COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EDUCATION COMMITTEE HEARING
STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PA
IRVIS OFFICE BUILDING G-50
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2 9, 2 013 10:06 A.M.
PRESENTATION ON HB 1588 RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
BEFORE: HONORABLE PAUL CLYMER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE RYAN AUMENT HONORABLE SETH GROVE HONORABLE KATHY RAPP HONORABLE MIKE REESE HONORABLE WILL TALLMAN HONORABLE DAN TRUITT HONORABLE JAMES ROEBUCK, JR., DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MIKE CARROLL HONORABLE JAMES CLAY HONORABLE SCOTT CONKLIN HONORABLE PATRICK HARKINS
Pennsylvania House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: REPRESENTATIVE STAN SAYLOR
COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: DAVID TRANSUE MAJORITY SENIOR EDUCATION ADVISOR KAREN SEIVARD MAJORITY SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL JUDY M.D. SMITH MAJORITY ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JONATHAN BERGER MAJORITY RESEARCH ANALYST ELIZABETH MURPHY MAJORITY RESEARCH ANALYST EILEEN KRICK MAJORITY LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MIKE BIACCHI MAJORITY STAFF
CHRIS WAKELEY DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APRIL EDWARDS DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT 3
I N D E X
TESTIFIERS
~k k k
NAME PAGE
REPRESENTATIVE STAN SAYLOR PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 1588 ...... 6
PHIL MURREN, ESQ. LEGAL COUNSEL, PA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE...... 8
SEAN McALEER DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE...... 13
REV. THEODORE CLATER, Pd.D. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KEYSTONE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION...... 14
THOMAS J. SHAHEEN VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY INSTITUTE...... 19
JEN DeBELL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN...... 45
DIANE BARBER DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION...... 50
SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY
~k ~k ~k
(See submitted written testimony and handouts online.) 4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ~k k k k
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well, good morning,
4 everybody. I ’d like to welcome you to the House Education
5 public hearing this morning. W e ’re going to be looking at
6 House Bill 1588, that legislation dealing with religious
7 educational facilities.
8 House Bill 1588 provides for the general
9 oversight of religious educational facilities, which
10 include religious prekindergarten schools, preschools,
11 nursery schools, before-school and after-school programs,
12 including school vacation programs generally for children
13 two years and seven months or older.
14 And so to begin today’s agenda, the Chair
15 welcomes Representative Stan Saylor, who is the prime
16 sponsor of House Bill 1588. Representative Saylor, as you
17 take your chair there, I want to just have the Members of
18 the Committee introduce themselves so that our other guests
19 know who they are looking for. I know you know the
20 Members, but beginning to my right, I ’m going to have staff
21 introduce themselves as well.
22 Karen.
23 MS. SEIVARD: Good morning. I ’m Karen Seivard,
24 Legal Counsel to House Republican leadership.
25 MS. SMITH: Good morning. Judy Smith, Executive 5
1 Director for the House Education Committee.
2 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Paul Clymer, Chairman.
3 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Representative Jim
4 Roebuck, Democratic Chairman.
5 MR. WAKELEY: Chris Wakeley, Executive Director
6 for Democratic Chairman Jim Roebuck.
7 REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Mike Carroll, Luzerne
8 and Monroe Counties.
9 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Will Tallman, Adams and
10 York Counties.
11 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Dan Truitt from Chester
12 County.
13 REPRESENTATIVE RAPP: Cathy Rapp, Warren, Forest,
14 McKean Counties.
15 REPRESENTATIVE AUMENT: Ryan Aument, Lancaster
16 County.
17 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mike Reese, Westmoreland
18 and Fayette Counties.
19 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Seth Grove, York County.
20 REPRESENTATIVE CONKLIN: Scott Conklin, Centre
21 County.
22 REPRESENTATIVE HARKINS: Pat Harkins, 1st
23 District, Erie.
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks
25 everyone for introducing themselves. This program is being 6
1 recorded so I think it’s important for the viewing audience
2 to see who the players are and who the Members of the
3 Committee are.
4 At this time the Chair recognizes Representative
5 Saylor for comments on his legislation.
6 REPRESENTATIVE SAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
7 and Committee Members for being here today.
8 As you’re aware, due to concerns raised by
9 constituents, I ’ve introduced legislation similar to House
10 Bill 1588 in prior sessions, as well as other Members have,
11 in order to protect the integrity of religious educational
12 facilities. But despite the fact that many Members agree
13 with what w e ’re trying to do, it got held up due to some
14 technical issues that kept each side of the issue from
15 agreeing on a solution. I ’m happy to say that at this time
16 we have reached a conceptual framework that I believe will
17 allow schools and churches that provide preschool and
18 after-school programs to continue offering religious
19 educational choices for families who want their children to
20 be raised with the same traditional values with which they
21 were raised.
