That Organization – II
At the moment, everyone else here is snuggled in bed. One of the handy features of wordpress is that you can future post something. When this post shows up in the blog, I will be descending to Pearson International Airport in Toronto. I wanted to reserve Sunday for Father’s Day. But, I’ve been thinking about this post since I wrote the last one about That Organization (TO).
The common 2 reasons I’ve seen which might explain the otherwise bewildering things that the organization does are money and a theopolitical agenda. Our society is structured in such a way that money plays a role in most matters. I would not argue that money is not in fact a factor in this situation. But, I do not believe that either of these reasons provide a satisfactory explanation of the behaviour of TO. One of the things I’ve learned is that outward behaviour is often a by-product of something else. And that is what I believe both of these are. When we talk about having a cold, we are generally referring to the symptoms while the real cause is a virus, germ or allergin.
Last fall, when I read the actual wording of the HoDA bill(s) which was introduced into the federal legislative bodies in the US, I saw that it had consistency with legislation which TO had helped pen here. Yes, I left out the N deliberately because when Andrea and I discuss that bill, that’s what I call it. What I would like to do is explain why I call it that. While I’m doing that, I’ll explain my theory of the real motivation which drives the organization.
TO’s webbsite says that its ‘mission is to protect the freedom of all homeschoolers’. That statement, if taken at face value is absolutely false. TO’s public relations person was pressed on the issue of HoDA and said that the legislation was for their membership. Yet, technically, I believe that statement is true and that everyone who works for TO believes that it is true. The technicality that is involved is, ‘what freedom are they trying to protect?’ You see, there is a mountain of difference between having the freedom to make all the choices (including delegating those choices to your child) related to your child’s education and having the freedom to choose to educate your child yourself. But, technically, both can be described as freedom.
In the the other post about TO, I mentioned that our province amended our HS legislation last year. This time last year (prior to the change in legislation) homeschool rumour had it that there was a move afoot to sue the government. It would be a repeat of what had been done in at least 2 other provinces. The result of those lawsuits has been legislation like this. While we’ll never know for certain, I believe that the legislation was changed to prevent the lawsuit. The suit and grounds used in those other provinces can no longer be used as grounds here.
If you took the time to read the legislation above and you are familiar with TO’s membership application form, what you might have noticed is that every homeschooler who keeps within the confines of that legislation would also be eligible for membership in TO. If we added diligent staff at the DOE, every homeschooler might be in a situation where membership in TO would be considered a good investment. In fact you could use the information you provided to the DOE on your application for membership for TO. Unless we were prepared to do a lot of spin doctoring, TO would reject a membership application from our household.
Do you see why I dropped the N? Because HoDA isn’t a non discrimination bill. It’s a discrimination bill. The purpose it would have served, if it had passed, would be to force the state to recognize (and provide preferential treatment to) homeschoolers who were eligible for membership in TO and to reject homeschoolers who were not eligible for membership in TO.
One of the results of the US civil war was the abolition of slavery. Within a generation or 2 segregation was brought into effect in areas where slavery had been abolished. When slavery was initially abolished much of the social structure remained the same because the freed slaves owned nothing. At the heart of that structure was discrimination. Slavery is not possible without discrimination. Segregation became necessary after a period of time because over time the freed slaves accumulated possessions and some degree of wealth. Segregation ensured that the state was obligated to observe the discrimination which had existed in the slaving society thereby ensuring the sociopolitical position of the slavers.
TO has been up against a similar situation for a number of years. Free homeschoolers have accumulated a wealth of knowledge and experience without TO. To the vast majority of us, TO is no longer relevant, important, or even necessary. I’m sure that TO could alter its direction, survive and perhaps even thrive if the right choices were made. However, any choices that I believe would lead to that success would also require that it walk away from the sociopolitical aspirations it has. I’ll leave it to you to guess what I believe are the chances that those choices will be made.
A description of those chances probably involve snowballs and hell, eh?
Comment by COD — June 19, 2006 @ 8:47 am
Why the coyness about the real name (or initials) of the organization. I think everyone already knows who they are.
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi — June 19, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Is it possible I’ve come all this way and I have no idea what you are talking about? Apparently :/
I can understand not wanting to put the actual name of the organisation in print, but would you email it to me, please?
Thanks
Comment by Billi-Jean — June 19, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Ron, Thanks for the insightful post.
You mention that HoDa,(I like that you dropped the non) did not pass, but I doubt we can rest easy here in the states. The lobbyists for the “organization” continue to gather sponsors for both the house and senate version.
Comment by Mary N. — June 19, 2006 @ 10:51 am
[...] There is an insightful post by Ron today at Atypical Homeschooler.   He mentions that when he discusses the HONDA bill he actually calls it  HODA. [...]
