PENNSYLVANIA
Local Policies Create Conflicts
Although Pennsylvania's home education statute was enacted in 1988 and sets forth in great detail all that is required of parents who desire to teach their children at home, Home School Legal Defense Association continues to encounter school districts whose local policies contradict state law.
The most recent example worth reporting comes from the Springfield School District in Delaware County where home educators are expected to adhere to certain "terms of agreement" prior to being "approved" by the local superintendent. The salient points of the policy are as follows:
a) Regular daily instruction must take place in accordance with the school calendar approved by the local board of education.
b) A minimum of 990 hours of instruction must be given during the school year.
c) Planned courses of study prescribed by the State Board of Education must be followed and texts provided to parents for use.
d) Every home-schooled student must participate in the standardized-testing program, and all tests required of every student at the given grade level in the public school. The tests must be administered at the public school at the same time they are given to the other students.
e) The school district shall monitor the progress of each home-schooled student periodically to determine whether the program of instruction is being met according to the school district's requirements.
f) The written progress report for each child must be submitted according to the reporting periods established by the local district.
g) The program of studies and methods of instruction shall be reviewed by the principal of the public school at the conclusion of the school year, along with the proposed program for the next year.
These "terms of agreement" exceed or contradict state law in a number of ways. Points a and b: Pennsylvania's home education statute does not require home schools to follow any particular days of instruction. Rather home schools must teach 180 days, or 900 hours at the elementary level and 990 at the secondary level. Point c: the home education statute prescribes the required courses for home schools. Point d: The statute requires standardized testing in grades 3, 5, and 8. No other tests are required. Points e, f, and g: the statute states that parents need only submit portfolios of the student's work and written evaluations at the end of each school year. Evaluation of "program of studies" and "method of instruction" are not required.
HSLDA attorney Dewitt Black, who is responsible for matters involving Pennsylvania members, reports that legal contacts brought on by such unauthorized local policies continued to be the basis for a great volume of correspondence with public school officials. Home schoolers in Pennsylvania must be ever vigilant to oppose the adoption and implementation of policies such as that adopted by the Springfield School District which have no legal basis and are an unauthorized and unreasonable burden.
Special Education Case
HSLDA recently assisted a member family in Windber, Pennsylvania, who was experiencing difficulties with the local public school superintendent over the appropriate evaluation of their daughter, whom the evaluator determined need special education services. The mentally retarded child had been evaluated by a private professional but had not been identified through a public school evaluation as being handicapped. The superintendent insisted that the child's special education services be approved by a state-certified teacher, or she would have to be evaluated for academic achievement the same as a non-handicapped child.
Attorney Black contacted the local superintendent on behalf of the member family. First, he pointed out that the private special education services did not have to be approved by a state-certified special education teacher, because the child had never been identified under federal law through a public school evaluation as needing any services. Second, Attorney Black argued that the child should not be considered non-handicapped for the purpose of academic achievement evaluation. He urged that the private evaluation should be taken into consideration by the local superintendent in determining whether an appropriate education was occurring.
The superintendent postponed action, and after the child was evaluated mid-year by a person qualified to do so under Pennsylvania law, the superintendent sent the family a letter recognizing their compliance with state law.
Most states which recognize the right of parents to teach their own children at home have not specifically addressed how to evaluate a child with special learning needs. There continues to be a need for legislation in this area to remove any uncertainty about parental rights relating to home instruction of children who have need of special education services. Dr. Steven Duvall, a public school psychologist in Kansas, has recently concluded a study, profiled in the September-October 1994 edition of The Home School Court Report, which concluded that learning disabled children in a home education setting experience greater academic achievement than comparable children receiving special education in the public schools.
Printer Friendly Version
