Office of the President
6628 Woodruff Road
Lima, NY 14485-9427
President@leah.org

March 14, 2000

Peter Applebee
Director, Senate Education Committee

Dear Mr. Applebee,

I apologize and accept full responsibility for the length of time that it has taken for me to respond to you. I have been researching New York Constitutional Law for the explicit or implicit provisions which authorize the legislature to direct the Commissioner of Education to write regulations regarding home instruction.

As you will recall there was a group of representatives from LEAH of which I was a part who met with you last October. We mentioned to you that we have serious reservations regarding the basis in the New York Constitution for regulation of pupils receiving instruction outside of institutionalized schools. While we continue to explore Constitutional provisions we are providing to you the changes that must be made in the current regulations to address the major recurring sources of conflict with local district superintendents.

Since our visit there has been an effort to consider the perspectives of all home schooling families, we have been working to bring as much statewide consensus as possible. An e-mail listserve was begun in late November last year where parents could discuss their views regarding state oversight of education conducted in the privacy of the family. It has taken considerable time to monitor as many good ideas were presented. From this a meeting is anticipated for as many groups to meet together for further dialog and consensus before proceeding with any action towards regulatory relief. We will keep you updated.

Thus we reserve the right to make additions to these items and to present needed changes in areas of the law other than Education Law as it adversely impacts the family who elects to instruct their child outside of institutionalized school settings. Below you will find some changes in NY CR100.10 that will bring New York families a friendly climate more in line with the freedoms enjoyed by those in other states and reduce paperwork for both parent and superintendent. This will also further the goals of the Governor to reduce unnecessary regulation of the citizens of the state and will extend the regulation free environment experienced by pupils in Charter Schools.

Until we are able to settle the constitutional issue we will need to provide relief especially in the area of assessments. As any educator knows, the test drives the curriculum. This inherently restricts the diversity and creativity Additionally sequential testing referencing age and respective grades (K-12) places a rigid burden on the very purpose of parent directed education in that each child is treated as an individual whose progress is determined by their personal abilities. This is one of the greatest deficits in institutionalized education and it places unrealistic expectations on the slow learner and restrains the progress of the gifted pupil.

As per our understanding please contact Duane Rennells, who was with the NYS LEAH group at the meeting in October, so he can accompany you to the meeting(s) with the Commissioner and/or his staff. He can be reached at his office 518-474-2784 or his home 518-283-2702.

Thanks,

Paul S. Matte, President, Loving Education At Home, Inc.

Included below are the minimum changes required to Section 100.10 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education:

1. Eliminate the "double notice" requirement under the current regulation, so that parents need only provide the child's name, age, and grade level, in addition to the name of the individuals providing instruction. There would be no curriculum information provided as part of the notice, thus no IHIP. Section 100.10 already prescribes what courses must be taught at the various grade levels. Given this, there is no reason for parents to tell public school officials that they are going to teach what the regulations already require them to teach.

2. Eliminate quarterly reports. These are an administrative burden to both parents and public school officials and are not used to determine whether a student has made adequate academic progress.

3. Lower the minimum composite score on a standardized achievement test to the 23rd percentile to conform to the beginning of the average range established for standardized achievement tests. The Psychological Corporation, publisher of the Stanford Achievement Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test, publishes a chart indicating that the average range on standardized tests is the 23rd through the 76th percentile.

4. Eliminate the requirement that parents submit results of the annual evaluation to the local public school superintendent. If a child's academic progress is not adequate as indicated by the results of a standardized achievement test or an alternative form of evaluation, the parents should take remedial action to correct any deficiencies. Two states having similar provisions are Washington and Georgia.

5. Eliminate language in Section 100.10 authorizing the local superintendent to consent to the person who may conduct the annual evaluation. If a person is qualified according to the requirements of the publisher of a standardized achievement test to administer the test, there is no need for a local superintendent to make an independent assessment of the person's qualifications. With respect to the alternative evaluation methods, we believe the parent is qualified to prepare the narrative report of the child's progress.

6. In the area of special education, the regulation should provide that students with an IEP be evaluated in accordance with the methods prescribed in the IEP, not what the regulation now provides. (The State Education Department now agrees with this, but it's not in the regulation.) This should apply not only to students with an IEP developed through the school district but also to students who have been identified as needing special education services through private evaluations and who are receiving services from qualified individuals in accordance with a privately-developed plan. Students with a privately-developed plan should be evaluated for adequate academic progress in accordance with the plan, not by what the regulation now says. The problem here is local districts refuse to recognize privately-developed plans and insist that the student be tested at the grade levels specified in the regulation, although testing of these students may be entirely inappropriate. Students who fail to score at the 33rd percentile may be placed on probation.