Letter from Norma Young
July 16, 1992
Dear Mark and Helen [Home Education Magazine],
I am writing concerning the editorial in the July/Aug.'92 issue on The
CommNet. For a long time I've wanted to get feed back from others on
things that have bothered me about education, parenting, and other so
called family issues and how they are being addressed in today's society.
With all the "experts" out there so very willing to "guide" us through
the maze of Life, it's very difficult to weed out the ridiculous and
focus on what is right for our individual families.
People ask me why I have chosen to Homeschool. I am not a religious
person at all, but that is an answer they could understand and accept.
When I tell them I fear for my child's individuality, along with her
self-esteem and love of life, they look at me as if I have 2 heads! If I
criticize the education received in the system, people become defensive
and a chip appears on their shoulders. It's as though I was attacking the
foundations of America!
Most could accept the homeschooling if we were a religious family or if
we conducted school at home. But we unschool here. I do not advocate any
method as being perfect. It just happens that this works for us right
now. I don't want to give the impression that we are under attack. Right
now, I think our friends and family outside the homeschooling community
view us as being rather '60ish in having an "alternate" lifestyle. In
other words, we're being obstinate and we'll soon tire of our little
experiment, hopefully before we ruin Jacky academically, and socially!
My husband and I are trying not to put our lives into compartments. We
try to incorporate everything into a family oriented lifestyle.
Homeschooling is just one facet of that lifestyle. It may be easier when
you have your own business and both are involved in it as we are with a
small construction operation. Jacky gets to see that we all work together
for the good of the family. We are still trying to detoxify our brains
with all the "advise" so freely given over the years.
It has taken alot of effort not to fall for the manipulating ,
condescending, platitudes we've all heard at one time or another. I feel
that all to often, our "leaders", be they school, politics, or
religious, feed upon our insecurities, in a continuing effort to maintain
power and control. Public school is the first step in creating happy
It seems to me that the more educated you become, the more secure you
would feel. This in turn would boost your self-esteem and make you want
to share what you know with others, creating a widening circle of
learning. Why does it seem to work the opposite in our society? The more
you advance into the halls of higher education, the more difficult it
becomes to obtain. The "professionals" seem to want to hoard the
information, releasing it to those deemed worthy. They have created a
game involving secret access codes (ACT,SAT, ect.), little clubs
(fraternities, sororities) and most professions even have their own
We don't believe it should be like that. And we have chosen not to raise
our daughter in that environment. Knowledge should be shared. Children
have a basic right to be free from fear, whether from physical harm or
emotional harm. And parents need to be free to decide what is correct for
each child's individual needs. I am very resentful of our homeschooling
law here in PA. Why do I need an affidavit to take care of my own child?
Why do I have to maintain records? Nothing sucks the joy out of a
spontaneous learning experience quicker than the cry of "Let's document
I feel as though I have the school looking over my shoulder, and I
sometimes find myself "teaching to the law". And even at the tender age
of 7, Jacky can sense this, our noisiest disagreements have occurred
whenever I lose sight of our goals. She knows how to homeschool better
than I, and can usually steer me back on course. My husband too, seems to
be able to focus on the long term at times better than I.
I think this is because I am faced with the responsibility of keeping the
records and having to deal with the legalities of homeschooling. I
sometimes feel as though the law was drafted to mentally wear us down, to
make us not want to homeschool. I wonder why homeschooling is viewed as a
threat. There aren't enough of us to make that much of a difference
financially. And jobs in education seem pretty secure to me.
I've been doing alot of thinking as to why people seem so willing to
abdicate their rights as parents. I just can't believe that it is a lack
of caring. I don't know anyone that doesn't love their children. And I
can't believe that they're lazy, I see them running their kids from
activity to activity, never having time for themselves.
Is it lack of self-confidence? And if so, where did the lack of
confidence come from? Could it have been instilled by the very
institutions we have been taught to revere? It frightens me to think that
we, who are supposedly the best educated generation ever, can be so
easily lead to believe we cannot handle our own affairs.
I want to be responsible for my own actions and that includes my own
mistakes. My goals are simple, a contented homelife, free from outside
interference, a well-adjusted child, happy with her chosen path in life.
And to die with a smile on my face. I am bewildered as to how I pose any
kind of threat to anyone.
