FReep Report on hearing of Pennsylvania Homeschool Law

Vanity | 6/13/02 | ArGee

[ArGee]

I attended a public hearing on Pennsylvania HB 2560, a new law which would significantly reduce government control of home schooling in PA. There were, perhaps, 800 in attendance (I've never been very good at such things). This was a hearing for the House Education Committee, not a public forum, so we were only there to listen. Here are my observations, for those who are interested:

• There were supposed to be two panels. One was to start at 10:00 and end at 11:00. the other was to start at 12:00 and end at 1:00. The first panel ended at 12:15. It consisted of an attorney from the Home School Legal Defense Association, a member of the National Home School Research Institute, a school superintendant, and a school board member. I'm sorry I don't have all the names.

• There were about 40 representatives listening to the testimony. Of those, perhaps 6 were not white males. Most of the questions hostile to the new law came from those 6. I have no idea what the party affiliation breakdown is.

• Those who supported HB 2560 were supposed to wear red. Those who were opposed were supposed to wear blue. The audience was comprised of perhaps 5-10% people in blue. The rest were in red.

• The audience was reminded that they were welcome to listen, but they were not participants. We were asked not to applaud, etc. It was hard to avoid applauding when the HSLDA attorney said, "These people are here for one thing - freedom!" However, most of the time we behaved ourselves. The most obvious violation came when one of the committee members pointed out the importance of education, telling us that prisons are full of people who didn't get a good education. An audience member shouted out, "They all went to public schools!" He was shushed by his neighbors, but the point was heard throughout the hall.
• This bill has to do with home schools. Naturally, there were lots of kids there. They were not at all disruptive. Some participated, others did school work. All got a touch of education into our political process.
• Although there was a lot of good information (I'll get to that later) in the first panel and a lot of questions asked of them, it was not contentious. It took 1:15 longer than was alloted, but it was respectful.
• I did not hear the list of everyone who was on the second panel, and I could not stay until the end of their testimony. The first two I heard were in favor of the new law. One was full of statistics (again, I'll get to information later). The next talked about the burden of the PA law compared to other states. She actually choked up when she talked about how hard it is to home school in this state, but she got control and was able to finish. The third was a woman who has home schooled for a long time here, and plans to home school for a long time more. She focused on the benefits of the current law and asked that we not gut it with the new one. Then a man spoke who was clearly only trying to protect a non-profit business he had formed to support home schoolers. I know it's not his fault that his voice was whiny, but it didn't help because all he was doing was whining. I was a little embarassed to be associated with him as a fellow home schooler. When he said, "This law will be a Statue of Liberty for dropouts" the audience laughed at him. That was when I left. Hopefully someone else can fill us in on the end of the meeting.

Here are some of the more interesting quotes I heard, in random order:

• One representative actually told us that he was concerned that this law would codify that parents would be free to teach their children according to their religious beliefs. He pointed out that religious beliefs are used to justify racism. The panelist pointed out that this law simply codified protections we already had under the constitution.
• The HSLDA lawyer pointed out that the only state in the nation that has as highly regulated a home school environment is New York, and they are "on the verge of changing their law."
• The school board representative actually said, "Freedom is wonderful, and we all support it, but..." I don't even remember what came after the "but..." since the red-alert warning was going off in my head. Hello! They want to take your freedoms away. Heellllllooooooooo!
• One rep. asked the school superintendant, "What percentage of home school parents are dedicated and committed in your district?" She answered, "99%." He then asked, "What percentage of the parents of the public school children are dedicated and committed?" She answered, "Probably not that high." At least she was honest.
• One representative said, "What we see here are bureaucrats of public education vs. parents who want to educat their children." A little later he said, "There must be more important things for us to do than bothering these people (indicating the audience)." (Yes, he got applause for that line.)
• Those who spoke in favor of HB 2560 tended to talk about government 'control.' Those who spoke against HB 2560 tended to talk about 'accountability.'
• The attorney pointed out that the Supreme Court of the U.S. has upheld the principle that parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children. He also said there is no legal framework to sue a school for malpractice in education, but if someone who is home schooled isn't teaching their kids you can bring them up for violating compulsary attendance. Home schoolers are actually more accountable than public educators.
• The woman with all the statistics said that school districts spend $5 million a year reviewing the work of home schoolers. They only wind up questioning .09% of them. Hardly a good ROI.
• Here in PA we have to submit a notarized affidavit every year saying that we will comply with the home schooling law. One woman wanted to know why that wasn't enough? She asked, "Why do we then have to submit all this proof that we are complying with the law. They are assuming we are liars."
• Several times the point was made that, "under current law people are guilty until proven innocent." The attorney pointed out that it was illegal to use drugs, but that didn't mean that someone could demand regular drug tests of every citizen. You have to have probably cause to investigate illegal drug use. In the same way, parents should be presumed to be complying with the cumpulsary attendance law unless there is probable cause to believe otherwise.

