Pennsylvania House Bill HB869

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/11/25

Caption

In terms and courses of study, providing for nonpublic school and home education program exemption.

Impact

The introduction of HB 869 impacts the regulation of educational institutions in Pennsylvania by potentially relieving nonpublic schools and homeschooled students from compliance during disaster situations. This could translate into fewer restrictions on how these educational programs operate, particularly when a state of emergency is declared. Advocates for the bill argue that it protects the rights of families choosing alternative educational pathways outside of traditional public schooling, allowing them the freedom to maintain educational standards without additional government intervention.

Summary

House Bill 869 seeks to amend the Public School Code of 1949 by introducing exemptions for nonpublic schools and home education programs from specific state mandates. Specifically, it states that these educational institutions would not be subject to requirements imposed by a declaration of disaster emergency by the Governor or orders from the Secretary of Health. This legislative change is significant as it establishes a clear separation of regulatory oversight between public and nonpublic educational entities during emergencies, reinforcing the autonomy of nonpublic educational approaches.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 869 appears to be generally favorable among proponents of nonpublic education and homeschooling, who view the bill as a protective measure for educational freedoms. However, there may be concerns among those who advocate for standardized educational regulation and oversight, as the bill could lead to disparities in educational quality and accountability. The overall discussion around this legislation is marked by a common theme of balancing individual rights against collective educational standards.

Contention

Some contention is likely to arise regarding the implications of exempting nonpublic schools and home education programs from emergency mandates. Opponents may argue that this could set a precedent reducing state oversight during critical periods when public health is at stake, thus potentially putting students in these programs at risk. This point brings to light essential debates over the degree of government involvement in educational settings and the protection of students' rights versus the need for safety measures during emergencies.