PA co-ops must be closed down because of new law

[Garga]

Our co-op is now cancelled because of a new Pennsylvania law. Here's a link to the law: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2014&sessInd=0&act=153

 

I don't understand what I'm reading when I try to skim through that law. Our co-op leaders contacted HSLDA to try to understand the law and here's the little bit of information they passed on to the group:

 

"A new PA law has gone in effect Dec 31,2014. HB 435/Act 153. Though this law says some volunteer groups have till July 1, 2015 to comply, we fall under the Dec 31, 2014 date since we collect a fee for classes. (NOTE: the fee we collect is $25 per family)

 

All people in contact with children must have provide certification of background clearances that include FBI, State Police and DPW's Child Abuse Registry in the same manner as school employees. This must be renewed every 36 months. If you have moved into PA within the last 10 years you will also need to pay to have finger printing done.

 

To continue with co-op, every parent would need to pay for a background check by Feb co-op.

We called HSLDA and found out the details about this law.

This law effects co-op at this time but will effect all our activities come July 1.

 

Since this is a new law, we are still trying to find out how it applies to homeschool groups. At this point, HSLDA states that we would not be following the law if we have our co-op classes."

 

Does anyone on the hive know about this? Our co-op isn't a strict academic co-op. It's low key and the point is to teach some subjects that are difficult to teach at home. We have a gym class and a speech class. The moms (and dads) are hanging around in every single class. There aren't any "teachers" alone with kids. The parents are always there. These are just a group of people, a number of them personal friends, who get the kids together once a month to take turns teaching the kids as a group.

 

In my mind this law is the same as making every parent who takes their kids to a playground have to have a background check before they can be at the playground. To me, it's the exact same thing. Our co-op is not a school. It's private citizens getting together to hang out together and chit-chat and take turns teaching the kids something.

 

I wonder if we ditched the $25 per family fee if this wouldn't apply to us?

 

Has anyone else heard of this new law? What are your co-ops doing? If you have a co-op and haven't heard of it, you might want to research it.

 

ETA: I think my title was goofy. I must have been more riled up than I thought when I wrote it. I mean, we don't *have* to shut down the co-op. We could all get our background checks and then keep trucking. Our leaders have chosen to shut us down before our Feb meeting but we could all get checks and start right back up.

[umsami]

I think it's part of the new laws as a result of the Penn State child abuse scandal.

 

There may be some legal wiggle room, but you'd have to ask a lawyer.  Because the parents stick around (as far as I can tell), I'm not sure if it counts because you're not leaving the kids alone with a strange "teacher"/adult...but honestly, you probably need to hang on some PA-specific homeschooling boards and see how they are handling it.

[OneStepAtATime]

:ohmy:

 

Goodness, Garga, we'd be in deep trouble here.  The homeschooling groups are tiny here, and struggling to keep enough members as it is.  I cannot imagine what would happen if this took effect in our area of Texas.  That seems incredibly excessive.  I am so sad for the PA homeschoolers.  Wow.

 

Besides HSLDA is there anyone that actually KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the details of how this law works?  Someone who could truly help homeschoolers understand what is happening?

 

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:  

 

 

[Garga]

:ohmy:

 

Goodness, Garga, we'd be in deep trouble here. The homeschooling groups are tiny here, and struggling to keep enough members as it is. I cannot imagine what would happen if this took effect in our area of Texas. That seems incredibly excessive. I am so sad for the PA homeschoolers. Wow.

 

Besides HSLDA is there anyone that actually KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the details of how this law works? Someone who could truly help homeschoolers understand what is happening?

 

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

That's why I'm posting. :( To see if anyone knows what all this means.

 

I'm very confused about how this sort of law applies to small co-ops of parents who want to work together. It seems like it goes against our rights of assembly, but maybe I'm being silly by saying that.

 

My gut feeling is that homeschool co-ops are caught up in this by mistake. It seems to be so unreasonable, like maybe when the law was made no one was thinking about homeschool co-ops and due to some poor wording in the law it somehow applies to us but wasn't meant to. It just seems so over the top.