I had better get off my soapbox, I did not intend to make this so long.
Thank-you for putting out such a valuable resource in your magazine. I
greatly appreciate all the diverse views presented.
1755 Fels Rd.
Pennsburg, PA 18073
Letter from Howard Richman
Two pieces in the Sept/Oct issue of HEM leave the impression that
Pennsylvania has one of the worst home education laws in the country
-- Earl Steven's piece and Norma Young's letter. I was very much
involved with the lobbying for our Pennsylvania law from 1984 until
1988, and I even wrote a book about our victory (Story of a Bill), so
I take criticism of our laws somewhat personally. At the time our law
passed there were more homeschoolers being prosecuted in PA than any
other state. Now there are none, and the number of homeschoolers in PA
is going up by about 40% a year.
Generally, the criticisms of the PA law focus on the amount of
documentation that we have to keep to show that our children are
receiving an education. At the beginning of the year we must write
down our goals for the year. During the year we must keep a log of
activities, and collect samples of our children's work. At the end of
the year we must choose a public school teacher, private school
teacher, psychologist, or former teacher (many homeschooling parents
are available ) to write an evaluation of our children's progress.
While our law is clearly cumbersome, it is better than other states in
1. Unlike 48 states, our compulsory school age doesn't begin until 8.
2. Unlike three states (AR, WV, and high school students in NY), our
children don't have to pass tests to keep homeschooling. In Arkansas
if your child scores just eight months below grade level on an
achievement test, he or she can be forced into school.
3. Unlike three states (teaching certificate in MI, college degree in
NM, and college degree if you want to teach in high school in TN) we
don't have to have a college education to teach our children. Note,
however, that although the law in Michigan requires all teachers
(including homeschoolers) to have teaching certificates, few
homeschoolers are being prosecuted due to the good efforts in court of
Clonlara and the HSLDA.
4. Unlike Arkansas, we don't have to get the approval of the special
education bureaucrats to teach handicapped children at home.
5. Unlike 49 states, our children can graduate as homeschoolers and
have their high school diplomas recognized by the state for legal
purposes such as state scholarship grants to college. Our graduates
don't need to be stigmatized by the GED and don't have to pretend to
be graduates of small private schools. Furthermore, the required
written evaluations are helping even those with mediocre SAT scores
get into their college of choice. Similarly, when PA homeschooled
children enroll in public high schools they generally have their
credits accepted. Even the military is accepting homeschoolers'
diplomas in PA.
There are many ways to measure how good or bad a homeschooling law is.
If your only measure is how much documentation it requires, then our
law may be the worst (though many homeschoolers actually find the
requirements to be helpful!). If your measure is whether it allows
homeschooling, then our law is pretty good. If your measure is how
well it helps homeschool graduates succeed in life, then our law may
be the best!
Sincerely, Howard Richman, Editor, PA Homeschoolers, R.D. 2, Box 117,
Kittanning, PA 16201
[Ed. Note: The August, 1992 issue of The Pennsylvania Home Education
Network newsletter contains a letter which states, "The law (Act 169
of 1988) says, 'The following minimum courses in grades nine through
twelve are established as a requirement for graduation in a home
education program.' Does that mean you may omit these courses and
forego graduation? Certainly not. It means that you must comply with
no less than these courses. You may not opt out."
The letter goes on to caution readers about the PA Department of
Education's Basic Education Circular, March 1989, which adds a sentence
not in the law: "School districts are under no obligation to award a
diploma or otherwise acknowledge the completion of a home education
For further information write to The Pennsylvania Home Education
Network, 285 Allegheny St., Meadville, PA 16335.]
From Home Education Magazine (November-December 1992)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
Letter from Karen Leventry
I agree with Earl Stevens that outside descriptions of individual
state law and requirements can be misleading. Unfortunately, so can
glowing reports from within the particular state from people with
vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Yes, I am referring
to the letter from Mr. Howard Richman in which he once again reminds
us that thing could be worse. Please be advised that this excuse has
been used since 1988 to respond to any criticism of any aspect of this
law. A good many of us are also well aware of the fact that Mr.
Richman has written a book about his experiences and do not need to be
continually reminded that this book is in print and can be purchased
from many sources.
