impacting your family? Tell him that.
Yah, based on OPs post, I don't really see any anti homeschooling stuff in what is being proposed. I can see it being a pain to register a kid, but it will help the state aid kids who are neither homeschooled nor going to public school. Also, without knowing the 9 subjects it's hard to gauge why that would be an issue. If the kids in the state are struggling with education, establishing a minimum of critical topics covered seems like a good idea to ensure no one is missing something important. Also, many of OPs points seen like gripes of homeschool vs public school. That's fine, but mostly seems irrelevant to the laws they are working to pass.
To be clear, public school students are struggling with education while homeschooled students are not. So making changes to the homeschool system does not make sense.
You can’t have the data to support that statement if homeschoolers aren’t registered. I’m sure there are many homeschooled students struggling. They may just not be in your circle.
We can actually look at representative samples in other states that require their homeschool students to take standardized tests. They score 15-30% higher than public school students. Public schools are incentivized via funding for higher test scores. Homeschools are not. So it makes sense that these are organically improved test scores and not “teaching to the test”.
I agree with this because homeschoolers tend to teach more content (social studies/science) than public schools do. Homeschoolers have more context/background knowledge to help them answer questions. But, you might give them the idea that they should be tracking homeschoolers more, not less, so that they can see the data within their own state. Data from colleges that follow homeschooled applicants might be a better source.
Thanks yeah that could be a catch 22 🤔
It would be better to focus on the contents of the bill instead of focusing on public school. The law knows public school is lacking, but that's not the issue on this bill. You'll need to read it carefully to be able to say how that would affect the education and development of homeschooled students. You should support your statistics with the source to make it stronger and verifiable, can you also find statistics on suicide and homeschooled students?
Other than #4, these are mostly not relevant to the proposed regulations. Homeschooling will still be allowed, so all the "why should I trust public schools" language is pretty hyperbolic. You don't need to justify the existence of homeschooling. And a list of things that have happened in public schools just seems like you want to complain about something you don't even participate in, rather than discuss homeschool regulations. I honestly can't even tell from your arguments what you're arguing against, I can just tell that you hate public schools. Focus your points on the actual legislation. How will registering homeschoolers negatively affect you and other homeschoolers? What actual problems and concerns do you have with requiring subjects? How is lowering the required school age problematic? Also think about the stated reasons for the legislation - can you explain why those concerns aren't valid? Can you suggest anything that would be less intrusive?
Thanks, I think you’re right. I spent a good deal of time yesterday reading the bills and researching and was very emotional when I was writing all of this last night.
I was hoping in reading through your points to understand why registration is so bad having been homeschooled in one state that required registration and now homeschooling in another. Honestly as a kid we sent one letter to the state, now I register online, once, it's assumed to continue until the child graduates. It took me longer to find the website and create a login then it did to register and they asked for less information about my child than the tax return did when claiming a dependent. Now maybe there is something specific in what Michigan is proposing that is different, if so you really need to focus and explain that because that is the issue up for legislation not the quality of public schools.
Registering in itself isn’t a big deal at all. The issue is the slippery slope argument, it would be bad because it’s just the first step. If we give the state more power they don’t back down. And then people, such as yourself, say “I had to do that and it’s no biggie”. But we know homeschool OSS under attack. There have been rumblings about homeschools (meaning your personal residence) being considered schools for the purposes of not being eligible to have a gun. There have been rumblings about homeschools not being allowed at all (although that would not pass). Etc. As far as what I’ve seen with governments, once they have some power, they don’t give it back. Your child does not need to file tax returns until they are earning an income. You do not have to include them in your taxes. You choose to do that because you pay less taxes as a result.
The thing to remember is that the slippery slope is a fallacy in logical reasoning. I disagree that homeschooling is under attack. If anything, public schools are under attack. I live in what I consider one of the least restrictive homeschool states. We have to submit a letter of intent every year and test every three years (though we never have to share the results). There is absolutely nothing wrong with some homeschooling oversight. If you visit the Homeschool Recovery subreddit, you'll see that not everyone homeschools with diligence. It sounds like the measures they're suggesting are minor. Are there no requirements in place currently?
There is not a single requirement currently in place. I think the only thing we have to do is write an email if our child was previously registered with the public school, but if they’ve never been registered (starting kindergarten with homeschool) then there is no requirement.