 

I was hoping someone would come online and tell me how my OP is all wrong and I'm misunderstanding everything. I hope that happens! I'd rather look a little silly for posting this incorrectly than have this law really be applicable to us.

[Garga]

Our co-op is about 5 miles from the MD border. Perhaps our co-op could find a place to meet in MD instead and not have to worry about this.

[Garga]

...but honestly, you probably need to hang on some PA-specific homeschooling boards and see how they are handling it.

I've never thought to look for PA-specific homeschooling boards. Thanks for the idea.

[Tap]

What if you don't charge to participate? I assume that each familt is paying 25 for things like space rental and supplies. So instead of collecting fees, have each person write a check made out to the facility. For supplies have each family provide their own. You could go as far as putting supply kits together and then have someone 'sell' them to the members under a different business name. It could even be a project for a couple of kids to set up a business just to make the kits.

 

You can legally assemble you just can't charge a fee to partipate in the assembly.

[happypamama]

Our co-op is about 5 miles from the MD border. Perhaps our co-op could find a place to meet in MD instead and not have to worry about this.

As much as I would love that, I wonder if it would actually help, because the leaders and teachers are PA residents and homeschool under the PA law. However, I will pass that along to our President and have her include that question when she talks to people who may have more insights. Good idea!

 

It is so absolutely ridiculous to pass this law because of the Penn State abuse scandal. Sandusky was a foster parent (and an adoptive one, I believe) and had worked with kids extensively. He'd have to have passed multiple clearances. Obviously, those were effective. (Ending the sarcasm now.). If the lawmakers really they felt they must do something, why not make laws like, "Two unrelated adults must be present with every child at all times," or other things that might actually be useful in preventing abuse?

 

You know what else is really frustrating about this? That it comes right on the heels of really great homeschooling legislation here. October 31's new law went a long way toward making people more comfortable with homeschooling in PA, and this is an annoying slap in the face.

[Murphy101]

Wow. So like a mommy and me baby "class" would have to go through all this too? That's whacked.

 

Yet another law that is ineffective in its goal but a pita for law abiding folks.

[school17777]

I glanced through the link, but I don't see anything that indicates this applies to co-ops. Can you point me to the section that you think applies to co-ops?

[Guest]

We are in MD, but we all have to have background checks. My impression is that the churches where we meet require it, not a state law, but the outcome is the same. All parents paid a $12 fee last year.

[imagine.more]

I'll be keeping an eye on this, we just started a co-op this year near Altoona and it's been going so well! We did have everyone turn in a basic clearance but not all of the ones listed above. We also set it up so there are 2 adults in every room at all times, which I think goes a lot further towards safety because as in the case that started this law most abusers don't have a record of their abuse legally. 

 

Ugh, yay, more fun involved in homeschooling in PA. I think we can avoid this since we don't technically have parents pay (they make a free will donation which covers the insurance for the church space we use and allows us to do a few more fun classes that need more materials and to maintain our website for the future). 

[Garga]

I glanced through the link, but I don't see anything that indicates this applies to co-ops. Can you point me to the section that you think applies to co-ops?

I don't see anything like that either, but I'm not sure how to read all of the law. There are references to subsections of other laws and maybe that's where it applies to us? I keep trying to read the law, but after a few sentences my brain wanders away and won't focus on what I'm reading.

 

I would have totally thought my co-op leaders were mistaken except that they contacted HSLDA and asked them about it. Was HSLDA wrong in what they told the co-op leaders?

[creekland]

I would think if the parents are sticking around, it would be nothing more than a playdate.

 

If the parents are dropping off kids with an individual teaching them, I would think background checks would (help) keep everyone safe.  

 

If there are multiple adults with the kids - I'm not sure.

 

Can you check with the local congressman (PA of course, not federal)?

[Garga]

I added this to my op:

 

I think my title was goofy. I must have been more riled up than I thought when I wrote it. I mean, we don't *have* to shut down the co-op. We could all get our background checks and then keep trucking. Our leaders have chosen to shut us down before our Feb meeting but we could all get checks and start right back up.

