Report on Alternative Learning Programs
Written by the Christian Homeschool Network
September 20, 2004
The following report outlines our research on issues regarding the alternative learning programs (ALP) that market to homeschool students. Many education officials refer to these programs as Parent Partnership Programs (PPP). We worked with several leaders in the homeschool community to compile this report. Often times these programs are confused as homeschooling. State laws and rules define ALPs as public school programs, so therefore the students enrolled in them are public school students not homeschool students.
WAC 392-121-182 An alternative learning experience is an individualized course of study for a student who is not home-based pursuant to RCW 28A.225.010(4), a private school student pursuant to RCW 28A.225.010 (1)(a), or an adult education student.
Alternative learning programs have existed in Washington State for the past thirty years. Their original intention was to reduce high school drop-out rates, by providing a non-traditional learning environment. In 1994 the state rule WAC 392-121-182 was changed to allow K-8 to be included in alternative learning programs, and reduce on-site time. Note: There is no state law that authorizes this new model of education. Several non-traditional alternative learning programs began at this time. Most of these programs targeted homeschool families for a couple of reasons. First, homeschool families brought new money into the school district. This helped to provide needed funding for the program. Second, by allowing enrollment of children in K-8, parental supervision would be needed for off-site learning. Homeschool parents already knew how to teach at home, and could provide this supervision.
As homeschooling parents we understand the power that a parent can have upon the educational success of their children. We respect a parent’s right to choose the best educational option for their children. We believe that with equal access to public school programs, which current state law allows, and services provided in the private sector; all of the educational needs of a homeschool family can be met.
Our concern is that these programs are an attempt to set up government-regulated homeschooling. This would not be in the best financial interest of the state or for homeschool families. There are an estimated 30,000 children homeschooled in Washington State. This would make homeschoolers the second or third largest school district, with a cost of about 200-230 million dollars. Where would this money come from; an increase in taxes, or reduce per-student allocations? Homeschoolers fought to be free from government control and regulations. Homeschoolers desired to educate their children independently of the state-their success speaks for itself.
In a recent survey by the State Auditor’s Office they estimate there to be 22,000 students enrolled in ALPs, accounting for nearly 90 million dollars in basic education funding. Below is a synopsis of our main concerns with the programs.
Issue #1 PPPs are a new model of education with no direct approval by the legislature, and are often confused as homeschooling.
Issue #2 Public Schools should not receive full funding for part-time services. They exploit homeschoolers and homeschooling.
Issue #3 PPP programs are not fiscally responsible, and are a misuse of taxpayer monies. Many sites violate current laws and rules.
Explanation of Issues
Issue #1 PPPs are a new model of education with no direct approval by the legislature, and are often confused as homeschooling.
A. Washington State law allows three types of education: public, private, and home-based (homeschooling). Note homeschooling is a nationally recognized term that refers to parents who are teaching their children at home independent of the government school system.
PPP' market themselves as homeschool programs. In a PPP the local public school offering the program is in direct supervision of the child’s education. This is contrary to the homeschool law, or any other homeschool law in the United States, which gives that authority to the parent/guardian.
This didn’t stop the PPP site in Seattle called the Seattle Resource Center from putting these comments in their brochure. Families in Washington State who choose to “homeschool” must do so under one of three sets of laws (RCW’s) or regulations (WAC’s). This pamphlet is intended to provide a brief overview of these three legal options for parents who choose to “homeschool”. They list these three options as; public school ALP, or home-based, or private school extension programs. According to Washington State law RCW 28A.225 there are only two options for homeschooling, independent under the home-based instruction law, or under a private school extension program.
· Many programs use homeschooling names; such as; Homelink, Home Education Exchange, At Home in Northshore, Homeschool Program, etc
· Most PPP's use the term homeschooling in their documentation.
· Some school districts tell homeschooling parents that they need to enroll in the PPP to homeschool.
· Some school districts have homeschoolers file their declaration-of-intent to homeschool at the PPP. This is in violation of the homeschool law, which states homeschoolers are to file with the local school superintendent (Battleground, Edmonds, Everett, Evergreen, Federal Way, Highline, Northshore, Puyallup, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Tahoma).
· Most school districts use information from the declaration-of-intent to homeschool form to market their PPP program. This is in violation of privacy laws.
· Some school districts make homeschoolers enroll at the PPP site for “Running Start” instead of their local high school (Arlington, Tacoma).
· Most school districts refer new homeschoolers to the PPP, not to independent homeschool groups. Many school district contacts for homeschoolers is not the local school district but a PPP site.
