Catherine Abbott

The proposed language of this bill leaves home education families vulnerable and unprotected against enrollment questions, truancy laws, and DCYF. Without a mechanism specifically stated in statute, the state is under no obligation to accept any document as proof of satisfying compulsory ed laws. With changes only made to 193-A, this leaves 193:1, 189:35-a, and 169-c unchanged and in conflict. I have personal experience with unfriendly districts and agencies who use home ed as a weapon. This bill places a target on home educators' backs. The proposed language of "eligible" under the Establishing a Home Ed Program is a deal breaker. This implies there is ineligibility. Parents have the right to educate their children. Period. Without a mechanism specifically stated in statute that carries weight, optional documentation has no meaning. This isn't liberty. This is legal silence. If the law doesn't recognize the proof, it isn't guaranteed to protect. This bill sets up future hostile administrations to use the lack of statutory protections as a weapon against home educators. I urge you to oppose this bill as written.