I beg to differ with or at least expand upon many of Mr. Richman's
statements. Surely he will agree that, as a home educator in
Pennsylvania, I also have the same right he does to comment about the
law I must proceed under.
First of all, a the beginning of the year, there are a few more things
we must do besides "write down our goals for the year." We must also
submit a notarized affidavit which sets forth: the name of the
supervisor who shall be responsible for the provision of the
instruction; the name and age of each child; the address and
telephone number of the home education site; and that such subjects
as are required by law are offered in the English language. Proof
that the "supervisor" has a high school diploma or its equivalent (the
"stigmatizing" GED?) is also required. (Dust off those fancy diplomas
folks, someone finally created a use for them.)
We must submit an "outline of proposed education objectives by subject
area" (16 areas for elementary grades, 20 areas required for
secondary); "evidence that the child has been immunized," and evidence
that the child "has received the health and medical services required
for students of the child's age or grade level."
But my favorite requirement of the initial affidavit is the
certification I must sign stating that "all adults living in the home
and persons having legal custody of a child or children in a home
education program have not been convicted of (a felony) within five
years of the affidavit." This information is the school district's to
keep, and I have to submit the entire package (not just a list of our
goals) yearly. And while the law doesn't address the matter of how
one should submit the above, I would suggest that one send it by
certified mail, return receipt requested, so it doesn't get "lost."
What we are by law required to keep is "a log, made contemporaneously
with the instruction, which designates by title the reading materials
used, samples of any writings, worksheets, workbooks or creative
materials used or developed by the student." You may notice that the
word "activities" is not mentioned and I'd sure hate to try
substituting a list of my child's activities for the list of reading
materials the law requires.
Quoting Mr. Richman, "our law is clearly cumbersome." In fact, it is
so cumbersome that a book has been written to help home educating
parents comply with it without altering their educational style. I'm
extremely curious to know how many Pennsylvania home educators are
aware of this book's existence?
As for as the many ways in which our law is better than other states,
Yes, at the moment the compulsory school age is still eight, but that
is not guaranteed by the Home Education Act. The fact is that just in
the last year, a measure was reintroduced in the legislature to lower
the compulsory attendance age. This bill is introduced regularly, and
only continued public (not just home educators) pressure prevents its
passage. If it is ever passed you can be sure *all* parents will have
No, our children don't have to pass tests to keep homeschooling.
However one may feel about testing, at least those states that require
yearly testing give some excuse for it. In Pennsylvania, our children
must take tests in grades three, five, and eight for no reason at all,
since the test scores, by law, cannot be used to judge compliance. We
do have the option of taking the state-mandated test or picking from a
state-approved list of tests and buying one, having it proctored by
someone other than the parent of the child taking the test, and
returning the test for scoring. I have chosen the private option and
it cost me about $40 including postage.
Then we come to the glowing paragraph about high school diplomas. I'd
be curious to know just how many school districts are willing to grant
homeschoolers a diploma, given the Department of Education's
admonition that they aren't required to. Yes, I do know of one source
where I can "buy" an "approved" diploma (no, they won't give it to me
for free) *if* I comply with their requirements. Guess who?
As far as the "stigmatizing" GED is concerned, my child can pass the
test at any time, however, he won't receive the actual diploma until
he's eighteen, and at the present time, PHEAA, the body that grants
state loans, will not recognize anything but the actual GED diploma.
Therefore, if your seventeen-year-old (or younger, in some cases)
wants to apply for a grant from the state, even if he's been accepted
to the college of his choice, he's out of luck!
As far as the section concerning evaluators, I would caution
Pennsylvania parents. This is probably your most difficult hurdle.
First of all, it is your right (and in my humble opinion, your
obligation) to choose your evaluator. I could not believe that some
parents actually let the school district choose their evaluator! On
the other hand, you can't just pick anyone. I can't be an evaluator
simply because I'm a homeschooling parent. The law is quite specific
as to the requirements in just who is allowed to perform this task.
It's also no great secret that efforts have been made to require these
people to be "licensed." So far, these efforts have failed, but they
haven't been forgotten. Not to mention the fact that while efforts
are underway at this time to compile a list of qualified evaluators,
at the present time it's every man for himself. Finally, while I'm
sorry for those parents who got a big surprise when they went for
their evaluations, perhaps people considering home education can
learn a lesson. It is *your* responsibility to interview your
prospective evaluator and make sure that your educational styles are
compatible. After all, you're usually paying for this service, and
many times traveling for it, too.