Those are my observations. Did anyone else attend?

[Domestic Church]

"Right after 2560 was announced, I followed a thread on it in his message board at his site. It was a HUGE thread. What I was left with after following the whole thread was that he has a diploma program that would be even more irrelevant if the law is passed and he was worried about his revenue stream. He never came right out and said that. Instead, he tried to scare everyone. The thread got somewhat heated when folks started pointing out the truth."

Most of the truth tellers were banned from his site. There is a better email loop for statewide support, accurate legal info on HSing and discussion, the pa-hs conference. And there is a pa-hs ezine published every couple of weeks if you don't have time for the email loop.

[valkyrieanne]

Wow. Five million dollars a year, to catch what - a tiny handful of offenders, and given the scrupulosity of the law, it's probably easy to fall afoul of it. Of those offenders I would hazard that perhaps one or two are TRUE truants - thus the state has spent five million dollars in one year to catch an infinitesmal # of real no-schoolers. Incredible.

[stands2reason]

Wilkommen, bienvenuto, welcome to FR! :-)

[stands2reason]

What they mean by that is they know how to do it right and anyone who doesn't do it the same way is doing a bad job.

Isn't that the mission statement of the DNC?

[twyn1]

Hi Kay !!

Welcome to FreeRepublic !

Donna (twyn1)

[Domestic Church]

What they mean by that is they know how to do it right and anyone who doesn't do it the same way is doing a bad job.

Isn't that the mission statement of the DNC?

Yes, You could see the underpinning deterrence of the current law as being a product of the NEA/DNC in the statements made at the hearing by those Reps who were aligned with the NEA ideology. There were some Dems with integrity for this new bill but the ones who were against it used leftist statements. One, Rep. Mundy, stated something about the public system existing since the days of our founding fathers...she was about as socialist as you can get and still be a democrat. The hearing will be on PCN today, Sunday, and I recommend watching it even if you aren't involved in home education as it was astounding to see the DNC/NEA agenda in full swing from some of the people we have elected in this state. We need all the help we can get on this HB2560.

[Domestic Church]

We have documented that the present law is keeping families from moving here and making some leave...obviously, they think these would be strong families with philosophical or religious convictions that would align them with conservatism and Republican perspective...this is why they spend so much taxpayer money on this discrimination. What the DNC/NEA opposition doesn't understand is that the homeschool community is varied and broad in outlook and they also are inhibiting their own demographic growth. I know many, many, homeschoolers who voted for Bush because his platform was pro HS and often it was the first time in their lives that they voted Republican.

[ArGee]

Irony of ironies! How much violation of the compulsory education law is found among *public school students?* How much does the state pay per annum to track down truants? A lot, I'll bet.

The rest of that story is that experience shows that lazy parents don't choose home education - they choose public school. Even in states like Texas where the law is geared toward freedom of the parents, it is still easier to put your kids on the bus in the morning.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Isn't that the mission statement of the DNC?

Unofficially, I think it is.

It would be more believable if home schoolers (on average) didn't out-score public schoolers (on average) in every category. Not that this is a competition, mind you. It's just a statement. You want to know that your coach can play the game better than you can. Otherwise you would rather do without the coach.

Shalom.

[Domestic Church]

There are more photos and testimonies from the hearing including that of Chris Klicka, The Constitutional Atty from HSLDA at


http://members.truevine.net/pi lgrimspage@truevine.net/Home_E d_Bill.htm

[Chi Chi Tokyo]

Oh look, it seems like there is an increase in contacts from the schools in Florida. Maybe you better look at how many years it took for the educational establishment to start harassing the home schoolers in Florida before you settle for HB 2560.


http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/702200/posts

[ArGee]

Oh look, it seems like there is an increase in contacts from the schools in Florida. Maybe you better look at how many years it took for the educational establishment to start harassing the home schoolers in Florida before you settle for HB 2560.

I'm not sure of your point. Sure, HB 2560 is still more restrictive than I would like. I would like a law that basically says, "Educating the child is the responsibility of the parents, so other than offering a public school system, the state can keep it's nose out of my business."

However, I think HB2560 is a great step in that direction. I don't see why overzealous officials in Florida should cause us to take an "all or nothing" approach.

Unless you had some other point.

Shalom.