22 Religious freedom is part of the bedrock on which
23 America was founded and it’s enjoyed in even a more special
24 place in the heritage here in Pennsylvania. William Penn
25 and the Quakers founded this province of Pennsylvania in 7
1 1681 largely based on religious freedom. The family of
2 late Governor George Leader, a York County native, was
3 originally from Germany and came to America in the 1750s to
4 escape religious persecution in Europe.
5 The problem has been that by using the Department
6 of Public Welfare, some in State Government have sought to
7 license and regulate these preschools and after-school
8 programs far beyond the simple health and safety standards
9 that are within the Department’s purview. They even went
10 so far as pursuing legal cases against some of these
11 programs. My legislation makes it clear that the program
12 content and curriculum of religious education are not to be
13 interfered with by the government.
14 In House Bill 1588 it upholds the right of
15 government to maintain regulations governing the health and
16 safety of children within religious educational facilities.
17 And I want to make that clear. We do not want this
18 legislation to interfere with health and safety issues in
19 any religious or other daycares.
20 The bottom line is that the right of parents and
21 families to educate children and their faith is protected
22 by our Constitutional right of freedom of religion and it
23 must be preserved.
24 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the 8
1 gentleman for his testimony and now will proceed with our
2 first group of testifiers.
3 And the Chair at this time welcomes Phil Murren,
4 who is the Legal Counsel for the Pennsylvania Catholic
5 Conference; Sean McAleer, who’s Director of Education,
6 Pennsylvania Catholic Conference; the Reverend Theodore
7 Clater, Executive Director of the Keystone Christian
8 Education Association; and Thomas Shaheen, Vice President
9 for Policy, the Pennsylvania Family Institute. You may
10 join us at the front here.
11 And if you have prepared testimony, you may read
12 that testimony and then the Members of the Committee will
13 ask you questions accordingly. So as you begin your
14 presentation, if each of you would introduce yourself for
15 the viewing audience.
16 MR. MURREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 I am Philip Murren. I am an attorney with the
18 law firm of Ball, Murren & Connell in Camp Hill,
19 Pennsylvania. We have been counsel to the Pennsylvania
20 Catholic Conference, or PCC, throughout the 45-year course
21 of this controversy over the proper scope and proper
22 limitations of DPW authority over the religious educational
23 ministries that regulate as child cares.
24 PCC has always maintained that while it accepts
25 and applauds all reasonable regulations and enforcement in 9
1 matters of health and safety, it seeks statutory guarantees
2 against overreaching by secular governmental authorities
3 into constitutionally sensitive areas of religious concern
4 such as program or educational content or the inculcation
5 of religious values.
6 Current DPW regulations that explicitly empower
7 its individual inspectors to subjectively assess matters
8 beyond health and safety and what are essentially religious
9 educational ministries are a clear signal that DPW does not
10 share our view that its statutory authority is not
11 currently confined to matters of health and safety.
12 For example, DPW’s regulations currently require
13 its inspectors to evaluate whether the educational program
14 of a preschool adequately promotes the emotional,
15 cognitive, communicative, and social development of the
16 children. Its inspectors are also authorized to assess
17 whether a religious ministry is properly promoting the
18 proper socialization of children, including the development
19 of social competence and self-esteem. Further, these
20 inspectors are directed by the regulations to judge the
21 effectiveness of the ministry’s program in meeting the
22 needs of the children and accommodating the dynamics of the
23 group.
24 Not only are these mandated subjects of
25 government standards intrusive, they are inherently 10
1 subjective, infused with value judgments, and infinitely
2 elastic. Religious entities properly take alarm when their
3 religious freedoms and their very right to exist are made
4 to depend upon the sufferance of government.
5 This General Assembly has already addressed a
6 similar situation with respect to K-12 educational
7 ministries. In 1986, the General Assembly adopted
8 amendments to the compulsory attendance law that limited
9 the authority of the State Board of Education over church-
10 affiliated K-12 schools. Until the adoption of those
11 amendments, Section 1327 of the School Code had conferred
12 blank-check authority on the State Board of Education to
13 require that religious schools adhere to all of the
14 subjects and activities prescribed by the standards of the
15 State Board of Education.
16 Even though the State Board of Education had not
17 enforced its regulations against religious schools through
18 compulsory attendance prosecutions to that point, the
19 General Assembly recognized the need to prevent such
20 administrative overreaching by adopting the 1986 amendments
21 that assured that litigation would not be necessary in
22 order to preserve the schools’ religious liberties.