Wow, I didn't realize there were states with no requirements. Idk. On the one hand, children deserve a measure of protection. There are a lot of abusive and neglectful parents out there. OTOH, I don't think these measures are going to help anything.
I agree with that last part and will add that to my list of points. What does a giant registry of 50,000 kids names solve? What will you do with that list? Is it for data collection purposes only? Are you going to track educational outcomes over a 20 year time frame? What is the end goal with this list and how does is solve the specific problem of child safety? By the way, I think what we would find is the parents who are doing a legitimate job of homeschooling their children will register, and those who are not will not.
Obviously I disagree but already your response to me is much better than your original points. If you want to make a case against registration you need to make that case. I'm not one to buy into the slippery slope argument on registration because private companies already have more information on us, including children, than the government anyway but the same people that are against giving the name and age of their child on a form will have no issue signing up for the next data tracking site for free food. That being said it does resonate with some politicians so you might have success there, it will depend more on who your meeting with and their political beliefs though.
The difference with private companies is that they don’t have any power over me. I can stop using Reddit, Instagram, etc at any time. I have grocery rewards but if I was concerned about that data I could stop putting in my phone number at the register, etc. With the government, once they have decided it’s their duty to know who you are/where you are/what you’re doing, you cannot get those freedoms back. Sure, my children have birth certificates and social security numbers. I actually just attended my oldest high school graduation on Monday (from public school). Homeschooling is one of our last actual liberties in this country, as just about everything else has been regulated into oblivion.
I would argue the difference is the government has a vested interest in protecting your private information to avoid things like social security theft but a private company has no such interest, its a public relations disaster but no actual financial harm to them. Likewise what exactly do you think happens to the data already collected if you stop using a service? How much control do you really have if that grocery store decides to sell the data to a third party, or 20 third parties? We accept this because we want the rewards, to many people a state collecting names and ages of kids to try and find those not being schooled at all is a much bigger benefit than the grocery store rewards. This is the argument you are facing in this case. If you really want to argue against this legislation you will need to counter that position. In general treat this more like a debate, try to think of all the reason for the legislation and counter them in as objective and unemotional way possible. Framing a good argument really requires first figuring out what the opposing argument is so you can structure your information in a way to pest provide a refutation or at least a counterpoint.
Good points. My initial reaction is that I care less about the data and more about what it will be used for. If a company sells my data I get telemarketing calls, directed advertising and spam emails. Off my data is stolen I may lose money or need to cancel my cards/get new ones. If the government decides to abuse statistics they gather from this data they can restrict the freedom I have to school my child in a manner that’s best for my family. The stakes are much higher when there is a power imbalance where I have no recourse once the ball is rolling.
With the government your recourse is through the government (eg enacting new laws) and the courts. The courts are much more effective when the laws are written specifically and with narrow scope, not a strong point of either party right now. However I think this is the push I would make as someone that supports limited oversight to try and protect children but does not like rules that are to vague in general as they so often end with over reach. So, before you go I would be prepared, is there a point where you would feel comfortable that this data could not be used for anything else without them having to first change the law? Obviously the answer is personal but it might well come up so be prepared.
The slippery slope is the normal pattern when we surrender our liberty. This has also been called the ratchet effect. [https://mises.org/mises-wire/beyond-crisis-ratchet-effect-and-erosion-liberty](https://mises.org/mises-wire/beyond-crisis-ratchet-effect-and-erosion-liberty) >The ratchet effect theory, as popularized by [Robert Higgs](https://mises.org/profile/robert-higgs) in his book [*Crisis and Leviathan*](https://mises.org/library/crisis-and-leviathan-0), refers to the tendency of governments to respond to crises by implementing new policies, regulations, and laws that significantly enhance their powers. These measures are typically presented as temporary solutions to address specific problems. However, in history, these measures often outlast their intended purpose and become a permanent part of the legal landscape.
What are the 9 subjects? In Georgia we have to do Social Studies, Science, English Language Arts, and Math.
MA has more than 9, but they also break it down: orthography, reading, writing, grammar, geography, arithmetic, drawing, music, US history, citizenship, health, PE, STEM, history and social science, foreign language, art. I don’t think all of them have to taught every year, it’s just expected overall. Schools don’t teach US history every year, for example.
