Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Education Committee members. I am Maryalice Newborn of Pennsylvania Home Education Network. PHEN is the oldest statewide home education support group in Pennsylvania. I have 3 Masters degrees in the areas of engineering, business and computer science and 15 years of corporate experience. I now homeschool my 5 children and I have been homeschooling for 10 years.
HB 2560 upholds the US Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and Congressional findings.
“The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations”. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) [1] ,Our US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions have consistently recognized and acknowledged the primacy of parental control of children’s education. Congressional findings state, “Parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children, and States, localities, and private institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role.” [2] It is clear that the state has a supporting role in the education of its citizenry.
According to Wisconsin v. Yoder [3] , the state’s interest in a child has to be balanced and carried out in the “least restrictive means”. The state of Pennsylvania has determined the appropriate level of “interest” in a child’s education in public school, non-public school, and private school as the satisfaction of the Compulsory Attendance Law. However, the current home education law requires satisfaction of the Compulsory Attendance Law, as well as showing educational plans, resources and students’ educational progress. This is discriminatory to home educators and an imbalance of government control and citizens’ freedoms. The current home education law, Act 169 of 1988, is inconsistent and noncompliant with these court decisions and with current Federal Code. Furthermore, many of the 501 superintendents have taken upon themselves far more authority than even Act 169 grants to them. A recent survey of school districts shows that 92% of school districts request more than Act 169 permits. [4]
HB 2560 will give parents educational choices and bring Pennsylvania’s Home Education Law into the 21st Century in line with the rest of the United States.
The map below and the chart on the following page illustrate that Pennsylvania is not following the least restrictive means, as many other states are home educating with fewer regulations. Pennsylvania regulates home educators more than any other state. Pennsylvania is the only state requiring multiple levels of oversight of home educated students.Pennsylvania is the only state to legislate private evaluations by certified teachers. Forty-seven states do not legislate school district oversight. More than half of the states require a notice of intent or less. Pennsylvania has 7 distinct categorical requirements, more than any other state.Pennsylvania is clearly out of step with the rest of the Unites States.
HB 2560 is sufficient for the home education population and does not control it based upon statistical outliers.
The amount of regulation has no effect on the desired output, which is educated children.One study, which validates this, is from Dr. Brian Ray. [5]
Another study by the Manhattan Institute on the effects of educational freedom, states, “Increasing education freedom is one of the most practical ways for policymakers to improve the quality of education.” [6] In home education, the logs, portfolios, testing and evaluations do not educate the child. In Pennsylvania, they have become a time and financial burden to the families. The current home education law takes away time and money from the primary objective of education and legislates options, which should be parental choices.
In 2000, 0.09% [7] of the home education population was believed to have inappropriate education. In statistical terminology, 0.09% is considered to be an outlier of the population. In any population, statistical outliers will always exist. No amount of control or regulation on the population will eliminate the outliers. There is no valid reason to control the entire homeschool population, with regulations based on controlling these outliers. This is an undue burden for the general population of home educators.
HB 2560 is an economic solution that will save the Commonwealth money.
There are 4 components to the financial aspects of the current home education law; 1) costs to the school districts, 2) state instructional expenses saved by the home educators, 3) migration of homeschoolers to cyber charter schools, and 4) economic and “brain drain” to the Commonwealth.
The current home education law is an unfunded mandate on the already financially drained public school systems. The monitoring of paperwork and micromanaging home educators costs the School Districts approximately $5 Million per year [8] .In 2000, after looking over paperwork for over 23,000 students, the superintendents questioned the education of only 0.09% [9] of the home educated population. Financially, this equates to spending over $220,000 per inappropriate education finding.
Pennsylvania home educators save the state over $115 [10] Million per year.This number is extremely conservative. It only considers “average instructional expenditures” and not any fixed costs. It also does not include any saving from the home educated students under 8 or over 17 year old. These savings will continue to rise.
The home education population has grown from 3,541 in 1989 to 24,019 in 2000.The average growth rate from 1989-1999 was 21% while the growth rate in 2000 was only 3%. The major difference in the home education environment was the introduction of cyber charter schools. Many of the cyber charter school families left homeschooling because of perceived reduction in burdensome paperwork. This flux reduced the number of home educated students. Cyber charter students cost the school districts money, where the home educated students save the school districts money. Homeshoolers will continue migrating to cyber charter schools if the home education climate is not more equitable.
Not only are families leaving to cyber charter schools, they are leaving the state.I have 69 letters and emails from people all across the country that have either left Pennsylvania (16%) or declined opportunities in Pennsylvania (84%) because of our home education law [11] .The letters are personal stories from ministers, engineers, university professors, teachers, and business owners who relinquished personal gains, in order to home educate with more freedom and less regulation in a state other than Pennsylvania. Their letters speak of leaving family, giving up better jobs, forgoing better financial conditions and leaving the scenic beauty of the Commonwealth.
A $10 Million initiative was started in 1999 by our former Governor Ridge to change the Pennsylvania “Brain Drain” to a “Brain Gain”. The current Home Education Law is clearly a deterrent to this state initiative. It is costing Pennsylvania it’s future.
HB 2560 is a solution to many problems, problems that Pennsylvania home educators have been quietly facing for the last 14 years. It balances the State’s interest with parental authority. HB 2560 does not apply unnecessary regulations to the entire population. It eliminates the unfunded mandate on the public school system, while continuing to save the state money. It brings Pennsylvania into the 21st Century with a home education law comparable to other states.
I respectfully request that you vote HB 2560 out of Committee. Thank you.
[1] Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 (1925).
[2] US Code, Sec. 3401, 2001.
[3] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
[4] Janet Reiland, et al., “Pennsylvania School District Survey”, 2002.
[5] Dr. Brian Ray, “Home Education Across the United States”, NHERI, HSLDA, 1997.
[6] Jay P. Greene, “Education Freedom Index”, Manhattan Institute, 2001.
[7] John Creason, “Home Education in Pennsylvania, 1998-1999”, PA Dept of Education, 2000.
[8] Dr. Steven Melnick, “Home Schooling in Pennsylvania”, Penn State University, 2000.
[9] John Creason, “Home Education in Pennsylvania, 1999-2000”, PA Dept of Education, 2001.
[10] Barbara Sheaffer, “Selected Expenditure Data for PA Public Schools”, PA Dept of Education, 2000.