23 House Bill 1588 would enact the same guarantees
24 of government restraint with respect to the direct or
25 effective control of program content and the inculcation of 11
1 religious values in preschools and other religious
2 educational ministries, as were adopted in 1986 for the
3 church-affiliated K-12 schools. House Bill 1588 would
4 place statutory limits on the ability of the State to
5 inhibit the religious liberties of church-operated
6 prekindergartens, preschools, summer schools, and before
7 school and after-school programs.
8 Under this legislation, governmental agencies
9 would be prohibited from mandating the course or program
10 content, curriculum, faculty qualifications, staff
11 qualifications, training of staff or students, or the
12 principles of religious development or principles of
13 spiritual formation of staff or students in any of these
14 particular educational ministries without the consent of
15 that ministry.
16 The Bill expressly states that this protective
17 legislation does not prohibit the State from doing any of
18 the following:
19 • Requiring background checks of staff
20 • Mandating the reporting of child abuse
21 • Adopting or enforcing any regulations that
22 protect the physical health or safety of
23 students or that prevent any dangerous or
24 unsanitary conditions 12
1 • Imposing any staff training requirements or
2 staff/child ratios that are necessary to
3 prevent threats to the physical health or
4 safety of students or that prevent
5 unsanitary or dangerous conditions
6 • Requiring that a protected educational
7 facility submit to annual or emergency
8 inspections
9 • Requiring that an educational facility
10 comply with any and all requirements of any
11 program under which that facility receives
12 governmental financial assistance
13 • Requiring compliance with any and all State
14 and municipal mandates relating to building,
15 zoning, or to health and safety
16
17 The definitional elements of the Bill would limit
18 its protections for before-school and after-school programs
19 to those that operate for no more than five hours per day,
20 that are attended by students of the school on whose
21 premises the latchkey program is operated, and that are
22 staffed by the regular classroom teachers or staff members
23 of that school.
24 The prekindergarten programs that are protected 13
1 under this Bill would be those that operate for a minimum
2 of 2-1/2 hours per day and not more than 6 hours per day
3 with the exception that programs that are operated on the
4 premises of a religious school may operate for a maximum of
5 7 hours per day if that period coincides with the regular
6 instructional day of the affiliated school.
7 PCC and other similarly situated church groups
8 have worked in close cooperation with legislative sponsors
9 and other interested parties to try to craft a Bill that
10 does not in any way inhibit the authority of the State to
11 assure the health and safety of children, while at the same
12 time protecting the religious aspects of these ministries
13 from being subjected to government control.
14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
16 gentleman.
17 And the next testifier.
18 MR. McALEER: Thank you, Chairman Roebuck and
19 Chairman Clymer, for allowing us to testify today and
20 having us here.
21 I didn't provide written testimony because Phil
22 basically spoke for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference.
23 But what I did want to hit on is I also supplied some other
24 written testimony from PA CAPE and from another group ACSI.
25 And they also support the legislation. And I ’m just here 14
1 to answer questions. So thank you very much and talk to
2 you soon.
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Our next testifier is
4 Reverend Clater. Do you want to introduce yourself before
5 you begin your testimony?
6 REVEREND CLATER: Chairman Clymer, Mr. Chairman
7 Roebuck, and Members, I am Ted Clater of Keystone Christian
8 Education Association, and I testify today as you’ve
9 requested. The topic is House Bill 1588 and you’ve given
10 us some requests as to what you hope that each of us will
11 accomplish.
12 Legislation is not created in a vacuum and that
13 includes this Bill. From my perspective, the events of the
14 past decades that bring us to this point might be
15 summarized by the following few statements:
16 1. In June 13, 1967, two laws were enacted as
17 part of the Welfare Code. Article IX, governmental powers
18 and duties as to supervision, addressed nonpublic
19 institutions and provided for involvement in matters of
20 health and safety. Article X, departmental powers and
21 duties as to licensing, addressed for-profit institutions
22 and is virtually unlimited in its potential reach.
23 2. The Department of Public Welfare embraced a
24 one-size-fits-all set of regulations, including a licensing
25 mechanism titled a Certificate of Compliance. 15
1 3. There has been diversity of opinion as to
2 what should be included in the DPW one-size-fits-all
3 standards. Some have advocated a very expansive role.
4 Some have advocated their perspectives of childrearing and
5 education. Some have advocated inclusion of specific
6 requirements about which they felt strongly. Some have
7 advocated that the State should control curriculum and
8 impose their definition of "quality" care rather than just
9 imposing "minimum standards." Yes, and some of us have
10 argued that Article IX disallows government from going
11 beyond commonsense health and safety at religious
12 institutions.