[Mergath]

I don't see anything like that either, but I'm not sure how to read all of the law. There references to subsections of other laws and maybe that's where it applies to us? I keep trying to read the law, but after a few sentences my brain wanders away and won't focus on what I'm reading.

 

I would have totally thought my co-op leaders were mistaken except that they contacted HSLDA and asked them about it. Was HSLDA wrong in what they told the co-op leaders?

 

I'm no lawyer, but from what I can see, it looks as if a law that used to only apply to paid employees now applies to all volunteers who will be caring for children in some way while they're volunteering.  I think you might be able to get around it if every parent stayed with their own kids during the class, as the person teaching then wouldn't actually be supervising the children in any way, just giving a talk.  The law says it applies to volunteers responsible for the welfare of or having direct contact with children, so if the parents are there, you aren't responsible for their welfare, and you could try to make the argument that you aren't having direct contact with them.  It's iffy, though.  It's a pretty broad law, from what I can see.  Whoever is in charge will be guilty of a misdemeanor if they get caught not complying, so it might be easier just to do the background checks.

[Mergath]

Here's the most relevant part, for those who don't want to wade through the legalese:

 

Section 10.  Section 6344.2 of Title 23, amended May 14, 2014 (P.L.653, No.45), is amended to read:

§ 6344.2.  [information relating to other persons] Volunteershaving contact with children.

(a)  Applicability.--[This section applies to prospective employees applying to engage in occupations with a significant likelihood of regular contact with children, in the form of care, guidance, supervision or training. Such persons include social service workers, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, members of the clergy, counselors, librarians and doctors.] This section applies to an adult applying for an unpaid position as a volunteer responsible for the welfare of a child or having direct contact with children.

[(a.1)  School employees.--This section shall apply to school employees as follows:

(1)  School employees governed by the provisions of the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, shall be subject to the provisions of section 111 of the Public School Code of 1949, except that this section shall apply with regard to the information required under section 6344(b)(2) (relating to information relating to prospective child-care personnel).

(2)  School employees not governed by the provisions of the Public School Code of 1949 shall be governed by this section.]

(b)  Investigation.--Employers, administrators [or],supervisors or other persons responsible for [employment decisions or] selection of volunteers shall require an applicant to submit to all requirements set forth in section 6344(b) (relating to employees having contact with children; adoptive and foster parents) except as provided in subsection (b.1). An employer, administrator, supervisor or other person responsible for [employment decisions or] selection of volunteers regarding an applicable prospective [employee or] volunteer under this section that intentionally fails to require the submissions before hiring that individual commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(b.1)  Exception.--

(1)  A person responsible for the selection of volunteers under this chapter shall require an applicable prospective volunteer prior to the commencement of service to submit only the information under section 6344(b)(1) and (2), if the following apply:

(i)  The position the prospective volunteer is applying for is unpaid.

(ii)  The prospective volunteer has been a resident of this Commonwealth during the entirety of the previous ten-year period.

(iii)  The prospective volunteer swears or affirms in writing that the prospective volunteer is not disqualified from service pursuant to section 6344© or   has not been convicted of an offense similar in nature to those crimes listed in section 6344© under the laws or former laws of the United States or one of its territories or possessions, another state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a foreign nation, or under a former law of this Commonwealth.

(2)  If the information obtained pursuant to section 6344(b) reveals that the prospective volunteer applicant is disqualified from service pursuant to section 6344©, the applicant shall not be approved for service.

©  Grounds for denial.--Each [applicant] prospective volunteer shall be subject to the requirements of section 6344©.

(d)  Departmental treatment of information.--Information provided and compiled under this section by the department shall be confidential and shall not be subject to the act of [June 21, 1957 (P.L.390, No.212), referred to as the Right-to-Know Law]February 14, 2008 (P.L.6, No.3), known as the Right-to-Know Law. This information shall not be released except as permitted by the department through regulation. The department may charge a fee to conduct a certification as required by section 6344(b)(2) in accordance with the provisions of section 6344(h). The department shall promulgate regulations necessary to carry out this subsection.

