Home educators fight to keep advisory council
Jennifer Wright, center inset and a home educator, spoke Tuesday against the idea of getting rid of the Home Education Advisory Council.
Many home education advocates turned out Tuesday to oppose what one called an 'ambush' amendment to eliminate the 14-member Home Education Advisory Council (HEAC).
'You want home educators to get on board, sit down and shut up,' said Katherine Abbott of Portsmouth in defending the council's work.
Rep. Glenn Cordelli, R-Tuftonboro, argued that after 35 years of advocacy, leaders have gotten sidetracked, and the group has become dysfunctional.
Several HEAC members have become critical of Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs), taxpayer-subsidized scholarships for parents to send their children to private, religious, alternative public or home school programs, he said.
'HEAC has lost its way and deviated from its role per law and rule and is not adhering to its responsibility to provide support to home educators,' Cordelli said.
Cordelli proposed his amendment to an unrelated bill (HB 57) to study whether the state should reduce the number of supervisory administrative units (SAUs) in New Hampshire.
Several members of the HEAC said the creation of EFAs in 2021 has threatened to dilute the independent nature of home education by having families accept public funding.
Many home educators believe accepting EFA money gives the state more control over their instruction.
Amanda Weeden with Granite State Home Educators said the council since September has raised issues with Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut about the freedom of their movement.
'The optics of this non-germane amendment being snuck in, it is an ambush,' said Weeden. 'The (EFA) school choice movement is late to the party. We are the original school choicers.'
Group began as a way to advise DOE on the topic
The Legislature created HEAC in 1990 as a forum to give advice to the education commissioner on home education.
'Without this council, this valuable line of communication would be lost,' said Jennifer Pereira, who served on the council for eight years.
Dianne Nolin, a member of HEAC, noted Gov. Kelly Ayotte has already announced that she will name a new education commissioner at the end of this school year when Edelblut will move on after eight years on the job.
'Through periods of change we need the experience of those who do the work every day,' Nolin said.
Several opponents of Cordelli's idea called on the Legislature to get rid of agency rules that along with state law govern home education practices.
'This is an important liaison for us,' said Jennifer Wright, a home educating mom. 'Are there things that could be fixed? Absolutely. This has been going on since I was born. I think eliminating it would be really short-sighted.'
Cordelli had said other advocacy groups such as the New Hampshire Home Educators Association founded in 1983 could take the place of HEAC and be more focused on the mission.
But after nearly every speaker opposed Cordelli's idea, Cordelli told the House Education Policy and Administration Committee he chairs that he would drop the idea, meet with advocates and perhaps pursue cooperative legislation in the future.
'We can give HEAC a little more time,' Cordelli summed up. 'I am hopeful that the tone of discussion between traditional home educators and EFA families who are primarily home schooling will improve, that the rhetoric calms down.'
What's Next: The full House early next month will vote on the SAU study bill without the home education issue in it.
Prospects: Lawmakers never run short of ideas for study committees and this one too is likely to make it to the finish line.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Syrian, Israeli diplomats met in Paris to discuss 'de-escalation': report
Syria's foreign minister met with an Israeli diplomatic delegation in Paris on Tuesday to discuss "de-escalation and non-interference in Syria's internal affairs", state news agency SANA reported. The latest in a series of US-mediated talks resulted in "understandings that support stability in the region", the agency said. Washington has been at work in recent weeks to try to resolve security issues in Syria and Lebanon, which its ally Israel says have prompted it to take military action. Despite a truce reached last November, Israel has continued to hit targets of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon, and it has occupied territory and hit targets across Syria since last year's fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad. Tuesday's meeting in Paris follows one between Syrian Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer in Baku in late July, and another meeting in Paris before that. Israel and Syria have technically been at war since 1948, and the talks also discussed reviving a disengagement accord from 1974 that created a buffer zone between the two countries. "These talks are taking place under US mediation, as part of diplomatic efforts aimed at enhancing security and stability in Syria and preserving the unity and integrity of its territory," the agency said. The recent meetings between the two countries come after deadly sectarian clashes in July in southern Syria's Druze-majority Sweida province which left over 1,400 people dead. The clashes initially pitted local Druze fighters against Sunni Bedouin tribes but soon saw the involvement of Syrian government forces and Israel, with the latter saying it wanted to protect the Druze. Last month, Israel struck the Syrian presidential palace and the army headquarters in Damascus. The United States, an ally of Israel but who has expressed support for Syria's new leaders, announced a ceasefire between the two sides overnight on July 18. bur-lk/emp/rmb/gv/sla
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Putin not going to make deal just to give Trump ‘a good news cycle': Ben Rhodes
