House Education Committee
Hearing for HB 2560
(Unrehearsed remarks; I have tried to add the appropriate emphasis.)
Rep Samuel Rohrer R-Berks County
Rep Jerry Nailor: Thank you. We'll close out the day with Representative Sam Rohrer, the prime sponsor of House Bill 2560.
Rep Rohrer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Nailor, for filling in for concluding the hearing today...I want to thank again those who are testifying this morning sitting here before us...I really do believe that the information we got combined from the first panel to the second has been pretty well accomplishing the issue, and again the questions from the committee were very, very good. I would just like to conclude a wrap-up thought, perhaps, just one thing. It seems to me that as we've kind of gone through this last session here, that there's been a recurring theme, pretty much even recurring and complementary to the first panel. Except we've tended to get hung up on the diploma issue in the second go-round. And I think that needs to have just one comment about that from my perspective. Now, I don't generally do this, and I'm not going to mention anyone's name, but just for the benefit of the committee members who are sitting here perhaps at this time.
An assertion was made that the bill was designed to take away a diploma option. I think that needs to be made very, very clear: that was never the intent of this bill, never from the beginning, and it does not remain the intent of this bill, to this day. Secondly, this bill does *not* take away the diploma option. It *provides* greater flexibility for *parents,* in determining how they will *recognize* the completion of their children, and it simply states that upon *completion* of a successful home study program, that the state has no business, nor right, to discriminate. Now, I think that's been pretty basic and pretty clear. It says *nothing* about diplomas, nor diploma organizations, just like the current law does not. And I think that's a very, very important thing to remember, and what I have suggested, even to those who are involved in this specific aspect: to understand that a lot of things have changed since 1988.
In 1988, the issue of diplomas was a major issue, because everybody required them. It was a big issue. And the bill - the current law - didn't really address it, so there was a need, somewhat, in place for that...but as Representative Armstrong has shared, when his staff member called the colleges and the universities of Pennsylvania, of which I have also talked to the organizations, we now learn that the presence of a diploma is not what our colleges and universities are looking for, particularly followed up with federal law passage [gestures toward Ellen Kramer], but frankly, they want to see a transcript of grades and performance on an SAT or an ACT, and what's the reason for that? The reason for that is, is that diplomas over the last twelve years, frankly, aren't too measurable one against the other. Whether one'll like it or not, a diploma may be from Philadelphia, or Harrisburg, or Pittsburgh, or York, whatever, are different from other districts across the state. And, that's a fact of life. And as a result, that issue does not become the focus of attention, but it's the performance of the child. I think on that basis it has been demonstrated the performance of home educated children really is stellar and that's why colleges say "I don't need that aspect."
However, granting the understanding that there are parents who do believe that's an important thing, this bill absolutely allows for it, and I encourage currently existing diploma organizations to continue in what they're doing, because frankly, there are parents out there who choose to want to do that, and this bill is to provide flexibility and a choice for parents regardless of where they fall in this scheme, and that is what this bill does, simply, and it allows everybody who's sitting at this table [indicates panel] essentially to educate your children as you want, and end up recognizing, as you want, and that's what a good law in Pennsylvania should be all about. And I think we have it. [applause]
So with that being mentioned I just want to, from my perspective as prime sponsor, and those who have helped on bringing this bill to this point, and to thank all of you folks for coming, and really, investing a good portion of your day but it is very, very clear I think, to all the members of this committee the extent of commitment, on all sides of this issue are here today and we just want to take a good-- to make a situation better for parents of this state, this bill will do that, and we look forward to continued involvement as we go down this road and with that, Representative Nailor, Mr. Chairman, I turn it back over to you for conclusion of the hearing.
Nailor: I just want to thank the presenters for your testimony, for your presentations today, they were very professional, both the first panel and the second panel and I think you gave the legislators a lot to think about, a lot more than we knew when we came here today. I want to thank all the people who came from around the state to be here, the red and the blue and those of other interests that are here today as well. Because this is a very important issue, it's a very sensitive issue, and you know I don't think in my fourteen years in the General Assembly I've ever had an informational meeting in front of quite so many people, either. So that's something new to all of us. [applause; Nailor applauds audience]
And as we started off today you saw we had an awful lot of members from the Education Committee here; they have responsibilities back in their district, but they traveled here from around the state, to hear what you have to say today and I think that's very, very important too [alluding to several reps who left during the hearing]. So this informational meeting is adjourned; I wish you all have a safe trip home.