(e)  Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an organization from requiring additional information as part of the clearance process for volunteers who are responsible for the welfare of a child or have direct contact with children.

(f)  Provisional clearances for volunteers.--Employers, administrators, supervisors or other persons responsible for selection of volunteers may allow a volunteer to serve on a provisional basis for a single period not to exceed 30 days if the volunteer is in compliance with the clearance standards under the law of the jurisdiction where the volunteer is domiciled.

Section 11.  Title 23 is amended by adding sections to read:

§ 6344.3.  Continued employment or participation in program, activity or service.

[happypamama]

I added this to my op:

 

I think my title was goofy. I must have been more riled up than I thought when I wrote it. I mean, we don't *have* to shut down the co-op. We could all get our background checks and then keep trucking. Our leaders have chosen to shut us down before our Feb meeting but we could all get checks and start right back up.

Yes, this is true. We have chosen to shut it down because of time, while we figure out exactly what needs to be done. The fingerprinting, which is federal, applies to at least a few of our teachers, so we need to figure out how to get that done and how much it'll cost.

[chiguirre]

Probably a lot of the parents have already had background checks if they volunteer with other organizations. I know that BSA, GSA, Virtus (the RC Church's child protection program), the YMCA and Special Olympics all do background checks on volunteers. I'd at least look at the possibility that you may have enough trained volunteers to keep going while the other parents do the background check.

[happypamama]

Probably a lot of the parents have already had background checks if they volunteer with other organizations. I know that BSA, GSA, Virtus (the RC Church's child protection program), the YMCA and Special Olympics all do background checks on volunteers. I'd at least look at the possibility that you may have enough trained volunteers to keep going while the other parents do the background check.

I will mention this to our President too, although I suspect it won't be enough in our case because we have just barely enough coverage for help as it is, and eliminating even a few of our teachers would leave us short-handed. I know for a fact that it eliminates at least one of our teachers who was signed up for this semester, but if it ends up applying to just a few teachers, maybe we can make it work.

 

I wonder if it applies to parents who aren't teaching or supervising, but who are on the premises because their kids are in attendance. Could we shift things so that our parents who are in the process of complying are just there but not in any sort of official role? Hmm, good thought.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

Probably a lot of the parents have already had background checks if they volunteer with other organizations. I know that BSA, GSA, Virtus (the RC Church's child protection program), the YMCA and Special Olympics all do background checks on volunteers. I'd at least look at the possibility that you may have enough trained volunteers to keep going while the other parents do the background check.

 

 

In my experience, each organization has to have their own.  I've had to have fingerprints and a background check for the Army, the community center swim team, USA Swimming, Girl Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, and the high school swim team.  None of them could accept the reports done for anyone else.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Our co-op is now cancelled because of a new Pennsylvania law. Here's a link to the law: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2014&sessInd=0&act=153

 

I don't understand what I'm reading when I try to skim through that law. Our co-op leaders contacted HSLDA to try to understand the law and here's the little bit of information they passed on to the group:

 

"A new PA law has gone in effect Dec 31,2014. HB 435/Act 153. Though this law says some volunteer groups have till July 1, 2015 to comply, we fall under the Dec 31, 2014 date since we collect a fee for classes. (NOTE: the fee we collect is $25 per family)

 

All people in contact with children must have provide certification of background clearances that include FBI, State Police and DPW's Child Abuse Registry in the same manner as school employees. This must be renewed every 36 months. If you have moved into PA within the last 10 years you will also need to pay to have finger printing done.

 

To continue with co-op, every parent would need to pay for a background check by Feb co-op.

We called HSLDA and found out the details about this law.

This law effects co-op at this time but will effect all our activities come July 1.

 

Since this is a new law, we are still trying to find out how it applies to homeschool groups. At this point, HSLDA states that we would not be following the law if we have our co-op classes."

