Home School Days

Last spring, Representative Sam Rohrer introduced a bill to change the home education law in Pennsylvania. There is stiff opposition to this bill, primarily from the National Education Association’s affiliate, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, from the Pennsylvania School Board Association and from those individuals who make money from providing evaluations for home-educated students. Should Pennsylvania’s home education law be changed? If so, why?

Let's first take a look at what Pa.'s law requires. Parents who homeschool their children must do all of the following: Submit a notarized affidavit with objectives and evidence that appropriate medical services have been provided; provide an appropriate education for either 180 days or 900/990 hours (depending on the grade-level of the student); maintain a log (a book list) and samples of the students' work; provide for standardized testing of students in third, fifth and eighth grades; hire an evaluator to interview their children; and submit a portfolio consisting of the above documentation to the superintendent of the school district of residence by June 30 of each year. The evaluator must interview each child and certify that an appropriate education has been provided for the required amount of time and that the child has made sustained progress in the overall educational program. This written evaluation must be included in the portfolio. Home educators are the only educators in the Commonwealth who are required to prove that their programs are effective in order for their programs to continue to exist. Public and private schools do not submit their students to evaluations by parties outside of the system in order to continue in existence.

However, traditionally, parents have been responsible to provide for the education of their children. Until very late in the 19th century, there were no compulsory attendance laws, although there were community, or "public" schools. William Penn, in fact, mentioned public education in the first governing documents of the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Constitution reflects this in Article IIIB, Section 14, which says, "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth." It is clear from a historical and philosophical perspective, as well as a direct interpretation of the current Pa. Constitution, that education is to be provided by the Commonwealth, but no provision was made to compel parents to use the public system.

Later, the School Code further elaborated and required students between the ages of eight and 17 to be in attendance, or on the receiving end of an education. In other words, Pennsylvania has a Compulsory Attendance Law. The United States Supreme Court has determined that the state has an interest in the education of its citizenry and that compulsory attendance meets this interest. This is the least restrictive means for the state to ensure its interest.

Currently, parents may choose to educate their children in public schools or a variety of private schools, or by homeschooling them. Parents who have chosen to remove their students from the public system and provide their education in a private school effectively have no further contact with the public system or its administration. There is no accountability from the private system to the public system, only to the parents of the students enrolled.

Home-educating families, however, are held to a much higher standard than students educated in a public or private school. Homeschooling families who are withdrawing from the public system are still accountable to the administrators of that system. Homeschooling families are the only educators who must show sustained progress in the overall educational program to an outside party in order for their programs to continue to exist. Public classrooms and private classrooms are not held to this standard. If parents, who have a vested interest in the children's education, object to the quality of the children's education, they are dismissed as irrelevant. Many parents choose home education because the public school system will not provide what the parents perceive to be an appropriate education for their children. This provision in the current home education law is clearly discriminatory and puts parents who have disagreed with their school districts at a distinct disadvantage.

Home-educating parents must expend a great deal of money each year having their children privately evaluated. The intention of this evaluation process was to protect families from harassment from hostile school district administrators. However, many districts do not "accept" these evaluations but insist on re-evaluating these students, often overturning the evaluator's recommendations. And the districts, instead of invoking the due process procedure provided in Pa.'s home education law, bring truancy charges instead. Some disgruntled school district administrators have even reported parents who insist on obeying the law to the Department of Children and Youth Services, alleging that the parents are guilty of child abuse. This is unconscionable.

The current home education law was the result of a Federal District Court decision, which struck the Pa. Compulsory Attendance law as it applied to home-educating families, because it was "constitutionally void for vagueness" (Jeffries vs. O'Donnell, 1988). The uneven, even discriminatory, application of the current law cries out for similar treatment. It is time for a change to the Pa. home education law.

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List




	search citypaper.net