Case for homeschool bill lacks solvency

As a former debater, I was reminded of a basic principle of policy debate this week watching Rep. Terra Costa Howard put on her case to regulate homeschool before the Illinois House Education Policy Committee.

Solvency.

In debate, solvency refers to the effectiveness of a policy to solve the problem at hand. Even if there is an established problem, without proving solvency, the plan fails and the proponent loses.

Costa Howard, the proponent here, told a couple stories of homeschool students being abused, so she established a problem. But that’s where her case ended.

Responding to the extraordinary number of around 50,000 active and engaged citizens (presumably many from homeschool families) who signed witness slips opposing the burdensome, unwanted regulation, Costa Howard insisted the bill does little beyond requiring families to fill out a form with some basic personal information once a year. Then, Costa Howard baldly asserted that the regulation would solve the harm. But she provided no analysis, evidence, or substantiation for this claim whatsoever. None.

So, the bill serves only to cost Illinois taxpayers more money to administer the forms and discourage homeschooling among families fearing the unprecedented criminal sanctions for noncompliance. It is an absurd proposition, particularly given that homeschooled students perform better than their public school counterparts by most measures. Not to mention that homeschooling is essentially free to Illinois taxpayers, compared to approximately $12,612 per year per student for public school. (Yes, less homeschooling means more kids in public school.)

Costa Howard’s bill passed committee and is now before the full House. But if it solves a problem, she certainly hasn’t shown it. Let’s expect more from our legislators.

Ryan June

Wheaton