 

Does anyone on the hive know about this? Our co-op isn't a strict academic co-op. It's low key and the point is to teach some subjects that are difficult to teach at home. We have a gym class and a speech class. The moms (and dads) are hanging around in every single class. There aren't any "teachers" alone with kids. The parents are always there. These are just a group of people, a number of them personal friends, who get the kids together once a month to take turns teaching the kids as a group.

 

In my mind this law is the same as making every parent who takes their kids to a playground have to have a background check before they can be at the playground. To me, it's the exact same thing. Our co-op is not a school. It's private citizens getting together to hang out together and chit-chat and take turns teaching the kids something.

 

I wonder if we ditched the $25 per family fee if this wouldn't apply to us?

 

Has anyone else heard of this new law? What are your co-ops doing? If you have a co-op and haven't heard of it, you might want to research it.

 

ETA: I think my title was goofy. I must have been more riled up than I thought when I wrote it. I mean, we don't *have* to shut down the co-op. We could all get our background checks and then keep trucking. Our leaders have chosen to shut us down before our Feb meeting but we could all get checks and start right back up.

Ugh.  That's too bad that PA is screwing with home-schoolers like that.

 

Most co-ops have multiple parents present at any given time, rendering unnecessary the same kind of checks that should occur for students alone with an unrelated teacher. 

 

What if you don't call it a co-op, but merely a "parent's group" and don't charge a fee? 

 

Going to read your link now, to see if that will work. 

[Maryalice]

This new law is very confusing for many, many groups.  Here is link to an article that illuminated some other groups' concerns:

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/new-law-proving-confusing-and-costly-to-youth-leaders/article_00d43692-823b-11e4-8920-3360f20b7dac.html

 

"The main sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Dan Moul, acknowledged the ambiguity regarding who must meet the requirements. The Republican from Adams County said the law may warrant some clarification.

He said only those in a "supervisory position that could be left alone to work one-on-one with children" must get the clearances.

But that language does not appear in the law, causing headaches for those trying to follow the rules."

HUH? So the main sponsor of the legislation doesn't even know how it applies.

I am looking into it and collecting info from various sources.

 

maryalice

 

[TranquilMind]

That's why I'm posting. :( To see if anyone knows what all this means.

 

I'm very confused about how this sort of law applies to small co-ops of parents who want to work together. It seems like it goes against our rights of assembly, but maybe I'm being silly by saying that.

 

My gut feeling is that homeschool co-ops are caught up in this by mistake. It seems to be so unreasonable, like maybe when the law was made no one was thinking about homeschool co-ops and due to some poor wording in the law it somehow applies to us but wasn't meant to. It just seems so over the top.

 

I was hoping someone would come online and tell me how my OP is all wrong and I'm misunderstanding everything. I hope that happens! I'd rather look a little silly for posting this incorrectly than have this law really be applicable to us.

I am not seeing where it does apply to you. You are not a school.  You do not function as a school.  You are not school employees (not covered by Public school act),foster care parents, or child care providers.  You are merely a parent group who meets together WITH your children. 

 

Certainly you are volunteers, but you don't seem to meet the criteria of child care workers, employees,  or school personnel.  What is next...parents? 

What provisions are concerning you? Maybe I missed something. 

[happypamama]

This new law is very confusing for many, many groups. Here is link to an article that illuminated some other groups' concerns:

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/new-law-proving-confusing-and-costly-to-youth-leaders/article_00d43692-823b-11e4-8920-3360f20b7dac.html

 

"The main sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Dan Moul, acknowledged the ambiguity regarding who must meet the requirements. The Republican from Adams County said the law may warrant some clarification.

He said only those in a "supervisory position that could be left alone to work one-on-one with children" must get the clearances.

But that language does not appear in the law, causing headaches for those trying to follow the rules."

HUH? So the main sponsor of the legislation doesn't even know how it applies.

I am looking into it and collecting info from various sources.

maryalice

Oh, that is so beyond ridiculous. But Maryalice, as always, thank you for your continued efforts and involvement. I appreciate you bringing this article to our attention.