Is home education really growing by 40% a year in Pennsylvania?
That's truly amazing in a state whose law is designed to discourage
all but the most determined individuals. I'm extremely curious as to
how he arrived at that figure, since I have no way of compiling such
These comments don't even begin to cover every aspect of the law, and
there are many other areas in the overall situation that need to be
seriously addressed by all home educating parents in Pennsylvania. In
particular, those of us who are concerned about the "new" DOE
"Outcome-Based-Education" program have noted the amazing similarity of
the Home Education Act and some of the provisions of OBE. The
ramifications of this program lead me to wonder if the days of "our"
law are numbered?
If any Pennsylvania homeschooling parent is interested in learning
more about this, or has any comment on this subject, there is a
state-wide grass-roots parents organization that would like to hear
from you. The Pennsylvania Home Education Network can be contacted at
285 Allegheny St., Meadville, PA 16335. There is no charge for the
information they provide.
For those of you who live in a state that has an even worse (?) law,
you tell me: Would you move (all other things being equal) to
Pennsylvania with all it's "helpful" requirements, or to Maine.
Frankly, one sheet of paper, one envelope, and a 29 cent stamp sounds
pretty good to me.
Sincerely, Karen D. Leventry, Box 191, Summerhill, PA 15958
From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
Letter from Diana Baseman
I am writing in regard to Howard Richman's letter in the Nov/Dec issue
of HEM. Mr. Richman's letter contains a great deal of misinformation
which I would like to correct.
Pennsylvania currently has at least two laws regulating home education
and the possibility of a third. The easiest law to work with is the
private tutoring provision, which requires PA teacher certification
and has very few requirements. Some homeschoolers are also attempting
to homeschool under the private school laws, but it is not clear at
this time that they will be able to do so. The third option, used by
most people, is the home education law Mr. Richman refers to. I
believe it is one of the worst home education laws in the country. In
fact, many homeschoolers contact the Pennsylvania Home Education
Network, of which I am the current coordinator, just to find out if
they can become certified teachers or start private schools because
they feel so burdened by its requirements.
I would also like to question the inclusion of Pennsylvania
Homeschoolers on your list of support groups and organizations because
it is a private, profit-making business of the Richman family, with no
members or advisory board, and because the Richman's take action on
behalf of their business interests while misleading homeschoolers into
believing they're acting on behalf of all homeschoolers. Most
homeschoolers, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, believe PA Homeschoolers
is a legitimate state organization. In order to sell its "services"
(such as testing, evaluations, a newsletter, and high school
diplomas), this business masquerades as a state organization. But
most of these "services" fill "needs" which were created either by 1)
the law which the Richmans were primarily responsible for passing, or
2) by their illegal interpretations of the law. PA Homeschoolers has
created a parallel bureaucracy to that of school and government
officials. Here are some examples:
1. Homeschoolers are advised to provide much more information to
school districts in their portfolios than is legally required, and
they are advised that low test scores may jeopardize their ability to
continue homeschooling. This sets dangerous precedent for other
homeschoolers. Although they are not told outright that they must use
a particular teaching method, it is difficult for most homeschoolers
to figure out how to provide large quantities of paperwork and a daily
log of educational activities without resorting to school methods of
education. The educational viewpoint presented in PA Homeschoolers'
publications is that children must be forced to learn, that they must
be motivated by adults, that they should be involved in competitions,
writing clubs, public speaking, etc., to prove they are being
"properly educated." Other viewpoints have consistently been censored
and the contributors have been told either that their ideas are
negative, illegal, or there was "no room for them."
2. Home education evaluators are encouraged to make their own
regulations of the home education law and not to trust homeschooling
parents to educate their children. I attended a workshop for
evaluators in May of 1991 conducted by Howard Richman in which he said
that inconsistent, scanty homeschooling logs show that parents are
letting education slide. He equates documentation with education.
The law requires only a short statement about appropriate education,
yet the Richmans insist on writing lengthy detailed descriptions of
the child's progress or lack thereof in their evaluations. They
insist they do this so homeschoolers will "get their money's worth."
