House Education Committee
Hearing for HB 2560
June 13, 2002
[Testimonies of Dr. Carol Saylor and Idette Groff.]
[Panel 1 is seated.]
Stairs: Good morning, panel. I'll go down the list the way I announced you, and our first presenter will be our school superintendent; if you will introduce yourself, and then make your remarks, and then, after everybody has spoken then we'll-- we'll ask questions, then, for the panel, then.
[muffled question about the order of presentations]
Saylor: I thought I was going last. Are we on? Okay.
House Bill 2560 if adopted could certainly make my job easier. However, I'm here to say I don't think it's good for children. [Her microphone is moved closer.] Closer? Okay. Let-- let me start over. House Bill 2560 would certainly make my job easier. However, I don't think it's good for students. I'm Carol Saylor, superintendent of Manheim Central School District in Lancaster County. I'm also president-elect of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators, on whose behalf I'm here this morning.
Almost 200 children in my school district satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirements through homeschooling. Under the present statutory framework, parents who embark on homeschooling must first inform me of their intent. They must file with me an affidavit that they will comply with the program requirements for homeschooling, that they will maintain a portfolio of their child's work for review by a supervisor of *their* choice, and they will submit the portfolio *and* the supervisor's evaluation to me at the end of each year. The *overwhelming* majority--and I need to stress that--the *overwhelming* majority of the homeschool families that I deal with are conscientious and committed. They take their obligations *very* seriously, and they work very hard to ensure that their children learn the content required by the state. Section 1327.1 works to give them the option they want for their child's education. It also works to protect the integrity of the compulsory school attendance law, the Commonwealth’s interest in an educated citizenry, and each child's safety, health, and opportunity to learn. House Bill 2560 repeals those protections.
The bill would eliminate the affidavit. The affidavit is important because it officially establishes homeschooling. It specifically identifies the *adult* who will be responsible for the child's education. And it reiterates the education program requirements, that are a part of the home education program. We think this is important. The affidavit underscores the breadth of the obligations that the parent is *undertaking* prior to beginning them. House Bill 2560 would replace the official prior notice, provided by the affidavit, with notice within 30 days of establishing the program, and notice within 30 days of termination. Under this language it's possible that the school district would *not be aware* that a child is being home educated until after the student is absent from the regular school program for 30 days. Only upon inquiry of the compulsory -- or, upon initiation of the compulsory attendance law, might we learn that the student is being home educated. House Bill 2560 would require the parent to give the superintendent the name of the supervisor of the home education program. No other information about the supervisor is required. There is no requirement to identify his or her qualifications, there is no requirement to provide his or her *address.* There is no requirement to identify the location of the program. There is no requirement to report a *change* in supervisors, or a change in location.
Under the present law, the affidavit certifies that neither the home education supervisor nor any adults *living in the home* have been convicted of a statutory-- statutorily-enumerated crime within the past five years. This is *not* a requirement of House Bill 2560. Under the present law the parent must submit evidence the child has been immunized. This is *not* a requirement of House Bill 2560. Under the present law, the parents must submit evidence that the child has received the health and medical services required-- required by the school code. This is not a requirement under House Bill 2560. Under the *present* law, the child must take the Pennsylvania State Assessment or an approved alternate assessment in grades 3, 5, and 8. This is not a requirement of 2560. Under the present law, the supervisor must maintain a portfolio of student work, submit it to an evaluator of *their* choice, and obtain a written evaluation of the student's educational progress. The portfolio and the written evaluation are then submitted to the superintendent--me--at the end of the school year. There is no requirement for outside review of students' educational progress in House Bill 2560.
As I said earlier, 200 residents of Manheim Central School District currently take advantage of the homeschool programs. For *each,* we have an affidavit, for *each,* we review the evaluator's report and the student portfolio. We try to provide the parents with appropriate feedback. We want these youngsters to be successful. And we want them, should they decide to return to us at some point in the future, to be able to succeed in classes with students their own age. It takes a considerable amount of time on *my* part, and the part of my staff, to comply with the law as is currently exists. We do it, and my colleagues do it, not just because it's the law but because we think it protects children. We urge you to move cautiously before you repeal those protections. Certainly, many of our home educated students do very, *very* well without our intervention. But we don't know how many would run into problems if there *was* no montoring-- monitoring, if there *were* no local officials keeping track of the arrangements made for their education, and if there *were* no one available to provide specific assistance. Many parents who are homeschooling welcome *and* benefit from our review. Our review and the review of the outside evaluator gives *them* confidence that their students are making adequate progress. In some cases, our review may identify areas where additional instruction may be useful. In some cases, it gives our staff a chance to suggest strategies or materials that will help the student, and the parent, in achieving their goals. The regular contact required by the law helps us to maintain a relationship with those families, who may at *some* point, re-enroll their children in public school. And it helps us anticipate their needs. Certainly, it's extra work for the district. But it is work that we think is appropriately assigned to us. We oppose the repeal of these provisions, as stated in House Bill 2560. Thank you very much.
Stairs: Yes, thank you, Dr. Saylor, our next presenter will be a, will be a representative of the school boards?
Groff: Good morning. My name is Idette Groff and I'm a member of the Conestoga Valley School District Board—
Stairs: If you would, please, keep it close to the microphone? and speak loud, it's a big room.
Groff: I start again.
