An Open Letter to the
House Education Committee
Requesting Passage of HB 2560
Sept. 19, 2002
There is a proposal before the House Education Committee, HB2560, that, if passed, will change the requirements affecting home education programs. Please vote for this bill!
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 PA Constitution reflects this in Article IIIB, Section 14 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 an 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 8 and 17 to be in attendance, or on the receiving end of an education. In other words, Pennsylvania has a Compulsory Attendance Law. The Supreme Court of the US 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 in order for their programs to continue to exist. Public classrooms and private classrooms are NOT held to this standard. This provision in the current home education law is clearly discriminatory.
There are other problems under Act 169-1988. Home educating parents must keep logs, which are clearly defined in the law as a list of reading materials kept contemporaneously with instruction. School districts vary in the interpretation of this provision. Some districts allow some parents to keep one kind of log, and require other parents to keep more detailed logs. Our US Constitution allows us the freedom to be treated “equally” under the law, as well as ensures our right to be held to a law that is understandable and even-handedly enforced. Act 169 fits neither criterion in the hands of most of PA’s 501 school districts.
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.
Another area of difficulty with the current law is the affidavit, which parents must file prior to the commencement of home education. Districts, again, exceed their authority and demand information that the law (and the PA Department of Education!) does not give them the right to demand.
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! It is time to recognize that home educating parents are doing as well as and better than most classrooms. Home educators should be shown the respect that they have earned by being released from the onerous burdens imposed by the current home education law. Please vote for HB2560.
Mary L. Hudzinski, Administrator
MDHSA Diploma Program