"You're Out of Control, Superintendent!"

by Pat Montgomery



Prior to 1988, there were no statutes governing home education in Pennsylvania. Local superintendents used the tutorial part of the public school statutes to gain power to approve or disapprove homeschooling. The criteria used were fairly rigid in one district, less so in another. There were no set standards which applied uniformly to all homeschoolers. The Court declared these statutes unconstitutional and exhorted the state legislature to pass a homeschool law.

The result was Act 169, passed in 1988, which took the right of approval/disapproval away from individual superintendents and replaced it with standards applicable to all. This was the intent of the law; it requires that:

1. Parents file a notarized affidavit with the local superintendent by August 1 of each year. The affidavit names the parent-as-supervisor, (s/he must hold a high school diploma or equivalent), names/ages of children, address, assurance that subjects are taught in English, and evidence of immunization.

2. Parents keep a portfolio of records and materials, including a log showing which reading materials were used, samples of any writing, worksheets, workbooks, or creative materials used. Students in grades 3, 5, and 8 must take a standardized test.

3. The portfolio is reviewed each year by a qualified evaluator who certifies in writing that an appropriate education is occurring. The written evaluation and the portfolio and log, along with the test results (when require) are then given to the local superintendent.

A person is qualified to act as an evaluator if s/he is a licensed psychologist or a state certified teacher, or a non-public school teacher or administrator (with at least two years in public or nonpublic schools).

As director of Clonlara School Home Based Education Program, I have evaluated our Pennsylvania enrollees at no cost to the family - for years. Though I reside in Michigan, I was born and raised in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; I attended Duquesne University, and received my permanent teaching certificate there. I taught in Pennsylvania schools prior to moving out of state.

Bruce and Kim Sickler enrolled their family in Clonlara School Home Based Education Program in 1991. In June of the following year, I traveled my customary circuit around the state; Nathan (age 13) and Sherri (age 11), accompanied by Bruce and Kim, met up with me in York, Pennsylvania. They laid out samples of their year's work: their log, portfolio, and test results for Sherri (grade 5).

I was most impressed. All of the items were dated and neatly assembled in a very well organized fashion - a folder of Nathan's work and a folder of Sherri's. My task of charting student progress was simplified by this and by the accounts of the year's work that Kim and the children spun. Of course I had thoroughly reviewed each child's cumulative file folder back in their Clonlara School files prior to making the trip and I had met with my staff associate who served as the assigned 'support' teacher for the Sicklers, a vital service in our program.

Our face-to-face meeting confirmed all that I had learned about this family. I observed the pride in Sherri's smile because she was double promoted to fifth grade due to her progress this year. I saw the lights turn on in Nathan's eyes when he told me about the computer work he mastered. Both children are capable academicians, soft-spoken and shy at first, but interested and involved as trust builds.

Kim is organized with a capital O. She is a devoted homemaker who is focusing her own noteworthy talents almost exclusively on her children and their homeschooling. It was evident to me that she studies these students as though they were themselves textbooks. She knows how each of them learns, their interests, their strengths, their need. Teacher-Mom, she is.

Their father, Bruce's, area of homeschool expertise lie in developing science projects, history, civics, safety, and educational trips. Involvement was writ large all across the materials; it permeated the interviews with each of the parents and students.

"Well, you are all ready to submit these materials to your superintendent," said I. "He will, no doubt, be just as impressed as I am."

"He will give us trouble," Kim replied softly but firmly. For the following ten minutes she explained, with affirmations from Bruce, Nathan, and Sherri, the history of three years of contact with the school superintendent, Mr. Kresge. He consistently asked for more than he was, by law, allowed. Each year, the family complied with the law; each year, the superintendent tacked on other things he wanted from them. Once it was they they must meet _in person_ with the superintendent to review the children's portfolio; then, they must fill out the _district-generated forms only_; again, they must cite _both days and hours_ of teaching time per year; that their children should be tested _only_ at the local public schools; that they _must be approved by him_ in order to homeschool, and on and on and on.

Mr Kresge made no secret of his opposition to homeschooling and his disagreement with several key provisions in the 1988 law. The area newspaper carried the following account for a February, 1989 school board meeting:
"The Tunkhannock Area School Board approved a policy ... for parents who choose to educate their children at home ... but made it clear that it was doing so only because it is required to under (recent) state law. The board promised to ... 'put more teeth' in the home education requirements, even though its solicitor warned such action may be challenged in the courts.

"We ought to test how far the law will allow us to go and try to create rigid criteria" for those who choose to educate their children at home..., said (Board) Director William Hunt.

Superintendent Kent Kresge noted that parents of 13 students in the district have chosen to educate their children at home rather than send them to school and the district has no say whatsoever over the criteria used to educate seven of the children.
Clearly, he hankered for the times when school officials called the shots on home educating parents without being bound by state law that seemed overly liberal by comparison.

Despite all this, I was sure they'd have no problems. Just consider the legal facts: there is no such thing as "approval" from a school official, a family need not submit to an interview in person, and no materials beyond those specified in Act 169 need be supplied. School officials are bound by the law; home educating parents are bound by the law. Neither has the right to ask for more or less than is mandated by state statutes.

The Sicklers smiled. They knew all of this, but they also knew their superintendent. What additional requirements would he conjure up this year? I suspected that they were _wrong_; any intelligent human being would be able to see the substance and success of their home educating. There was not another single item needed. The requirements were well met. I predicted that, this year, they'd not hear a word from him; they'd see.