13 4. Many religious institutions have objected to
14 regulation ideas that have been perceived to threaten the
15 liberties of religious institutions to offer their
16 historically distinctive religious perspectives of guiding
17 children to adulthood.
18 5. Over past decades, officials at DPW have
19 issued cease-and-desist orders to church ministries in far-
20 removed places from Allegheny, Burks, Centre, Lancaster,
21 Perry, Somerset, York, and other counties. The facilities
22 have not been accused of violations of standards of health
23 and safety of the children but of refusing to accept the
24 license to conduct their ministries. Their conscience
25 disallowed them from giving civil government virtual blank- 16
1 check authority over their teaching ministries as the
2 certificate required.
3 6. Representative Clymer and others on both
4 sides of the aisle have been concerned with the health and
5 safety of children and youth but also concerned that
6 government not foment conflict with legitimate pluralism
7 and diversity as found in religious institutions.
8 Legislative Bills have been introduced and several have
9 seen committee action, including a two-day hearing that was
10 back in ’99. These Bills have typically attempted to list
11 the commonsense legitimate ways and areas for government
12 responsibility at religious institutions. However,
13 beginning about three years ago, the focus has been upon
14 listing areas where government is precluded from asserting
15 responsibility.
16
17 House Bill 1588, along with its companion Bill
18 Senate Bill 1030, does not solve the ongoing debate over
19 the manner by which DPW seeks to blur the differences
20 between Article IX and Article X. However, House Bill 1588
21 does present a "package" which there appears to be
22 agreement with the private sector.
23 Four points:
24 1. The activities covered by this Bill do not
25 inflame fears that religious institutions may place 17
1 businesses or for-profit or nonprofit providers at a
2 financial disadvantage.
3 2. These types of educational activities are
4 conducted in public schools and licensed private schools
5 without DPW licensing.
6 3. Religious institutions which have conscience
7 objections before God that preclude the granting of a
8 government license to engage in the listed types of
9 teaching ministries for their communities, families, and
10 students are given relief.
11 4. The children are protected in matters of
12 health and safety in the covered institutions as it would
13 be at any similar secular institution.
14
15 This Bill tracks the approach mentioned by Phil
16 Murren previously of Act 178 of 1986, which there I just
17 summarize that these deal with religious elementary and
18 secondary schools and where parental rights in the
19 institutions are protected.
20 The School Code appears to be a logical location
21 for the language of this proposal and 1588. Act 178’s
22 language is in Section 1327. Each of the types of
23 ministries addressed in HB 1588 is education laden. The
24 covered activities at these religious institutions are
25 analogous to the activities conducted by public schools or 18
1 licensed private schools, and these are all part of the
2 School Code.
3 As to the health and safety of students attending
4 the ministries covered by HB 1588, it is clearly our intent
5 to expect the students to be just as protected as if they
6 were to attend a public school or licensed private academy
7 for an analogous activity. Several departments specialize
8 in protections ranging from transportation to background
9 checks to drinking water to buildings and egress, and we
10 believe their responsibility extends to the activities of
11 the preschools, the summer and extended-care programs, et
12 cetera, that are addressed in this Bill.
13 On behalf of the KCEA, I endorse 1588 and urge
14 each of you to support it both in matters relating to this
15 hearing and towards timely passage. Additionally, I
16 continue to receive reports from individual religious
17 churches and schools and groups of churches, pastors, and
18 schools that support 1588. And I attached several letters
19 to the testimony that I have given to you.
20 Please be assured of my continued interest in
21 answering any questions that arise in this hearing or in
22 the days ahead. Thank you for extending me the opportunity
23 to testify today.
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
25 gentleman and recognizes our final testifier, Mr. Shaheen. 19
1 MR. SHAHEEN: Well, good morning. And thank you,
2 Chairman Clymer and Chairman Roebuck, Members of the
3 Committee, for this opportunity.
4 I am Tom Shaheen, Vice President of the
5 Pennsylvania Family Institute. We are a statewide
6 nonprofit organization based in Harrisburg which focuses on
7 policies and cultural trends that impacts families. Much
8 like when a factory or shopping center is built and an
9 environmental impact study is required, we at the
10 Pennsylvania Family Institute analyze public policies for
11 their affect on the most basic building block of our
12 society, the family. We are a voice for those who are too
13 seldom heard in the public policy debate, the voice of
14 families, the voice of parents. Thank you for this
15 opportunity to bring their voice to you today.
