Filling the Santa Rosa County School Board auditorium and spilling out into the foyer, families and others concerned about the school district’s relationship with area home school programs expressed their consternation regarding what many from the assembly said they felt was a threat to force their children into the public school system. The issue hinged on the previously reported letter from the school board to families who had not returned district-required proof of residency saying the board has terminated the request to file intent to home school in the district effectively requiring the family to enroll their student into public or private school within three days of the letter’s receipt.
Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick’s response stressed no one was under guidance to take children away. He then said the district completely supports home schooling estimating 1,000 home school students in the count, and never had the intent to eliminate or criminalize individuals who do so.
Talyn “TJ” Liebmann, homeschool student, was called first to speak by the SRSD Chairman Hugh Winkles. He said he was new to the district. He read the same letter declaring his family’s request to file terminated and said the four previous locations in which his family has lived the school districts had collaborated with home schoolers. His father , Jesse Liebmann spoke next and said he felt the experience was “bullying or discriminatory at best…I feared the police would show up. That’s not what I expect from a school board.”
After the board meeting, Terry Liebmann, TJ’s mother, explained they filed their intent to home school but when they received the request for proof of residency they sent it to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). She said they told her such request is not legally required so they ignored it, then received the aforementioned letter.
Ironically, Jesse said, during the meeting, the issue “was self resolving.” The letter notifying the termination came by certified mail. He said when he called the school district he noted he had to sign for the letter, thereby proving residency. He said the district decided to accept it as sufficient.
While the room was full to capacity with people out in the board room’s lobby, the proceedings were congenial for the most part, despite many families expressing concern and alarm over what they felt was a threat to force students into public school. Of the roughly 17 speakers, many have been in the district and/or home schooling for a long time, whether three years, ten years, or close to twenty.
Jennifer Baxter was another new mother to the county, though. She said her family is military and so they home school to reduce the stress on her children of going from one school to another. She said, “We’re a home school family that actually picked Santa RosaCounty to move to because the schools are so good. We wanted to keep an option open…we’re not home schooling because you’re not going a great job but because it’s what (my children) need.” She said when she got the letter of termination her heart sank and she got a “sense of fear.”
Jacqueline Rogers said she’s home schooled for 22 years. She noted one of her sons is in his third year of medical school. “I’m telling you, home school works.” She suggested the board form an advisory committee to get to know home school needs. She echoed a sentiment repeated throughout the night saying the board doesn’t have the authority to add to the state statute for home school requirements.
Wesley Tucker drew connections to his own past with the school district before lodging his complaint. He thanked Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick directly, who was Tucker’s coach when he was a student. He thanked another teacher in the room, Bill Emerson, for teaching him calculus. He said, “These people here blessed my life and there is an issue at hand that is not good. I think it’s the exception.” He described the termination letter as “government overreach on local level.” He said it’s a mistake, but a fixable one. “The people in this room are not bringing pitchforks.” As others had stated, he said the district has generally been great to the home school community.
Tucker said, “I do not think it’s unreasonable to ask for a social security number, but if it’s not lawful you ought not do it. I don't think you’ve done anything unreasonable, but it’s not lawful in a small degree.” Liebmann would later echo this statement saying he never thought the district’s request was too much but he had a problem with the way it went about demanding the information.
However, Wyrosdick said as superintendent he is responsible for wise use of taxpayers’ money and resources, which include dual enrollment, Florida Virtual School, the Bright Futures Scholarship, and access to music and sports programs. He said the district found students from other counties and states are enrolled in home schooling in Santa Rosa County. “These benefits are for students in Santa Rosa County, not outside.”
Winkles said proof of residency comes up in other issues, such as athletics. “We have a responsibility to Santa Rosa County. I wish I could take you at your word. If the onus is on us to go to every address, maybe we have to do that. I think there is common ground into this address, proof of residence. I think the issue can be worked out.”
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Home school families express fear of program termination at school board meeting