This was also the observation of the State Auditor’s Office (SAO); in their recent report dated August 27, 2004 they made the following observation. Many districts operating parent-partner programs do not understand the difference between alternative learning experience (state funded education) and home-based instruction in which the students are not in the public school system and receive no state funding. We found through discussions with district staff that some school districts refer to state laws that govern home-based education when discussing their parent-partnered programs.
There is no doubt among Washington state homeschool leaders that based on the above information the education establishment is forming government-controlled homeschooling programs. Since 1984, the National Educators Association (NEA) has passed a resolution stating, homeschooling should only be allowed if supervised by a state certified teacher, use a state approved curriculum, and state testing. In a recent survey of one thousand school superintendents, 91% did not think that homeschooling could offer a complete education. Along with the above examples and these words from education leaders we have valid reason for our concerns.
B. They have no legislative authority to operate this model of education.
1. In the 1999 session HB2190 (sponsors Talcott, Quall, Dunshee, Haigh, Lantz) was submitted to the House Education Committee, it received a public hearing, no one testified for the bill, three testified against the bill (all three were homeschool leaders), and the bill died in committee.
A similar bill was introduced in the 2004 session, HB2704, again sponsored by Talcott. This bill was turned into a striker amendment, which was passed. The amendment authorized funds for JLARC and the state auditor’s office to conduct an investigation and study of the programs. Their final report is due July 1, 2006.
If these programs had statutory approval than why was this bill introduced?
2. In 1999 a state senator requested an informal opinion from the state attorney general’s office, on the legislative authority that supports WAC 392-121-182. The state attorney general found none that spoke directly to the programs. RCW 28A.150.250,.260,and .290. These statutes allow for the state superintendent to define an FTE, but does not specifically allow for these types of programs.
Note: We found RCW 28A.150.220, which allows school districts to provide alternative learning experiences for grades nine to twelve. Note: Alternative Learning Experiences have historically been for at-risk students. This does not fit the PPP model.
Issue #2 Public Schools should not receive full time funding for part-time services. They exploit homeschoolers who seek part-time services.
WAC 392-121-182 allows for two models; one hour one-on-one with a teacher, or five hours on-site. The parent/child submits a weekly time sheet for the other off-site hours. This is considered the total hours and the program can claim this student as a full time student. The school district claims the hours that the child or the parent conducted learning or instructions off-site.
By simply setting up a student learning plan, curriculum, assessing/ testing, and weekly one-on-one meetings, a school district can actually claim full funding for a student for whom they may have done no direct teaching, or who had attended no on-site classes.
State law requires students to attend 180 days of school and a total of 1000 hours (RCW 28A.150.220). ALP’s allow the school district to claim full funding for a student who has been on-site less than 40 hours. Some do not even require the student to be on site. The teacher comes to the child’s home (Sedro-Wooley, Methow). Some operate under distance learning such as the Internet Academy in Federal Way, which does not require any on-site attendance.
Issue #3 PPP programs are not fiscally responsible, and are a misuse of taxpayer monies. Many sites violate current laws and rules.
1. The Arlington school district pays $125,000 in rent to a church for 300 students, meeting 4-5 days a week (the school also pays utilities). A private co-op with 300 students three days a week pays $10,000 for a building use fee.
2. The national average a parent pays for homeschooling is $450.00 per child. Compare this to an ALP site, which receives an estimated $4200 from the state.
For Example- A homeschool family enrolled their two elementary age children in a private co-op for art, science, and music. They paid about $1200 in teacher fees and books for the school year. If this family would have enrolled their children in the Edmonds Cyberschool, they would have had access to the same teachers and classes, and received $800 in stipend money. The school district would have received an estimated $8400 in state funds.
The following are known violations to WAC 392-121 and other state laws.
$ ALPs are not for homeschool students, but almost all sites market them as homeschool programs. A current public school student is not eligible to join in many sites. Most sites require that a parent has homeschooled 90 days (Arlington, Battleground, Bellevue, Edmonds, Kennewick Monroe ). They do this so they can bring in new money to the school district.
$ Programs are not for part-time students. The WAC for Alternative Learning Programs only allows for full time enrollment. At least twelve sites allow part-time/ancillary services. Two sites have as many as 200 to 500 students enrolled part-time/ancillary (Highline, Northshore). The following school districts have PPP sites that allow part-time enrollment: Aberdeen, Battleground, Chewelah, Clarkston, Elma, Federal Way, Franklin Pierce, Highline, Northshore, Port Angeles, Seattle, South Kitsap, Spokane.