Pingback by Support Group News Home Page » Blog Archive » HODA instead of HONDA? — June 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Homeschooling and Segregation…
Ron draws an interesting parallel between HSLDA and government in the post Civil War era. One of the results of……
Trackback by O'DonnellWeb — June 19, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Can you repost the legislation link pls? I get a page at Alberta Queen’s Printer saying that page doesn’t exist…..
Very interesting post. Here in BC, we’re still enjoying legislated authority to homeschool as we wish. However, many homeschoolers were lured into ‘distance ed’ programs where they get $ for resources etc & now the requirements for reporting etc in those programs are tightening.
Our provincial hs organization is watching carefully to make sure that the right to really homeschool in the hands-off option is protected.
Comment by hornblower — June 19, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Ron is in anothe rprovince at the moment, but I dug up another link to the legislation:
http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/educationguide/pol-plan/polregs/112.asp
Comment by Andrea — June 19, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Do you see why I dropped the N? Because HoDA isn’t a non discrimination bill. It’s a discrimination bill. The purpose it would have served, if it had passed, would be to force the state to recognize (and provide preferential treatment to) homeschoolers who were eligible for membership in TO and to reject homeschoolers who were not eligible for membership in TO.
What is disturbing is reading the same common links and problems about TO.
In Illinois, a few years back, a backroom deal was made with a regional office of education bully supt; Dennison. And when the first deal came to light, they had to face some music. The IL Leader doesn’t exist anymore but here is the quote from November 2002:
Dennison and Klicka agreed last week that if any family in Dennison’s jurisdiction of Bureau, Stark and Henry counties would become members of the legal defense group, HSLDA will become an agent providing what Dennison wants: “burden of proof” that they are, indeed, obeying the compulsory attendance law by having their children “attend school” from ages 7 to 16.
Carol Severson, home schooling mother in the area and Home School Coordinator for Eagle Forum of Illinois is not happy with the arrangement.
“While this may be a good arrangement for the families directly involved in this problem, what will happen to the other families throughout the state who aren’t members of HSLDA?” Severson asked today. “What will happen when Dennison tells his colleagues in the regional superintendents network what he was able to arrange?”
4 days later came the ‘denial’:
Contrary to a news report published after WND’s story, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, has not worked out a “deal” with Dennison regarding families who are members of the Virginia-based group.
HSLDA senior counsel Chris Klicka believes, however, that Dennison will not press the cases of the five families who are members of his group. The HSLDA also has made an exception to its policy, Klicka said, and will allow any of the other families under scrutiny to join. Normally, a family must be a member before it runs into problems with authorities in order to receive the group’s legal assistance.
Now which person could we believe is telling the truth? A local homeschooler in the middle of that horrid mess or Chris Klicka, who is “allowâ€Âing others to join? What a deal!
And Carol Severson’s prediction about the fallout across the state was dead on. Unfortunately. HoDA, it is.
Comment by Susan Ryan — June 20, 2006 @ 8:53 am
[...] What made me think about this? The ’stuff’ going on in IL; specifically with the Kim Harris/Marion "homeschool truancy" "test case". And Atypical Homeschool’s post about That Organization – II. [...]
Pingback by Corn and Oil » “Kids Flee Homeschool Cop” — June 20, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
Also, I hadn’t noticed until now, but it is very fitting that you wrote this, with these parallels, on Juneteenth.
http://www.juneteenth.com/welcome.htm
Comment by Andrea — June 20, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Daryl: Probably a number of reasons. However, the most important (from my perspective) is search engines and the algorithms they use to determine what links to put up on the first page of results. If you’re interested in further technical details, send me an email and I will explain on the weekend.
Billi-Jean: Susan identified the organization in her comment.
In general: Thanks for all the trackbacks and passing along other jurisdictions where similar things have or are occurring.
Comment by Ron — June 20, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Okay, whew, now I get it. I was thinking for awhile that Canada maybe had it’s own version of this group with a different name which was doing similar things. Turns out it is the same mega group.
Comment by Kim c — June 21, 2006 @ 11:41 am
I know which group you mean, but honestly, every time I see TO I think of Toronto, which has my equal loathing, since I do not live there and am not, therefore, the centre of the universe.
Comment by Audrey — July 3, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
[...] Illinois homeschool=private school. Harvey Bluedorn wrote up a good piece about this issue of specifying "home school" in legislation when the problem was presented a few years ago by the same organization who is apparently on the lookout for new business. An excerpt from Mr. Bluedorn: Private education in Illinois is free of government regulation, and we must not begin to surrender that fundamental freedom through any kind of legislation which permits it to exist – even if that legislation comes in the guise of “no regulations attached.” The mere permission itself is a regulation which transforms a right into a privilege. [...]
Pingback by Corn and Oil » New Bulletin About HR 3753/S 1691 — July 29, 2006 @ 12:50 pm