Ralph Rodriguez, an attorney at Home School Legal Defense, told “Washington Watch” he was being interviewed on the program just hours after helping homeschooling families in Connecticut fight a bill that would allow the Department of Children and Families, or DCF, to investigate families for child abuse.
The homeschooling bill, House Bill 5468, which passed out of the Education Committee 26-20 this week, represents “the most significant shift in homeschool policy in the country,” the HSLDA attorney insisted.
That’s because homeschooling families, who are already disliked and mistrusted by critics, would be an immediate target of DCF because the bill mandates the public school district must contact DCF if a student withdraws from public school for homeschooling.
The main advocate for the legislation is the Office of the Child advocate, a state agency, after high-profile cases in which the state alleges homeschooling was allowed as cover for concealing abuse and neglect.
The bill’s plain and overt plan, which would require child protection services to monitor every homeschooling family in the state, caused an uproar. Even though the bill narrowly passed in the committee, it did so after a marathon 19-hour hearing in which 300 people, including Rodriguez, spoke to state lawmakers.
The state legislature was also flooded with 3,000-plus written comments, most in opposition, and an estimated 2,000 citizens visited lawmakers in the Legislative Office Building to state their opposition.
Rodriguez told “Washington Watch” HSLDA recently defeated a bill in Hawaii, which would require homeschooling students to participate in standardized state testing. The current program allows parents to choose the level and method of testing, which HSLDA supports.
“That would have gone away with this bill. Thankfully, it was deferred,” the attorney advised.
HSLDA is also watching numerous state bills in New Jersey, including one introduced last year that requires a “health and wellness” check on homeschooled children.
What does that mean? Right now there is no definition of “health and wellness” in the bill that would suggest how invasive such a law would be, Rodriguez said.
“But we believe it doesn't need a definition because it's unconstitutional either way,” he said.
