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.

I mentioned in a post (where I was responding to a comment) a while back that most people who write in blogs are accustomed to having readers disagree with them. Over the long haul, if you are going to say something worthwhile, doing it via a blog is not for the faint of heart. Andrea and I both felt for the user, not so much on the grounds that readers were critical, but that 3 weeks was not very much preparation time. And I certainly don’t feel that that reaction after only 3 weeks of blogging is indicative of how the author might have reacted after 6 months of blogging.

In the course of that discussion, a comment made mention of how we (i.e. hsj providers) felt about that organization (TO). What you will find in searching this site though is that we rarely mention them. So, I guess, in a way, I wanted to write this as a ‘for the record’.

Quite a few years ago, we used to belong to a homeschool group which had a small membership fee to offset adminstrative costs, newsletters costs, etc. When I found out that our homeschool group had affiliated themselves with TO and that there was cost sharing going on between them, we cancelled our membership. While we have maintained contact with some members of the HS group, we have otherwise avoided (where possible) involvement with the group.

I could spend alot of time writing an exhaustive opinion piece on TO. What I decided to do instead was describe two things which I hope will give you the overall sense of what my opinion is. The first is based on the official DOE statistic of the number of homeschooled children in this province (2004 or 2005). Given that the average family size of members of TO is likely to be between 3 and 4 children, it would not surprise me if TO’s membership is more than double the number of registered HSers. According to the law, registration is mandatory.

The first thing I’ll say is that you don’t need to be a genius to figure out that a good portion of your membership is not registering. If the government were actively pursuing unregistered HSers then I would expect that TO would be aware of it. But, to the best of my knowledge the government here has not made any significant attempt to do anything about people homeschooling and not registering. Low numbers suggest it is not a popular or common choice being made.

What I think tells the larger tale is that homeschooling has never been illegal here. Except situations where relatives lodged complaints suggesting child abuse, to the best of my knowledge no one in this province has been hassled for homeschooling. The single clause in the education act which governs homeschooling has been amended once (in 2005) since the act was written (about 40 years ago).

I don’t know how many years before we started HSing that TO came here. And I don’t have specific figures for how much money they have collected in membership fees over those years. What I do know is that the sum total of legal defense of homeschooling that TO has done in this province to date is NONE. Given the wording of the current legislation, TO will not be doing any until such time as the law is changed. In laymans terms, the sum total of the law says that to be recognized as a HSer by the province (i.e. in the courts), you have to register. In other words, if you register, you’ve met the only HS requirement (i.e. the law contains no specific education requirements) and therefore need no further defense. If you have not registered, TO is of no use to you because the law does not recognize you as a homeschooler.

Even if I disagree with a cause or position, I will respect someone who genuinely believes in an promotes a cause that they believe is worthwhile so long as they do it with honesty and integrity. But, I’m of the opinion that misleading people, and fleecing them while you’re at it, toward some other cause or agenda is among the most odious of professions. And I really don’t care how common it is in our society or how good you are at shaking hands, smiling, talking or flattering.

The second item that I’ll mention is that I seem to have landed on a distribution list where some of the alerts produced by TO are forwarded. In January, I received an alert that suggested that HS was in danger of being made illegal in some sections of Canada. And there was a reference to a public figure who currently hold such and such a position. Upon doing some research, the quotes of said public figure included in the alert were all from the same news story which was 3 years old (but the position was a recent appointment). We’ve come to the conclusion that somewhere along the line the public figure received an education about HSing. Long before the alert was issued, the public figure had made several public statements where he recanted the statements made 3 years ago and has gone so far as to endorse HSing.

If it were a statement in a minor interview or small paper, I could see someone missing it even an organization which claims it keeps a close eye on the news. But when it comes to election campaigns and campaign speeches and promises, those are pretty hard to miss. I have a bizarre sort of memory. I’m able to remember the strangest incidental information and details. My bizarre strange sort of memory told me that I’d read that before. The last time I read it, it came from the same segment of the HS community here in the province. I’m firmly convinced that TO recycles alerts.

Whether or not what TO does is legal is beside the point. Is the membership fee a good investment in security? Maybe, for some. But subscribing to TO’s membership is tatamount to consenting to the things that they do. On an individual basis what it comes down to is what one values most: integrity or security. However, I have met many people who simply did not know (for whatever reasons) how the organization operates. If I have the opportunity, I’ll try to explain the situation to them. But until such time as I feel that the person knows (or reasonably ought to know) what the organization is about, I’m unlikely to be critical of the person.

HT: Susan