[Maryalice]

In my experience, each organization has to have their own.  I've had to have fingerprints and a background check for the Army, the community center swim team, USA Swimming, Girl Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, and the high school swim team.  None of them could accept the reports done for anyone else.

fyi -

 

If I am reading this right, it appears that IF this law applies (I'm still not convinced that a co-op program's parents are volunteers...but...I am still looking into that), that volunteers may transfer certification.  So, for example, I got my clearances from church, but IF I need certifications for another volunteer organization, they would transfer.  If it is NOT volunteer, then they do not transfer.  Well, if that isn't the most redundant bureaucratic paperwork.

 

(My opinion on Harrisburg - Stupid is, stupid does....)

 

 

(f)  Transfer.--

(1)  Any person who has obtained the information required under this chapter may transfer or provide services to another subsidiary or branch established and supervised by the same organization, or serve in a volunteer capacity for any program, service or activity, during the length of time the person's certification is current pursuant to section 6344.4 (relating to certification compliance).

 

(2)  Any employee who begins employment with a new agency, institution, organization or other entity that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or control of children shall be required to obtain a new certification of compliance as required by this chapter.

 

[TranquilMind]

This new law is very confusing for many, many groups.  Here is link to an article that illuminated some other groups' concerns:

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/new-law-proving-confusing-and-costly-to-youth-leaders/article_00d43692-823b-11e4-8920-3360f20b7dac.html

 

"The main sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Dan Moul, acknowledged the ambiguity regarding who must meet the requirements. The Republican from Adams County said the law may warrant some clarification.

He said only those in a "supervisory position that could be left alone to work one-on-one with children" must get the clearances.

But that language does not appear in the law, causing headaches for those trying to follow the rules."

HUH? So the main sponsor of the legislation doesn't even know how it applies.

I am looking into it and collecting info from various sources.

 

maryalice

I'd say based on the bolded that a parent co-op (as opposed to the kind where you drop off your kids a couple of times a week) is excluded on its face. 

I think you are fine.  Might want to drop the "Fee" though, so as not to draw attention.  Maybe collect money another way, if you need it for some event. 

[Laurie4b]

Background checks are not all that onerous to get. In my opinion, they do very little to weed out bad apples because the majority haven't been arrested. (Think how long it took Sandusky to be discovered.) But... they are the new "due diligence."  Much better is checking references. Best is providing excellent supervision.

 

You can google around for agencies who do this. One is Protect My Ministry. The organization pays a start up fee. The majority of that fee then covers most of the applications. So let's say it's a $300 fee. That may include 25 background checks for $10 each.  (These aren't real numbers, just numbers to give you an idea of how it would work.) They return the background check in a couple minutes because it's cimputerized. So you'd need to pull the money for the "fee" and then each parent could pay their own background check portion.

[Slartibartfast]

What would it cost to comply with the law? How much do those background checks cost?

[happypamama]

Background checks are not all that onerous to get. In my opinion, they do very little to weed out bad apples because the majority haven't been arrested. (Think how long it took Sandusky to be discovered.) But... they are the new "due diligence." Much better is checking references. Best is providing excellent supervision.

 

You can google around for agencies who do this. One is Protect My Ministry. The organization pays a start up fee. The majority of that fee then covers most of the applications. So let's say it's a $300 fee. That may include 25 background checks for $10 each. (These aren't real numbers, just numbers to give you an idea of how it would work.) They return the background check in a couple minutes because it's cimputerized. So you'd need to pull the money for the "fee" and then each parent could pay their own background check portion.

It's not terribly expensive, two $10 fees. But for any of our members who also have to do the fingerprinting, it's another $27.50. Nearly $50, at least $20 of which will have to be repeated in three more years -- that will be a hardship for some of our members. We are a small group (and most of our parents don't pay the full fee for co-op because we give a big discount to our teachers); a $300 fee is a large portion of our group's operating budget. We'd have to raise our membership dues (which are separate from our co-op fees because co-op is just one of the optional activities we offer) considerably to cover it, which would again be a hardship for some of our members. (And some would have to pay double, because some of our dads are involved too.)