16 Religious instruction, religious education, and
17 the faith, values, and nurturing that undergird it are the
18 core of what many parents want and choose for their young
19 children every day across our Commonwealth. Historically,
20 there is diversity in this instruction and that diversity
21 is reflective of our pluralistic society. Also, such
22 religious instruction has brought many benefits to society.
23 It should then be of concern to this General
24 Assembly that in recent years, actually decades, some
25 families and religious institutions have experienced 20
1 conflicts with the Department of Public Welfare over
2 department regulations and expectations. We should do all
3 that we can to preserve the choices of families regarding
4 the religious education of their young children. Let’s
5 protect parental choices and options for parents who know
6 their children best.
7 As stated in House Bill 1388, "it is the policy
8 of the Commonwealth to preserve the primary right and the
9 obligation of the parent or parents or person or persons in
10 loco parentis to a child to choose the education and
11 training for such child." And we agree. Government should
12 not impose a one-size-fits-all philosophy of childrearing.
13 Let’s protect religious liberty for parents and their
14 children and the ministries that serve them.
15 House Bill 1588 continues, "It is likewise the
16 policy of the Commonwealth to avoid imposing substantial
17 burdens on the religious liberties of educational
18 ministries without compelling justification." And again,
19 we agree.
20 Pennsylvania already has similar protections in
21 place for families and students who choose to utilize
22 Pennsylvania’s religious kindergarten, elementary schools,
23 and high schools. This Committee can benefit by observing
24 Act 178 of 1986, as that legislation has successfully
25 provided protections for both families and the institutions 21
1 that serve those families in grades K through 12.
2 House Bill 1588 is needed now to extend these
3 same religious freedom protections for families that choose
4 to use religious preschools and before- and after-school
5 programs. It is just as important that these early
6 childhood educational programs remained free from
7 unwarranted governmental intrusion even while maintaining
8 the highest standards of health and safety.
9 On behalf of the 60,000 families we represent
10 statewide, we respectfully ask this Committee and the
11 General Assembly to pass House Bill 1388 into law without
12 delay. Thank you.
13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
14 gentleman and will open the Committee Members to ask
15 questions.
16 I do have a few thoughts. Mr. Shaheen, you
17 expressed some of the concerns I had and as you all have,
18 quite frankly, and that is parents make the decision to
19 choose as to whether or not they want to have their child
20 go into a pre-K school. And would you say that these
21 prekindergarten schools are based on, because it’s a
22 ministry of the church, that they’re very popular that
23 parents want their child to be in that type of an
24 environment?
25 I will ask you first because, as you had 22
1 mentioned and setting an example, we do environmental
2 impacts on land because we want the land to be wholesome
3 and clear of any impurities. At the same time, does it not
4 make sense for the parents put their child into more of a
5 protective setting? Your thoughts on that?
6 MR. SHAHEEN: Well, you know, we certainly
7 acknowledge that there’s plenty of room for government to
8 regulate health and safety, and I think as far as parents,
9 the choices are based on -- certainly every parent wants
10 their child to be safe. So they are concerned about health
11 and safety regardless of whether it’s religious or not.
12 But they’re also making a choice to choose that educational
13 ministry typically because they share their values and
14 maybe because it’s in a more convenient location in the
15 city or in their neighborhood. I mean parents are choosing
16 religious education in urban areas, rural areas, suburban
17 areas, so it’s not even peculiar to one area.
18 But typically, it’s because they share their
19 values, and so our concern is that the parents’ choice,
20 because of the values and because they see it as a quality
21 place to leave their children, a place they can trust, that
22 that choice may end up being eliminated if everything is
23 standardized and the regulations are such that every
24 preschool is the same. Then, those choices are limited.
25 The distinctives I guess is I would call it of that choice 23
1 are gone, are eliminated.
2 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And I ’ll go to Phil
3 Murren for the next question, and that is this is a
4 learning process as well. The children, when they go to
5 these schools, are learning. They may learn the religious
6 values of that particular entity, but they’re also learning
7 academics as well, they’re learning the alphabet, to do
8 things that help prepare them when they go into the first
9 and second grades. I mean they’re already receiving a
10 foundation so that they can move forward. And I think
11 that’s important as well, I mean, when you consider the
12 overall package that w e ’re looking at here.
13 MR. MURREN: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We were
14 counsel in the St. Elizabeth case and we had the
15 opportunity to develop a factual record in that case that
16 really established the nature and mission of all of the
17 religious ministries that were involved in that particular
18 litigation.
19 And the one thing that struck me was how much
20 these churches are aware not only of the transmission of
21 substantive content but the transmission of values and
22 aspects of how you treat others. And those things start
23 for churches at very early stages of development. And I
24 can speak to the Catholic tradition that the goal of these
25 ministries is to support the parents in the formation of 24
1 the Christian personality with the understanding that there
2 is a distinctive Christian personality, Catholic Christian
3 personality for the Catholics and for other denominations
4 with their distinctives. But that personality is developed
5 from very early stages.