Stairs: Okay.
Groff: Good morning. My name is Idette Groff and I am a member of the Conestoga Valley School District Board of Directors in Lancaster County. I also serve on the executive board of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association at whose request I'm here today to discuss the impact of House Bill 2560 on present & future homeschool students. Lancaster County is uniquely situated to view and experience firsthand the interrelationship of many educational systems and especially to view homeschooling as a system, not just in the anecdotal experience of a few examples.
Of over 24,000 homeschool students in Pennsylvania the largest concentration is in the southeastern part of the state, with Lancaster County's population well ahead of all other counties. Close to *10%* of the state's homeschool students live there. Where their neighbors may attend day-- public school, day, twilight, or alternative programs, private religious, secular, boarding or day schools, charter schools, or cyber schools. They may be homebound or use private tutors. Some are served by the Intermediate Unit 13, Lancaster County Career and Technology Centers, or the Lancaster County Academy, an alternative school sponsored by local school districts. Some attend neighboring districts for specialized curriculum. Other take advantage of matriculation agreements with Harrisburg Area Community College, or local private and state colleges. There's a wealth of educational opportunity in Lancaster County. And we're *not* competitors. We are all part of *parallel* systems dedicated to serve the educational needs of our students. Not so rigidly parallel, that we cannot find opportunities to cooperate, share, and learn from each other. And all observe the state's attendance, health, safety, and academic accountability requirements.
Conestoga Valley's 132 homeschoolers are among the 41% of our school-age population who participate in an educational program other than the public school. That number may be atypically high because of the participation in Amish schools--though our district maintains probably the last one- or two-room school in the state; it's our multi-age experience. Otherwise the statewide data on homeschoolers from the Pennsylvania Department of Education and its trends are closely mirrored in Conestoga Valley, in terms of purpose, age, grade participation, gender, and growth, as opposed to districts whose limited homeschool population may reflect only a piece of the picture. What is not reflected in the data, because of our large numbers, is the amount of time and resources we dedicate to our responsibilities to homeschoolers.
However tempting it may seem to embrace the opportunity to be released from these responsibilities, and utilize that time, energy, and related costs to our own problems, we cannot do *that.* Saving time and money at *kids'* expense, is not acceptable. We *share* in the state's responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient system of education of all children. While our primary focus may be on the students in our schools, we are aware of our part in the bigger picture. We work in education not because we believe our students deserve the opportunity for education, but because all children do. And we believe in the related rights to safety, health, and quality.
The issue is *not* whether homeschooling can be quality education. Of course it can.
The issue is not public school versus homeschooling. We are *not* adversaries.
The issue is not even money -- for a change.
The issue is about what is really important: children and their education.
Whatever decisions are made relative to the connection between homeschoolers and their local public schools, the state must not abdicate its responsiblities to these children. If you are to legitimately endorse the existence of these parallel systems of education you must not igsor -- ignore the basic requirements of all systems. I would like to highlight a few of these basic requirements that would appear to *disappear,* as this bill is currently written.
Especially glaring are the inconsistencies with the federal IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Act. Not only does House -- House Bill 2560 allow the supervisor to dictate the types of services they want, it removes from the *evaluation* and *decision-making* process, those experts on the IEP -- the Individualized Education Program team -- that work *with* the parents to craft a plan that is best for the needs of their child.
The newly-written bill abdicates all responsibilities for the health and safety of the homeschool student by removing the required evidence for the proper immunization, health, and medical services at the same time that the *state* is trying to assure *more* children have health care through programs such as CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. It also abandons the required criminal screening, at a time when we are all becoming more sensitive to the plight of children who *may* be caught in dangerous home situations. Without the required affidavit at the beginning of a program there will be no directory information, and a child could get lost outside the system, making it difficult for any agency to serve that child.
Unfortunately the bill in its current form also removes the *connection* between any other education system and the homeschooler. While the districts' relationships I mentioned earlier enhance programs, homeschoolers would be *more* distant under this legislation. For those homeschoolers who move in and out of public schools, the transition would be more difficult. For those who currently enjoy a close relationship with their local districts through use of materials, participation in some activities, and evaluation, educational opportunities would diminish. This is especially true for the homeschoolers who live in remote areas where they do not have the advantage of homeschool cooperatives.
Lastly the Senate [according to the PSBA website transcript of her testimony, she meant to say "state"] initiatives for standards, quality, and accountability are abandoned. There's *no* guarantee that the supervisor is competent to teach or evaluate. This is especially essential in disciplines such as math and science, where it's unlikely that anyone without a high school diploma could effectively teach the necessary concepts. Courses can be combined without any concern for loss of content or depth of study. Without any documentation of a student's work, there are *no* assurances that content and performance are sufficient to declare any student a legitimate high school graduate with all the rights, privileges, and benefits.
After all the time, study, and money that has been spent to put in place a system of accountability, to establish standards and regular assessment, this bill *ignores* them all. With renewed emphasis on the success of *every* child, at the state and federal level, it is appropriate that all home education programs be subject to some level of monitoring and compliance with academic principles. Therefore, PSBA opposes House Bill 2560 as written.
All of us here today share a view of the importance of education, which gives us a passion for *quality* education. It's the unspoken connection we all share. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and I'll be happy to try to answer any questions.
Stairs: Thank you. We'll have questions then, later, then.