 

Well, that brings up an interesting question: if this applies to anyone who might be involved with any activity at all that our group does, then I suppose that we have to have those clearances for both parents of a family because sometimes dads show up to weekend events. And if you can't transfer between entities, that's going to mean a lot less dad involvement. :( So the very people the law aims to benefit, the children, will lose, because any abuser who hasn't gotten caught won't fail the clearance, and more money for this stuff means less money for activities for the kids, and possibly less dad involvement.

 

Obviously, I'm unhappy about this. :)

[Laurie4b]

Does the law require the fingerprinting?

[Farrar]

Many states have laws like this, I think it's just that they're applied extremely unevenly, in part because a lot of people are unaware of them.

 

I wonder at what point it gets to be absurd. A large "co-op" type school with 200 kids meeting in a church basement offering dozens of classes a couple of times a week... I mean, I get that it's a hassle and a cost, but I also understand why doing this could be in the state's interest to protect children (and in the group's interest to cya). But our co-op is three families at each other's houses. It seems insane for me to get a background check to "volunteer" with those kids. There's a line somewhere in between... somewhere...

[happypamama]

Does the law require the fingerprinting?

Yes, for certain people.

[Butter]

Are the kids being dropped off for co-op classes or is a parent still on the premises?  I wonder if that makes a difference.

[Slartibartfast]

It's not terribly expensive, two $10 fees. But for any of our members who also have to do the fingerprinting, it's another $27.50. Nearly $50, at least $20 of which will have to be repeated in three more years -- that will be a hardship for some of our members. We are a small group (and most of our parents don't pay the full fee for co-op because we give a big discount to our teachers); a $300 fee is a large portion of our group's operating budget. We'd have to raise our membership dues (which are separate from our co-op fees because co-op is just one of the optional activities we offer) considerably to cover it, which would again be a hardship for some of our members. (And some would have to pay double, because some of our dads are involved too.)

 

Well, that brings up an interesting question: if this applies to anyone who might be involved with any activity at all that our group does, then I suppose that we have to have those clearances for both parents of a family because sometimes dads show up to weekend events. And if you can't transfer between entities, that's going to mean a lot less dad involvement. :( So the very people the law aims to benefit, the children, will lose, because any abuser who hasn't gotten caught won't fail the clearance, and more money for this stuff means less money for activities for the kids, and possibly less dad involvement.

 

Obviously, I'm unhappy about this. :)

 

Have you considered fundraising?

 

I think I would try to find ways to stay within the law while not leaving people out. You could have bakesales or carwashes...or something.

[goldberry]

I am sorry it is impacting your group like that.

 

However, when dd was in public school, I was astonished to discover when I volunteered that the volunteers there (who are quite often alone with children, reviewing homework in the hallway, etc) were not required to have background checks.  To me that was a huge gaping hole when it came to protecting kids.  I took it up with the principal and he initiated background checks for *his* volunteers.  But there was no statewide law that required it.

 

So maybe they were trying to close that loophole but just did it poorly.

[Maryalice]

Please read the Fact sheet from the PA Dept of Human Services. It answers a lot of questions.

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/cs/groups/webcontent/documents/document/C_135249.pdf

 

I think that each group needs to make its own decision on what to do based upon the Fact Sheet.

 

But I think that the law is meant to simply say: If you have regular contact with a child, you need clearances. 

 

maryalice

[happypamama]

Have you considered fundraising?

 

I think I would try to find ways to stay within the law while not leaving people out. You could have bakesales or carwashes...or something.

We have, and we do do some of those things, and they really do help a lot. We do pretty well, I think, for being so small.

[Mergath]

I am not seeing where it does apply to you. You are not a school.  You do not function as a school.  You are not school employees (not covered by Public school act),foster care parents, or child care providers.  You are merely a parent group who meets together WITH your children. 

 

Certainly you are volunteers, but you don't seem to meet the criteria of child care workers, employees,  or school personnel.  What is next...parents? 

What provisions are concerning you? Maybe I missed something. 