6 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And, Mr. Clater, I
7 guess I will give you this question, and that is to tie
8 into what I just heard from Attorney Murren is that they
9 are learning to get along with other children at a very
10 early age. I mean we here in the General Assembly are
11 dealing with such issues as drug abuse, alcohol abuse,
12 bullying, you name it. There is a whole range of social
13 problems that w e ’re trying to address, and having these
14 children learn some very basic values, getting along with
15 each other, enjoying the time that they are in that
16 prekindergarten class, I mean that bodes well. And the
17 parents want that and that is why they are willing to have
18 their child in that setting.
19 And also it’s my understanding that the schools
20 that sponsor these prekindergarten, they have programs for
21 the public that the public can attend to see how the
22 children are maturing or growing, so it’s not as though
23 it’s closed because it has a religious application, but
24 simply they want to show the public here’s what w e ’re
25 doing. Here’s something that we are very proud of. So 25
1 enough. Your thoughts?
2 REVEREND CLATER: The evangelical community all
3 through our State is on Main Street, USA. Just as they are
4 very open and hoping to minister to people on Sunday
5 through church services, they are just as open on Monday
6 through Friday as they do things such as prekindergartens.
7 It is very typical for the parents to pop in at any point
8 in time to see what's happening in the programs so that
9 there is that unique wedding of a staff working together
10 with parents towards the well-being of those children and
11 well-being of communities. So it is very open. It is very
12 accessible.
13 And the typical church today is very open for
14 others that would be intrigued with what's happening there
15 and would that offering of that church be of assistance to
16 my family, whether they be adults, teenagers, all the way
17 on down through children, very open.
18 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
19 gentleman, at this time recognizes Representative Carroll
20 for questions.
21 REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
23 It seems to me from what I'm hearing that this is
24 a prospective exercise. I didn't hear or read in any of
25 the testimony any examples of the Department influencing 26
1 the content of the instruction. Am I correct in that
2 assessment?
3 MR. MURREN: Well, I think you’ll see in the ACSI
4 testimony some anecdotal evidence of some visits by
5 inspectors in which there was some conflict over what was
6 being done and conflict.
7 But you’re correct, Representative Carroll, in
8 characterizing this as trying to head off for the most part
9 what could be untoward circumstances. If you have a law,
10 for example, that said that the government shall license
11 all newspapers and review the content of all editorials
12 before they are published, I don’t think that the press
13 community would receive that very well, even though the
14 government may never have refused to approve an editorial.
15 It’s the relationship between government and the church,
16 the separation of church and state allowing the maximum
17 freedom of the church over the sensitive areas of religious
18 content and inculcation of religious values so that we want
19 to head off those ugly incidents where the law would allow
20 an inspector to come in and try to assert subjective
21 judgments over sensitive areas.
22 REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Sort of contrary to the
23 whole voter ID exercise when I think about it. I know it
24 has nothing to do with the subject of this hearing, but we
25 seem to be heading in the opposite direction when it comes 27
1 to voting in this State with respect to imposing additional
2 barriers and regulation and registration when it comes to
3 voting. I find a little irony in that whole transaction.
4 The second question is the whole concept of
5 licensing. What I think I ’m hearing, then, is these
6 organizations that you represent and others are looking to
7 be absolved of the requirement to be licensed by DPW. Is
8 that the essence of what’s happening here?
9 MR. MURREN: This Bill would not preclude DPW
10 from requiring that it certify compliance with all of its
11 health and safety regulations even before the ministry is
12 allowed to operate. So it doesn’t really solve the whole
13 theoretical question about licensing and government
14 authority over the right to exist, but as long as
15 government’s authority is confined to health and safety,
16 then this Bill would not preclude government from requiring
17 certification prior to operation.
18 REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Okay. Fair enough.
19 Well, it seems to me the test here really goes back to the
20 U.S. Supreme Court case Everson and that is that the State
21 power is no more to be used as to handicap religious
22 institutions as it is to favor them. And I think that that
23 really is the balancing act that we have to comply with
24 with respect to how w e ’re going to treat the entities that
25 you folks represent. 28
1 So thank you very much.
2 MR. MURREN: Thank you.
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
4 gentleman and recognizes Representative Tallman.
5 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 I’m going to start with Mr. Murren and I ’m
7 probably going to slide over to Mr. Clater.
8 And first, I would like to thank Representative
9 Saylor. My freshman year he let me have his Bill, which is
10 similar, little differences, but Representative Saylor has
11 been at the forefront of this and I thank him for that.
