The "unconstitutional vagueness" of statute(s) is exactly what led to the monstrosity of homeschool regulation currently in place in Pennsylvania. Is it a coincidence that the same mindset that actively and vehemently argues that families should put their faith in a legal protection due to a lack of a "legal" definition of "church" also campaigns for homeschool regulations?

It is a bit much to chalk up to coincidence when you consider that the very possible result of continuing down this path is likely to lead to either the regulation of church schools and/or the passing of homeschool legislation.

That is speculation, certainly, but it is more plausible than the speculation that the lack of a definition gives a de facto legal protection. AND it is speculation based on experience, based on what has happened in other states.

Worst case, we could end up with a monstrosity of regulation such as experienced in PA and NY. The best case is hardly even worth discussing because it is a fact that the education establishment owns the AL legislature at this time.

Even under "best case", I am opposed to home education regulations on principle. It is an admission that the state has a compelling interest in parenting decisions on education. Even _if_ I supported the IDEA (as opposed to the way it is accomplished) that the state had a compelling interest -- and I don't -- it is ludicrous to put education into the hands of those who are, even by their own admission, failing miserably.

Educational freedom will only be accomplished by repealing laws that interfere with those parenting decisions, not in asking "permission" to exercise our parental rights and responsibilities.

With "best case" laws -- let's say that nothing more is required than notification of intent and perhaps yearly evaluations -- after obviously validating the state's compelling interest, it would be a constant battle to keep those regulations from being modified. Exactly what "principle" would one stand on to limit those home ed regs? The fact that home educators "score well" on the very tests that are used to measure public school achievement? Can we do this with any conviction while simultaneously maintaining -- and we certainly should be maintaining this -- that home education is _NOT public education and the same standards can not be applied?

PA is now in a titanic struggle just to reduce the current limitations. There is absolutely no assurance that they will succeed, even though their laws are possibly the worst in the nation. But what bothers me most about their situation is that even those who believe in educational freedom feel forced to NEGOTIATE and ask not for a law that gives them anything approaching freedom, but for one just a little less confining. Not because there is any inherent "goodness" in he new law they are proposing, but because they know that anything would have to be better than what they have.

There are NO "good" home schooling laws. Home educators who want to concentrate their efforts on the legal aspects should be concentrating on efforts to repeal compulsory attendance laws. When I have proposed that idea in the past, I have been told not to "hold my breath".

All I can say is that however remote a goal may seem, it is a dead certainty that unless you do reach for a goal, it stands NO chance of ever being attained.

I am not now, nor have I ever been opposed in principle to a family forming their own church school as a ministry of the church they have in their home, according to their definition of "church", if it is done from an inner conviction of the heart, rather than from a desire to squeeze convictions into what happens to suit another purpose. But to think for one minute that you will be able to look a judge -- like Roy Moore for instance -- in the eyes and convince him without that total and true conviction and understanding is a mistake. It gives no valid consideration, is based on no real idea of how sacredly such ideas are regarded among many Alabamians. You may rest assured that the strong upholding of the principle of separation of church and state in this state is predicated upon believing that church IS sacred, and rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, they will come down on you HARD if they sense anything other than real conviction of the heart based on religious principles that you hold sacred yourself. A history of holding those beliefs sacred wouldn't hurt, either, rather than a sudden epiphany that coincidentally seems to have occurred when you started homeschooling.

Because realistically, even those who have long believed in the underlying principles, those whose position is one of integrity, not rationalization, may well encounter difficulties in a court of law regarding church school ministry. Their honest convictions on this matter will be their saving grace. Will yours?

I have even heard it proposed that membership in a brick- and-mortar church doesn't preclude a family from classifying themselves also as a "church". The argument I heard was something on the order of a church membership being like a car, and you could certainly have more than one. This is balogny. The courts will laugh in your face. Again, consider common usage. Church membership is not country club membership. If you think it is, ask your brick-and-mortar church of membership how it feels about that.

There are risks involved in covering yourself with the premise that you are a church, and while I am not opposed to anyone taking understood risks after considering the possible consequences, I am vehemently opposed to this idea being propagandized as "the answer" to home education in Alabama without those risks being fully addressed. This is both irresponsible and dangerous to all home educators in Alabama.

Let your conscience be your guide, but get back in touch with it first. Don't be intimidated by the fact that "cover yourself" seems to be a "commonly-held" belief among Alabama home educators. This is simply not the truth. What we have in this state in a very visible, very active, very ambitious and growing political machine that uses the inherent desire of many home educators to be independent to their own advantage, hoping for a future in "leadership", looking for the power that comes with being the voice of a "voter bloc".

They effectively shut down any opposition, any protest, any attempt to reason with or debate their stands using group intimidation techniques and visibility.

The technique of choice?

It's all that $$$$$ DonchaKnow!