 

From what I could tell when I was reading the actual law, the words in brackets are being replaced by the bolded words.  So that stuff about school employees and what not is being replaced by basically anyone who volunteers to work with kids.

[happypamama]

Please read the Fact sheet from the PA Dept of Human Services. It answers a lot of questions.

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/cs/groups/webcontent/documents/document/C_135249.pdf

 

I think that each group needs to make its own decision on what to do based upon the Fact Sheet.

 

But I think that the law is meant to simply say: If you have regular contact with a child, you need clearances.

 

maryalice

Oh, that is very helpful; thanks!

[Maryalice]

I sent a message to Senator Ward (the chair of the committee):

 

Kim, Homeschoolers across the state are in a bit of "tizzy". They claim that they have to shut down their homeschool co-ops because of Act 153, which basically states that all volunteers must have clearances. Homeschool co-ops are groups of parents who come together to share teaching/learning experiences. For example, one mom will do music, another organize the kids to do speeches/oral presentations, another arts and crafts. No one gets paid, but they may collect a materials or building fee. It is not a drop-off activity; the moms stay on site. So, my question, do all of those moms need to get clearances per Act 153?

Thank you,
Maryalice

 

Oh....I'm not sure right off the top of my head. Let me check when I get back to Harrisburg on Tuesday. If that's the case, perhaps we need to tweak the law to exclude parents.

[Guest]

Who enforces this law? Who checks on the groups to make sure they comply??

[happypamama]

Maryalice, you rock! I do hope they can at least tweak the law to exclude parent-run groups, or activities where a parent is attending with his or her own child. Thank you so much for going the extra mile for us!

[QueenCat]

We are in MD, but we all have to have background checks. My impression is that the churches where we meet require it, not a state law, but the outcome is the same. All parents paid a $12 fee last year.

 

Our church requires a background check of all adults (volunteer or paid) that work with anyone under 18. This applies to any group that uses our building, not just to ministries of the church. It decreases the cost of the church's liability insurance.

[Guest]

Maryalice, you rock! I do hope they can at least tweak the law to exclude parent-run groups, or activities where a parent is attending with his or her own child. Thank you so much for going the extra mile for us!

Seriously. maryalice is the Get 'R Done go-to!

 

This gives me another reason to postpone consideration of moving to PA.

[Garga]

Hmmm....so if you're a church who has already done background checks, do you now need to re-do the checks and the fingerprints? That could be pricey at $20-$50 a volunteer.

[happypamama]

Seriously. maryalice is the Get 'R Done go-to!

 

This gives me another reason to postpone consideration of moving to PA.

Yeah, this one really makes it worse. I think it's not so much getting the clearances that bugs me, because for most people, it's going to be $20 and a few minutes, but it's the potential logistical hassle (will we need to make sure we have one on hand for every single adult who might ever attend one of our activities, member or not, because we do sometimes offer activities for the larger community, not just our members?) for something that I don't truly believe does what it's intended to do. Also, child abuse can be a felony charge (right? Google seems to think so, but IANAL), and people with felony charges can't homeschool in PA already, and so it's even less likely that we'd have a convicted abuser in a co-op.

 

I'm also very annoyed about the timing. It's frustrating that we don't really have time to get it done and find the best course without just canceling the co-op.

 

And, it's really lousy, because, law aside, this is a really great area in which to homeschool. We've always been treated well and accepted and encouraged by the larger community.

[TranquilMind]

From what I could tell when I was reading the actual law, the words in brackets are being replaced by the bolded words.  So that stuff about school employees and what not is being replaced by basically anyone who volunteers to work with kids.

But surely that excludes their own parents. 

[Mergath]

But surely that excludes their own parents. 

 

Yes, but in a co-op you aren't just teaching your own kids, but kids from other families, and that's where the law becomes a problem.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, but in a co-op you aren't just teaching your own kids, but kids from other families, and that's where the law becomes a problem.

True, but the parents are on site and often, in the room.  That seems odd to require them to be treated the same as school employees.