Should Stricter Regulations be put on Homeschooling Parents? — the Following of a Bill Passed to Nelson

By: Jerson Torres

Regardless of how much experience one has with children, anyone can come to the conclusion that there is no reason as to why there should be any sort of purposeful neglect and there should be external checks and regulations following the wellbeing of any child. Senate Bill 108 by Ben Abler of the Manitowoc delegation closely follows this maxim of equal care of all children and applies it to homeschooling. It calls for searches and checks in homeschooling to foster a prosperous learning environment any child can thrive in.

Following this Senate bill in the Nelson Assembly chamber, it faced insightful support and opposition. During the debate period in which delegates act as pro or con speakers, some interesting points were brought up, specifically around wellbeing checks. The wellbeing reporters of a school are mandatory to ensure safety to public school students, and the bill itself argues to implement the same system to homeschooled children by providing home checks.

Some were against the periodic checks with the argument that none would be necessary if the point of the parent teaching them was to raise them properly. However, those on the pro side argued that the safety checks would ensure the safety of the child involved.

Opening the floor for debates sparked a massive landslide of support from a variety of students, both in public schooling and homeschooling. One delegate questioned the whole room asking for someone to raise their hand if they were in support of child abuse, to which, nobody raised their hand. He made the fair point that no one deserved to be mistreated, being supported by another delegate who, being homeschooled, was also in support of the bill, bringing up yet another point that even if the person teaching was good at what they do, that they can still be abusers, citing a specific case on the news.

However, this came with some opposition. Namely, there were some specifics being nitpicked by those who opposed the bill, as expected. Among some were but not limited to: financing the efforts, the frequency of checks from social workers, and the overall system in which this would be enacted upon. These were all addressed at the time of questioning and closing summation, which the chair approved of beforehand. Once clarified by Senator Abler, there was yet again an overwhelming wave of support across the floor. 

Finally, the vote was cast for the bill to be passed to which all, but two people said aye to. The bill was passed with an overwhelming majority. Even during the discussing period, it was overwhelmingly pro with six out of the nine speaking being in support of the bill passing, a ⅔ majority.