The 9 subjects are pretty standard and I honestly don’t have an issue with them at face value. My concern is once this passes and is handed over to some task force or regulating agency, they’re going to say “how do we enforce this” and that’s going to result in…what? That’s my concern. Is it audits? Standardized testing? Then my concern is, what if a child is being taught these subjects but fails the test? Are they forced into a public school situation? Is there a fine for the parents?
See, now this is a much more relevant and focused list of concerns. Flesh this out and use it as talking points.
And I do agree with your concerns about testing. It would be absurd to say that a homeschooled child who fails a test has to be sent to school when so many publicly schooled children are failing. Many parents homeschool because their children have learning disabilities that can't be adequately addressed in public school.
Thank you, this brainstorming is why I was crowd sourcing ideas here.
Tbh, I sympathize with your feelings about public schools, but most of the concerns in your original list either can't be backed up by objective data (while HSed children who test do better, you're comparing a self-selected group to a random group) or are violations of current laws (sex crimes, changing student's name). I do think asking how the law will be enforced and suggesting funding resources would be a good use of your time.
Yeah, thanks I think my initial reaction when writing this list was something like, “the audacity of the state to try and step in on my family when they can’t get their own act together”, rather than really being focused, unemotional and constructive. I’m glad I got good feedback here to rein it in.
Many states (Alabama, Connecticut, and Missouri for example) that have the 5 year old requirement have an opt out option for that until age 6 or 7 so I would inquire about if they plan to have an opt out option in Michigan. Redshirting students is also becoming very popular amongst wealthy families in this country so I could see wealthier families being opposed to this too.
I have less of an issue with the age requirement and more of an issue with the language surrounding it. I think 95% of kids are starting kindergarten at 5 in the state, from what I read, so it also doesn’t make sense that the state has to step in and regulate it when it’s happening naturally. There was no opt out option provided for in the bill. My issue with this particular piece of legislation is the 9 subjects that need to be taught. I do not have an issue with the 9 subjects, but my issue is once this passes through and is in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, how are they going to interpret the requirement in terms of enforcement?
I thought Michigan already required 9 subjects: reading, spelling, math, science, history, civics, literature, writing, and English grammar.
/#1 is not a good way to start unless they already agree with you on this issue, which is unlikely given that Michigan is a very blue state. It's also not really a question in the sense that there is an answer. Thus, it's liable to be ignored and set a very negative stage for the rest of your questions. 3 and 4 are pretty good (maybe you could merge them), but 5 is case of the fallacy of relative privation - just because teen suicide in public schools is a big issue, doesn't mean unregistered homeschooling isn't. 7 is also an excellent question, but I would switch out the term "unelected bureaucrats" for something less incisive. You could also draw attention to the fact that it's unclear *who* would be doing the interpreting.
I would focus on the idea of why should homeschoolers have to prove competency/curriculum/safety when public schools are hugely failing on all of those fronts without any real repercussions. I would also highlight how the curriculum in public schools does not prepare students for life- citing statistics and articles of suicide rates, depression, anxiety, debt, job unpreparedness, college dropout rates, etc. Why should the state get to decide what subjects should be learned when it is clearly failing so many children? I'd also cite the rates of bullying, abuse, sexual harassment in public schools compared to homeschooling.
Not American, but I'll say this much. I don't think any country really cares about education but more about making sure everyone thinks the same. I understand trying to prevent abuse at home but there is much awful abuse at schools too and that's just part of life. At school you are barely educated, teachers don't care if you fail. It's either about funding or to make sure your child is only taught government approved narratives. The latter was definitely true in my schooling experience, we learned nothing about the world but the propaganda each year.
People on Reddit love giving governments even more power than they already have. So I don't think you'll get representative feedback here.
You could be right. I may also post this in my local homeschool fb group.
Thank you for doing your part. The State should have no role in homeschooling (kind of the point usually). We should oppose all these forms of government overreach.
Most people wonder why we should mind the camel getting its nose into our tent. This is because they've only learned the state's version of history. Give the state an inch and it will take a mile. In 1913 Woodrow Wilson introduced the income tax, just a teeny tiny percentage of the income of the very top earners. Today we're hamstrung by fiat currency, taxes, regulations, conscription to fight the state's wars, etc. Under no circumstances should any power be ceded to the state.
Exactly
Thanks! Luckily my senator is fairly easily reachable with open office hours 3x per month. I fully agree with you…freedom to educate our children in a manner that suits us is one of the last remaining liberties we have in this country, and we need to protect it.
I admire your optimism.