12 St. Elizabeth case, and you may feel sorry for
13 them, I read all of it all the way back to the Supreme
14 Court taking it back to Commonwealth Court, et cetera. And
15 I was bored that night, how’s that? But anyway, I think
16 it’s 800 sections of the DPW code, is that correct, where
17 those rules and regulations are on curriculum and staff, et
18 cetera?
19 MR. MURREN: If you add up all of the major
20 sections and subsections, you can probably come pretty
21 close to that.
22 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Okay. We have to
23 compromise and 1588 is kind of getting us out of what
24 happens because those sections of the DPW code I find
25 offensive if I were a religious institution that was 29
1 operating a daycare, which happened in the St. Elizabeth
2 case. Does that get us out of those regs, 1588, or are
3 they still in place?
4 MR. MURREN: It would create a barrier within the
5 regulations. Any of the regulations that relate to health
6 and safety would not be affected one bit. But if DPW
7 sought to apply the regulations relating to the assessment
8 of the emotional and social development of the children in
9 these educational ministries -- and remember, this doesn't
10 apply to any child below the age of two years, seven
11 months. That was just a product of the negotiation, the
12 compromise between the affected parties. But it would
13 preclude DPW from enforcing any of those regulations that
14 transgress beyond health and safety.
15 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: And just to kind of
16 clarify what Representative Carroll said, wasn't the
17 St. Elizabeth case essentially a conflict between what DPW
18 wanted to happen at St. Elizabeth versus what the Catholic
19 Conference wanted to happen?
20 MR. MURREN: Well, St. Elizabeth's began when DPW
21 issued a cease-and-desist letter.
22 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Right.
23 MR. MURREN: The Catholic Conference and KCEA and
24 other evangelical bodies had, over time, when DPW
25 inspectors would show up and say you can't operate without 30
1 our credential, without our Certificate of Compliance, our
2 license, that immediately created legal conflict, a
3 conflict of conscience, because these ministries knew that
4 by accepting the credential, they were accepting and
5 acquiescing in DPW’s claimed authority to go beyond health
6 and safety, and the problem of a prior restraint issue as a
7 legal issue of the licensing in and of itself.
8 So we tried to join the issue immediately in St.
9 Elizabeth’s to say we will accept anything that you would
10 like to require of us with respect to health and safety,
11 but if your Certificate of Compliance necessarily means
12 that we are acquiescing in your authority to dictate or
13 influence or control our program content or other
14 religiously sensitive aspects, then we cannot accept your
15 Certificate of Compliance. And so therefore, DPW issued a
16 cease-and-desist order so that the legal issues could be
17 teed up for decision through the administrative and then
18 the court process.
19 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: So I guess we have had
20 conflict over -- it was much more encompassing than just
21 the licensing issue because if we would allow the DPW
22 license, they would have dictated curriculum, they would
23 have dictated who you could have as staff, et cetera,
24 right?
25 MR. MURREN: That was-- 31
1 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: I mean can I make that
2 characterization?
3 MR. MURREN: The potential was there for all of
4 that. The DPW inspectors come in with a checklist and the
5 checklist tracks the regulations, and they have to certify
6 that you’re in compliance with the DPW regulations not only
7 with respect to health and safety but all of those other
8 things that I mentioned about social development, social
9 competence, self-esteem.
10 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Okay. Then real quick
11 for Mr. Clater, by the way, I see you have a letter from
12 Paul Connor. Tell him hi for me.
13 But just give me an estimate on what would be the
14 number of religious schools that are in place in
15 Pennsylvania, daycare, and actually K-12? I mean do you
16 have any idea? Or maybe you can joint tell me. But I ’m
17 trying to think of what impact this would have on how many
18 schools---
19 REVEREND CLATER: Department of Ed would know the
20 total number. That would be in the directory of K to 12
21 and all of those institutions. If you’re speaking directly
22 as to how many might be impacted with this, it’s very
23 difficult for us to know. I believe in the hearings in ’99
24 we estimated that there very well could be 400 at that
25 point in time that were in jeopardy of being issued a 32
1 cease-and-desist order. As to whether that number holds
2 for today, I would guess that it might be lower than that
3 in large part because the significant cost of litigation
4 has forced any number of religious schools and churches to
5 abandon any thought of operating ministries to children
6 like those that would be handled in 1588. Rather than face
7 the prospect of litigation, they have had to have children
8 go without those ministries.
9 So we really don’t know for sure how many are out
10 there today and it would be very difficult to assess how
11 many might be out ministering with children if they did not
12 have the problem of conscience that is forced upon them
13 because of the actions of DPW.