Many homeschoolers have commented that they would rather pay less and
get a shorter evaluation which would be less likely to set a dangerous
precedent for officials who then ask all homeschoolers to present this
type of information.
I also do home education evaluations. During the passage of the
homeschooling law I told Howard Richman that I was concerned that some
families would fall through the cracks, that they would not be able to
get evaluations done, especially those with lateblooming children or
those who did not know how to speak educationese. He assured me that
he would help those families.
On a number of occasions both Howard and Susan Richman have given me
examples of families they considered to be "not really educating"
their children or unworthy of a good home education evaluation or out
of compliance with the law (because they did not have a daily log).
All of these families were poor, most of the parents did not have many
educational qualifications, some of the families were using Christian
workbook curriculums or books the Richmans did not consider good
enough, and a few had lateblooming children, or lifestyles they did
not approve of.
The law does not require large amounts of documentation "to show that
our children are receiving an education." To put it in plain English,
each student must have a list of objectives, including at least one
for each of the required subjects, a list of book titles used, and two
or more samples of his or her work. Students in grades 3, 5, and 8
must also have standardized test scores. These requirements can
easily be met by any homeschooler. So why is this one of the worst
laws in the country?
It is what some have called a "nuisance law." In other words, it is
meant to discourage people from homeschooling by making all kinds of
requirements which have little to do with actual education and
everything to do with controlling families. It is five and a half
pages long (I wrote a 118 page book, The Pennsylvania Home Education
Handbook, just to help people navigate it), and includes all of the
1. Special education students must have a program approved by a PA
certified special education teacher or a licensed clinical
psychologist. Since these people are part of the educational system
it is almost impossible to find one who is willing to write an
approval letter. I receive phone calls all the time from parents of
special education children who need the required "special education
approval letter." I have not been able to find even one special
education teacher in Pennsylvania who will just write a letter.
2. The law states, "A home education program shall not be considered a
nonpublic school under the provisions of this act." This is usually
interpreted to mean that homeschoolers are part of the public school
system and cannot take advantage of any benefits of private education
and cannot start private schools.
3. A notarized affidavit must be filed. Among other things, it
requires evidence of immunization and medical and dental exams (you
can exempt out of these, but most people don't know that), and a
certification that all adults living in the home have not been
convicted in the last five years of a long line of criminal offenses.
4. Any time a family moves out of their local school district (there
are 501 of them ) they must apply by registered mail to their old
district for a letter of transfer to their new district thirty days
before relocation. If the family is in trouble with the old school
district, they can be denied the letter of transfer.
5. Twelve subjects are required to be taught.
6. All students must be evaluated and must be interviewed by their
7. Evaluator's qualifications are complex. It is not enough to be a
certified teacher. Various types of experience are also required.
Homeschoolers may ask for permission for someone without the
qualifications to be approved to do their evaluations, but school
districts are not required to give approval.
8. Homeschoolers must submit their portfolios as well as their
evaluations to the local school district at the end of the school
year and at any time during the school year that the school
superintendent has a "reasonable belief" that "appropriate education
may not be occurring in the home education program."
9. If the superintendent is not satisfied with the portfolio he may
request additional documentation. If the family does not provide it,
the student must be enrolled in school. If they do provide it, and he
is still not satisfied, a due process procedure begins, which includes
the appointment of "an impartial hearing examiner" by the local school
board. The hearing examiner may decide either to continue the home
education program, to establish a remedial program at home, or to
require enrollment in a public or private school.
10. Any time a home education program is determined to be out of
compliance with the law, the parents are not eligible to homeschool
for twelve months.
Sincerely, Diana Baseman, RD 3, Box 256B, Tarentum, PA 15084
From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
Letter from Ron Baseman
I am writing in response to Howard Richman's letter in the Nov/Dec
issue of HEM and because I would like you to remove Pennsylvania
Homeschoolers from your list of support groups and organizations.
This letter is an edited version of one I sent to Howard and Susan
Richman in September, 1991, in response to a letter Susan Richman
wrote to the Penn HEN, regarding an article I wrote about boycotting
educational experts who exploit homeschoolers. The letter was
prompted by an article by the Richmans about a family that "shouldn't
be allowed to homeschool" (PA Homeschoolers, Fall, 1990), and the
outrageous foolishness about a state sanctioned Richman diploma (more
"valid" than any other) for homeschoolers.