$ Many use or buy curriculum not approved by the school district, which is in violation of RCW 28A.320.230 (Arlington, Bellevue, Edmond, Everett, Lake Washington, Mary Walker, Monroe, Renton, Seattle, Sequim, Shoreline, Spokane, Walla Walla, Wenatchee). They also pay for private teachers, tutors, and co-op fees, is this curriculum approved?
The State Auditor’s Office (SAO) began an investigation of ALP's in 2003. In their final report dated August 27, 2004 they found a high level of non-compliance. In the course of our review, we determined that due to a lack of documentation, we could not determine whether the districts were eligible to receive funding for about 34 percent of the students they reported to as being in the parent partner or traditional programs. With regard to Internet programs, we found a lack of documentation for 90 percent of the students.
The SAO estimates there are 22,000 in ALP programs claiming $90 million in basic education funds. A 34 percent non-compliance equals $35-$40 million dollars! The Internet Academy in Federal Way is one of the biggest distance learning sites. They claimed 287.7 FTE’s and $1.2 million in basic education funds. The SAO reports the school district did not have sufficient documentation for 90 percent of the reported FTE’s- that is over $1 million in valuable education funds!
In an ALP the staff and parent/ student develop a student learning plan and meet at intervals to check progress. According to the SAO report here are some results of this requirement:
40% of the sites did not have a beginning or ending date
60% did not have an initial 20 day progress review
56% did not have a 45-day progress review
60% did not have documentation of one-on-one meeting with staff
48% did not have documentation of in-class hours
52% did not have documentation of out-of class hours
Any educator is aware of the importance of developing a learning plan and making sure the plan is on track and the student is making progress. For some reason the ALP sites and their staff did not consider this to be important. Thankfully the SAO does. All of the sites that were cited have 30 days to fix the funding discrepancies. We will add this information when it becomes available.
Conclusion
We thought it best to conclude this report with an example.
What is the difference between a homeschool parent who a) enrolls their child in the local high school to take Chemistry and Algebra classes, or b) enrolls in a PPP for the same classes?
Parent “a”- is still under homeschool laws and maintains their freedoms and flexibility. They have access to take classes from the public school at no charge. The school district receives funding for the hours the child is on-site, as a part-time student.
Parent “b”- is no longer under homeschool laws, they lose their independence and must adhere to oversight by the public school. The parent has access to classes at no-charge and also receives a stipend of $600. The school district is able to claim this student for full-time funds.
As you can see the difference is great. In both situations the parent has access to classes or services they desire. Except in situation “b” where the parent must surrender their homeschool rights to get services. Many are willing to do this to get the stipend money or other incentives. In the end, the homeschooler in PPP program lose their freedom, and the school district receives full funding instead of partial.
This loophole needs to be closed. These programs are a cash cow for the school districts.
The whole funding model of these programs needs to be changed. Legislation must be passed that will prohibit their questionable practices, increase accountability, prohibit allotment/stipend money, and prohibit the confusion between homeschooling and these programs.
Say “NO” to government funded or controlled homeschooling.
Sources
WAC 392-121-182 Alternative Learning Experience Requirements
RCW 28A.630.885 Basic Education Act
RCW 28A.200 Home-Based Instruction Law
RCW 28A.225 Compulsory Attendance Law
RCW 28A.150-350 Part-time Attendance
Report on, Alternative Learning Experience Programs, Office of Superintendent of Public instruction, April 1999
National Education Association Resolutions, from website at www.nea.com
Letter to state Senator from Attorney General’s Office, June 11,1998, James Pharris, Sr. Assistant Attorney General.
Seattle Times School guide elementary, 2004, homeschooling listed under public school
State Auditor’s Office, Washington’s K-12 Education System Report, August 27, 2004
The Problem with Home-based Charter Schools, HSLDA, Farris and Smith, 6/26/2002
Charter Schools, Home School Court Reporter, Klicka, Jan./Feb. 2002
Look Before you Leap, Home School Court Reporter, Hanson, Jan./Feb. 2002
Homeschooling in Public School; A Dangerous Oxymoron, Home Educator Magazine, Kasemen, January 1999
Homeschoolers, Is Our Good Name for Sale? Home Education Magazine ,Kasemen, 2000,
Other Sources
Citizens United for Responsible Government, CURE, www.curewashington.org
Home School Legal defense Association, HSLDA, www.hslda.org
This report is property of the Christian Homeschool Network of Washington, permission to copy and distribute if copied in its entirety. www.chnow.org or e-mail chnow@msn.com CHN is a grassroots organization. This report was written for informational purposes only, with the most current information available at the time.