An exclusive PHEA report

A victory for the family and all Norwin home educators is the result of the canceled due process procedure on Thursday, November 6, 2003

HSLDA Litigation Counsel James R. Mason was prepared to defend the accused family at a due process procedure but was offered the opportunity to negotiate a compromise instead. This offer was acceptable to the family and the hearing was postponed until it was determined that an agreement could be reached. After lengthy discussion, an acceptable agreement was indeed reached and the hearing was canceled. This approach particularly served the needs of the child as the family was told, prior to the start of the hearing, that they would most likely be found guilty.

The hearing examiner acknowledged that the child had received an appropriate education and had made appropriate progress. However, the hearing examiner incorrectly believed that his responsibility was to determine whether the family had met all of the requirements of the law whereas Act 169 states his role as being:

" If the hearing examiner finds that the documentation does not indicate that appropriate education is taking place in the home education program, the home education program for the child shall be out of compliance with the requirements of this section and section 1327..." [emphasis added].

The examiner clearly determined that an appropriate education had taken place with the documentation provided. However, he did not personally approve of the method used to record a log even though it met the requirements set forth in Act 169. Therefore, the agreement had nothing to do with determining appropriate education as it should have been and the hearing examiner was not functioning in his proper legal role.

In spite of this inconsistency with the intent of Act 169 as to the role of the hearing examiner, the compromise reached is a major victory on many fronts. It allows the family to continue to home educate and prevents them from being the target of continued harassment from the Norwin School District assistant superintendent. Additionally, it is a victory for all families in Norwin School District. This agreement now prevents the assistant superintendent from demanding face-to-face meetings, detailed timed and dated logs and large portfolios of other families in the district.

Bear in mind, this individual agreement is not an official ruling for all districts. Other superintendents may try to impose changes similar to the Norwin agreement in their districts but they will have nothing of a legal nature to support them. If your district begins to require more documentation than you have turned in previously, then you have every right to refuse provided your documentation meets the guidelines set forth in Act 169. On the other hand, if changes occur in your district which result in the submission of less documentation, by all means use the changes in a way that best benefits your family and the education of your child(ren).

Additional Information - Those present prepared to testify were:

Brian Ray, a Homeschool Researcher from Oregon, would have been an expert witness for the family. Barbara McMillan, a Special Needs Homeschool Evaluator in the area, would have testified against the family as an expert witness for the school district. Several local home educators from surrounding school districts were available to testify as were the following PHEA Advisory Board members: Maryalice Newborn, Mary Hudzinski, Rachel Jones and Connie Mattei. Also present showing their support for the family were PHEA board members Dr. Mark Newborn, Susan Nolan and Debbie Jordan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some of the difficulties leading up to
the Norwin School District due process hearing scheduled for 11/6/03:

Problems began for a home educating family in Norwin School District when three separate requests for approval of home education evaluators with “other qualifications” were made as allowed by Act 169. All of these requests met with disapproval from the Norwin School District assistant superintendent who reportedly stated that he “goes by the letter of the law”.

The next area of contention came with the assistant superintendent’s mandatory meetings with all home educating families to review their portfolio at the end of the year. Act 169 does not require such face to face meetings, therefore, the family refused to comply with the demand. Other families in the district report that they have endured these meetings to secure their right to home educate. The meetings are not held in the best interest of the family as it is reported the assistant superintendent uses the opportunity to belittle the effort spent on what was otherwise a very positive year of home education

When the family turned in their child’s portfolio and refused a face to face meeting, the assistant superintendent began a long list of unlawful demands. He demanded the evaluator’s resume be submitted. Act 169 makes no such requirement. He found fault with the portfolio stating that there was not enough documentation for him to determine if an appropriate education had taken place. He demanded a log listing the amount of time spent on each subject and what was studied for each subject every day. Act 169 defines a log as, “being made contemporaneous with the instruction, which designates by title the reading materials used”. The family’s log clearly met the requirements set forth in Act 169 without the submission of further details.

Additionally, the assistant superintendent demanded more samples and a second evaluation. The family complied with the request for more samples and a second evaluation, but they refused to submit a detailed timed and dated log. The procedure for initiating a due process hearing was begun based on the assistant superintendent’s claim that he could not determine appropriate education from the submission of what he held was an inadequate log.

Please direct all comments on this issue to PHEABoard@phea.net

This article should be distributed and / or quoted in its entirety and in context.
Permission for distribution is granted as long as copyright is included with materials.
©2003 by Pennsylvania Home Educators Association

PHEA Advisory Board meets with
Pennsylvania Department of Education to
Discuss School District Conflicts
September 15, 2003

On Monday, September 15th, four PHEA Advisory Board members met with two Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) officials to discuss problems homeschoolers are facing with school district administrators.  Items discussed included submission of high school diplomas with the affidavit, requests by school district administrators for information such as social security numbers, birth dates, and father's employment and income. 

The PDE acknowledged that such requests are outside the scope of authority of the school districts and have agreed to put this position into writing.These positions will be on PDE letterhead and will be made available to families through the web and local support groups. Additionally, the issue of when an affidavit should be filed by a family moving into the state was discussed.  Many districts are requiring an affidavit within three days, but the PDE agreed that this was unreasonable. 

Further research into the regulations governing entrance into school and transfer of records will be made to determine a recommendation. Along the same lines, the PDE will be recommending that school districts be willing to work cooperatively with homeschooling families that have filed affidavits that are not complete.This will ensure some latitude for families whose affidavits are not complete when filed.

Because of schedule constraints on the part of the PDE, the web documents will not be completed until after the first of the year, 2004. PHEA will continue to monitor the PDE website to ensure that the changes are made.

Back To Top of Page