Funding key for home-schoolers

The hybrid teaching model that was forced on families by the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be stoking interest among some who may want to make the mix of at-home and at-school learning a permanent thing.

Mandating greater access to at-school learning could put additional strain on a public education system.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are being asked to consider new legislation that would broaden access to school building-based instruction for those who are considered and counted as home-schoolers.

It is a proposition worthy of consideration, but it mustn’t be an unfunded mandate that comes at the detriment of the public education system.

A bill sponsored by state Rep. Jesse Topper, a Republican from Bedford County, would mandate that school districts allow a student who is enrolled in a home-education program to take up to four academic classes within the school district in which the student resides. That would be in addition to access to activities such as music or career/technical programs.

The House Education Committee has embraced the bill, escalating it for further consideration.

This kind of flexibility already is offered to some of Pennsylvania’s 25,000 homeschooled students. The Topper bill would require the access.

The problem rests in school funding. Public education is paid for in Pennsylvania by a combination of property taxes, federal disbursements and a state-funding formula that is based on enrollment.

Home-schooling families pay for the public education funding system through property taxes, either directly if they are property owners or indirectly through their landlords as renters. They also pay income taxes to the state and federal governments. Thus, they contribute, though they don’t enjoy the full benefits of their respective district’s taxpayer-subsidized education.

So, why shouldn’t homeschoolers have more access to at-school offerings?

The answer boils down to money: Much of their school district’s state funding is based on student enrollment, and home-schoolers aren’t considered fully “enrolled.” In other words, home-schooled students do not fully count toward a school district’s official student population, which is a key element in the state’s calculation for state funding allocations to the school district.

So, requiring that school districts offer home-schoolers greater access to at-school learning amounts to a mandate that is not fully funded.

Topper, who was homeschooled, is in pursuit of a reasonable option for state constituents who want the benefits of both systems of learning — at school and at home.

But Rep. MaryLouise Isaacson, a Democrat from Philadelphia, is correct to worry about mandating a move that puts additional strain on a public education system that already struggles to meet needs. Even counting a home-schooler for pro-rated funding is not enough. Half a school day’s worth of education warrants more than halffunding. A student attending four classes a day strains the system arguably as much as a student attending a full day of classes in terms of allocated classroom space, teacher availability and implements of learning such as lab equipment and books.

The answer may rest in a rethink of Pennsylvania’s funding formula. The House should give consideration to a proposition that flips the enrollment status of a student who is taught both at home and at school. Instead of giving such a student the primary designation of home-schooled, that student could be considered an at-school enrolled student who is free to receive the balance of his or her education at home. Full state funding thus would follow the student from Harrisburg to his or her home school district.

The public education system has a lofty goal: to mold critical thinkers and qualified doers — young adults equipped to step up to responsible citizenship upon graduation. Families have a say in determining how best to get that job done. Lawmakers should work to facilitate a partnership between the education system and families so that neither is shortchanged.