Two weeks later Kim Sickler phoned to inform me that Mr. Kresge had indeed come up with yet another of his infamous additional requests. This year, he told the Sicklers, he needed to receive a copy of the Pennsylvania teaching certificate from the person who did the assessment. Me. Mine.

I telephoned Mr. Kresge and asked why he was requesting my certificate. I explained that we serve families all over the state of Pennsylvania and that this request had never been made before. I assured him that I do possess a Pennsylvania teaching certificate and am qualified as an evaluator under the state regulations. I would not have signed the assessment document if this were not the case. Yes, I would put that into writing for him, but no, I would not provide a copy of my teaching certificate. The Sicklers do not have a copy of it, so they cannot provide it, even if they wanted to (they didn't). He spoke admiringly of both Bruce and Kim. He has known them for a lifetime; he knows that the children are receiving a good education. Nice folks, he said; they'd surely want to comply with his request. I asked him what would happen since they could not comply. He said that his reading of the law allowed him to request my teaching certificate, and if the Sicklers didn't produce it, he would charge them with truancy.

In early September, 1992, Mr. Kresge filed truancy charges against the Sicklers. Truant, though they were being schooled at home; they had been at it for six years; they had complied and submitted all of the materials required by Act 169 to Mr. Kresge for three of those years and had never been found wanting. Now he called them 'truant.'

James Clymer, attorney for the Sicklers, contacted Mr. Kresge and remained in contact with him for the next six months. Attorney Clymer's reading of the law assured him that Mr. Kresge's demand for my teaching certificate was out of line; he informed Superintendent Kresge that the only legitimate argument that he could have with the Sicklers home educating was about whether or not their children were receiving an appropriate education. At this point, Mr. Kresge reversed his position and indicated to the attorney that he believed that the children were not receiving an appropriate education because he did not have a copy of my Pennsylvania teaching certificate!

According to Pennsylvania statute, when an official believes that an appropriate education is not taking place, an administrative hearing must be held before an impartial person. The Sicklers insisted that the Tunkhannock Area School Board follow the law for such a hearing; they welcomed the opportunity to show that their children were receiving an exemplary education. This would finally get the superintendent out of their lives.

The "impartial" person chosen to convene the hearing was the public school superintendent from the neighboring school district; he was paid for his services by the Tunkhannock Public Schools. So much for impartiality.

In March, 1993, the hearing took place. The Sicklers were prepared to display evidence that showed the quality of the education their children received. Mr. Kresge and the district lawyer presented his side: Everyone else in the district supplies what I request; why shouldn't the Sicklers? My reading of the law shows that I can demand a teacher's certificate. No, it isn't specifically written anywhere that way, but I believe I have the right. No, there is no deficiency in the materials that the Sicklers present each year, but unless I get a copy of Pat Montgomery's teaching certificate, I cannot agree that appropriate education is taking place. Yes, Dr. Montgomery told me verbally and in writing that she is a state certified teacher (she testified to this under oath here today), but I want the piece of paper. I phoned Harrisburg and asked for Dr. Montgomery's certificate number. They have five Patricia Montgomerys listed.

The Sicklers and their lawyer, James Clymer, presented their side: "I think the issue and the only issue before the hearing examiners is whether appropriate education is occurring in the Sickler's home education program. That's the only thing provided for in the statute. Our position today is that Mr. and Mrs. Sickler have, in fact, complied with each and every element required of them. They are prepared to demonstrate that in every way."

Kim Sickler began with an explanation of the differing ways that Nathan and Sherri learn. She was cut off in mid-sentence by the school district lawyer who said, "She is not qualified as an expert in making determinations as to how her children learn. You have to be an expert." The sizable audience of home educators caught its collective breath, gasping at the display of haughtiness and mindless ignorance.

Mr. Clymer's rejoinder emphasized the sole reason behind the administrative hearing and contrasted that with the pseudo reason that Mr. Kresge tenaciously holds to, namely the matter of control. The philosophy and intent of the law was to return education to the parents where traditionally and constitutionally it should be. Nowhere does it say that they must produce the state certificate of the assessor. Mr. Kresge has stated again and again that there is no deficiency in the education being provided by the parents. The parents do not have, nor could they have ever had, a copy of Dr. Montgomery's certificate. They cannot give what they do not have. Control is the name of the game that Mr. Kresge is playing with the lives of this family. The correspondence the Sicklers have had from Mr. Kresge insists upon his 'approving' their home education; it is because of his repeated attempts at having greater control than the law permits.

It became very clear during the course of the hearing that Mr. Kresge would not have stopped his illegal requests of the family, even if they had been able to give him my teaching certificate. Through his lawyer's questioning, he attempted to discover what grades my certificate covered. If I were certified to teach high school, for example, he'd attempt to bar me from evaluating elementary age students (Sherri Sickler); if I were certified to teach elementary school, he'd argue against my evaluating secondary school students. The law makes absolutely no mention of this subtlety.

"Dr. Montgomery, would you state the reasons you have for not producing a copy of your teaching certificate?" Attorney James Clymer asked.

"...It is not required by state statute, and , on principle, I will not produce for someone - based upon his whim - a document that I do not produce for any other school official in all of Pennsylvania where Clonlara School Home Based Education Program serves families," I replied.

To no one's surprise, the "impartial" hearing officer ruled in favor of Mr. Kresge.

This is second article about the Sickler case that was published in Home Education Magazine (November-December 1994)