Ben Rhodes, who served as former President Obama's deputy national security adviser, expressed skepticism on Tuesday that a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine could materialize in the near future. In an interview on MSNBC's 'Chris Jansing Reports,' Rhodes said it appears the two sides remain far apart on key issues — like details of security guarantees for Ukraine and potential NATO troop deployment — and the former Obama aide said he doesn't think Russian President Vladimir Putin will back away from his longstanding positions simply to give President Trump a brief political victory. 'Clearly, these are issues. Vladimir Putin knows this. He's not going to make a deal just to give Donald Trump, like, a good news cycle here. He doesn't want any non-Ukrainian troops on Ukrainian soil. And so, this is a huge gap here,' Rhodes said on MSNBC. 'This is the question, when you get down to the brass tacks of what does a final deal look like,' Rhodes said. 'You have to deal with these things. Otherwise, what you're looking at is kind of a frozen conflict.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday afternoon that U.S. air support in Ukraine could be part of security assurances as it works to come to a peace agreement with Russia. But she reiterated that Trump does not want U.S. troops on the ground in Kyiv. Rhodes said it seems Trump would be comfortable with European nations sending troops, but he noted the division is not always clear and asked what the U.S. would do if those NATO troops in Ukraine were attacked. 'Those troops, what happens if they're attacked by Russia? What happens if Russia reinvades? They're NATO countries, right? Does NATO come to the assistance of those troops?' Rhodes said. He noted those troops in Ukraine would 'usually depend on kind of a NATO logistics and supply chain to rearm themselves, to train themselves,' saying a deal would need to figure out 'What is the U.S. participation in that? What is the NATO participation in that?'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iran faces tough choice: Drink from the poisoned chalice or risk more strikes
Tehran often seemed to try to bluff its way forward, pretending it had lost nothing and was not much weaker in the world's eyes, while demanding "compensation" for the war. Iran has been squirming and kicking since its war with Israel – in which the IDF and the US air forces set its nuclear program back two years, took its ballistic missile program down several notches, and killed many of Iran's top military and intelligence officials – ended on June 24. After the war, Iran expelled the IAEA and refused to re-engage them for over a month. The Islamic Republic refused to talk to the US. It was willing to speak to the United Kingdom, Germany, and France (the E-3), but not in a real way that addressed its new dilemmas of losing much of its leverage. In fact, Tehran often seemed to bluff its way forward, pretending it had lost nothing and was not much weaker in the world's eyes, while demanding 'compensation' for the war. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is only the supreme leader in Iran. After years of playing nice with Khamenei out of fear that he might threaten them, the E-3 are now treating Tehran like the threat that it is – threatening it in return with a snapback of global sanctions by August 29 if it does not make some real concessions. This is a sort of checkmate for Iran because it has no cards to play this time. Anytime the IAEA or E3 condemned or threatened it in the past, it would build more nuclear centrifuges and enrich more uranium, making the West pay a price for applying pressure. But Israel has damaged its nuclear program so comprehensively, and Iran continues to be vulnerable in terms of lacking air defenses, meaning that it would take several months or maybe even a period of years for it to make any new meaningful nuclear progress. Any progress Iran makes would be baby steps Even then the progress would only constitute baby steps toward restoring what it had before Israel and the US set it back around two years – probably how long it would take to get fully back to where it was. And that is unlikely to happen because the Islamic Republic knows that Israel can and will strike again long before it gets close to the nuclear bomb threshold again. It could pull out the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but that threat carries much less weight than it did before the June war because now its nuclear program lies in shambles. So it can either concede giving up uranium enrichment for some period of time upfront – the ultimate and more permanent concession – or jump at the E3's interim concessions offer. The interim offer is: to extend the expiration of the global sanctions snapback mechanism by around six months from October 2025 until April 2026. By that time, Khamenei can hope that US President Donald Trump's attention will have deflected to something else. Who knows? Maybe the snapback may be extended more than once, and Khamenei can hope that a new and less aggressive leadership may emerge in Israel – though Israel is rather united regarding Iran. Iran's toughest hardliners will not like "rewarding" Israel Of course, extending the snapback may mean agreeing to a kind of unsaid uranium enrichment freeze for the next 6-8 months, but right now Iran is still digging through rubble and cannot enrich uranium anyway. Also, Iran's toughest hardliners will not like 'rewarding' Israel and the West for their attacks and may be leery of agreeing to let the West hold the snapback threat over it for another round of negotiations – but what are its alternatives? Of course, Khamenei faced a somewhat similar dilemma in June and decided to test Israeli and American resolve. It would seem that since nearly all of the military and intelligence people who advised him to stand tough against the West are now dead, he is now more likely to listen to the still-alive 'pragmatic' camp of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, which is telling him that talks are his only option to avoid another war and to stay alive. Either way, it seems that Khamenei can either 'drink from the poisoned chalice' of diplomatic concessions – a phrase coined by his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, when he cut a weak end-of-war deal with Iraq in 1988 – or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly. Solve the daily Crossword