Dear Howard and Susan,
I am frustrated with the attempts of experts to take control of the
do-it-yourself phenomenon of homeschooling. The paranoic concern of
political bodies with the education of the nation's children makes it
relatively easy for those trained in education to achieve mastery over
the efforts of those families who seek to educate themselves. For
about 150 years much, indeed most, of the state budgets throughout the
country have been spent on education. This has created a large class
of people who make a living educating the rest of the population.
There is always a large group of people who make a living teaching,
consulting, or writing textbooks in this country.
To attack the profession of educator is to attack the livelihood of
these people. One cannot blame educators for fighting back when
attacked, and for trying to prove that the work they do is valuable,
essential, and should continue. Perhaps it is, in some contexts.
You, along with many others across the country, have assumed this sort
of role within the homeschooling community. I question the validity
of such a role, I first question whether the educational experts (like
you) play a positive part in our society, and I conclude that in
spite of the great power delegated to them by society, experts have
certainly not achieved a victory over the downward slide of our
civilization and that educators are either themselves responsible for
the social deterioration of today, or powerless to do anything to stop
it. If this is so, then why trust or rely upon them?
And if we do not trust or rely upon educational experts, then why
should they run our lives? Now here you might say that I am
exaggerating the role of educational experts -- after all, their job
is merely to figure out how to teach things to people in better ways,
not to run folk's lives. But much more is taking place, and by
involvement with the content of what is taught, by setting standards
and evaluating other people's efforts, "experts" do indeed run
people's lives, and exaggerate their own roles to the point of
By subtle, indirect, economic and social means you and other
educational experts wield tremendous power over all of us. I call for
a boycott of educational experts who are irresponsible in the way they
use the responsibility entrusted to them by society.
Social responsibility goes hand in hand with doing business.
Companies and individuals can -- and often do -- many things which
make money, and are not, strictly speaking, immoral, and certainly not
illegal, but which are simply "not right."
We all know it is not right to limit the rights and freedoms of
homeschoolers, whether it is done overtly or covertly, knowingly or
unknowingly. If you evaluate a family's children or child, and you
can see that overall progress has been made in the educational
program, then you are morally bound to state in your evaluation that
the requirements for homeschooling has been met. If you do anything
else -- refuse to do the evaluation , for example, no matter what your
reason, then you have taken away that family's rights, and you deserve
to "lose your license," just as an auto mechanic would lose his
license if he refused to give the sticker to a car that passed the
minimum standards for state inspection. I don't want evaluators to be
licensed, but I want them and you to behave, and a consumer boycott is
the only way to enforce proper behavior in this case.
I am sure you understand where I am coming from. Assure me that you
will properly evaluate those who meet the minimum requirements, and
you needn't worry about your business being interfered with by me. In
the various speeches you make about the "role of the evaluator," tell
folks about the social responsibility to protect people's rights under
the law, instead of playing up your imagined responsibility to
convince legislators that we are "homeschooling for excellence." Stop
pretending to be a statewide organization, and admit that you are a
business both to the public and to state government officials. Do
these things -- "clean up you act" -- and you will not be annoyed by
nasty articles calling for boycotts of your business, although the
many others I addressed in my article may still have to deal with my
But as long as you try to manipulate our fellow homeschoolers, as long
as you profit by selling services that people do not really need, as
long as you pass off your profit-making business as a statewide
organization, and as long as you pretend to represent homeschoolers'
interests to legislators and state officials without any mandate to do
so, I will not shut up about it. After all these years, with all the
wonderful work and research the two of you have done, you could be
playing such a beautiful role in changing the way education is
conducted in this country, and instead you are earning a living by
importing the standard of public schools into people's living rooms,
and playing the role of "ghetto police" by trying to keep the other
homeschoolers in line for the state government. How sad!
Nobody's perfect, least of all me, and all is forgiven if only you
will change your attitude. You do not realize the tremendous effect
you have upon the homeschoolers of this state. People all over hang
upon your every word and look to the two of you as the supreme gurus
of homeschooling. As such, you must not be allowed to misbehave in
this fashion. Where are truth and goodness in this sad, sad tale of
compromises, day to day profits, and the scramble for personal
Sincerely, Ron Baseman, RD 3, Box 256B, Tarentum, PA 15084
From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855