14 REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you.
15 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
16 gentleman and recognizes Representative Grove.
17 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 Anybody feel free to answer this question on the
19 panel. The scope of this is to take a small subset of
20 before-school, after-school programs, prekindergarten,
21 preschool, nursery school that meet a very narrow scope
22 definition, move them, at least their curriculum aspects,
23 out of whether it’s out and put protections under the
24 department of public education to protect your curriculum
25 for religious education, correct? 33
1 MR. MURREN: Yes, that would be an accurate
2 characterization.
3 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. And the criteria of
4 this was negotiated so the five hours per day premises of a
5 religious school within the before- or after-school
6 program, the two to six hours per day for at least 60 days
7 up to seven hours per week, all that was negotiated with
8 stakeholders, correct?
9 MR. MURREN: That’s correct.
10 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. As far as
11 inspectors coming in, and it’s not unique to hear this not
12 only from daycares but through other entities across the
13 Commonwealth, depending on what inspector you have for what
14 day and what area of the State you are, you could have
15 different outcomes of that inspection. Is that still true
16 today in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
17 MR. MURREN: There’s always the potential
18 whenever you have human beings armed with what are not the
19 most precise of standards to apply.
20 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Yes. I hear that a lot,
21 especially coming from nursing homes, entities that own
22 nursing homes in multiple areas across the State. They
23 could have inspectors come in and site different issues,
24 although they try to use the same standards across the
25 Commonwealth. So maybe some department heads can set up 34
1 some standards statewide to push the regulations to make
2 sure they’re standardized and we don’t have different
3 outcomes based on who is going in there to provide some
4 consistency for entities licensed. Obviously, it’s a
5 statewide license so we shouldn’t have those issues still
6 today. But apparently we still do.
7 I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 Hopefully, we can move this legislation posthaste.
9 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
10 gentleman and recognizes Chairman Roebuck.
11 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you,
12 Mr. Chairman.
13 Reverend Dr. Clater, there is a portion of your
14 testimony I wanted to just go to and ask if I could get
15 some clarification on it, and it’s on to the second page in
16 the item #3, which says "religious institutions which have
17 conscious objections before God that preclude the granting
18 of a governmental license to engage in listed types of
19 teaching ministries for their communities, families and
20 students are given relief." Could you give me an example
21 of what w e ’re talking about here?
22 REVEREND CLATER: What I was attempting to do in
23 a few words is that if the prekindergartens, these before-
24 and after-school care programs at religious schools that
25 are summer schools at this point in time, are at this 35
1 moment under the umbrella of DPW and thus we believe that
2 they face in these conscience problems of DPW having the
3 potential to interfere with the teaching that goes on in
4 those prekindergartens, before- and after-school cares and
5 all of those things. If we, through 1588, bring that over
6 so that they are protected with the language of 1588,
7 they’re so protected for health and safety but the teaching
8 ministries at these prekindergartens, these before- and
9 after-school cares, the religious institutions can go ahead
10 and do their teaching without running afoul of DPW regs.
11 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Okay. And the course
12 of the testimony there’s been a distinction drawn between
13 health and safety and religious values. And as a
14 Christian, certainly I have real trouble with the things in
15 Christian teaching that negatively impact upon me as an
16 African-American, those Christians who teach that blacks
17 are in fact inherently inferior and reference it to the
18 Bible, particularly to the story of Noah and his sons, or
19 those who also teach the things like interracial marriage
20 are somehow condemned because that is a somehow beyond the
21 scope of what is accepted Christian value, how do you then
22 encompass this in terms of this level at which you’re
23 influencing very, very young children and in some cases
24 inculcating them with these types of teachings that I would
25 argue are inherently not only un-Christian but certainly 36
1 strike at the very values of the Nation that we live in?
2 REVEREND CLATER: My first reaction to that would
3 be your and my generation.
4 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Absolutely.
5 REVEREND CLATER: Some of the teaching
6 illustrations that you gave I believe are probably far more
7 prevalent than they are today. I know I have seen
8 significant changes in the teachings of diverse
9 congregations on those exact types of issues. They were
10 much more prevalent back when you and I were kids than
11 today. And I believe that is a very good moderating force.
12 I think I would also throw over to the attorney
13 that I don’t doubt that there is some point in time when a
14 civil government does step in. The only illustration I can
15 think of at this point in time would be there are some
16 folks deeply religious who do not engage in care of
17 medicine as you and I would know it. And everything I
18 would understand as a layman, there are ways that the
19 courts have found to deal with those things for the
20 betterment of society.
21 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: I would certainly
22 concede that there were more prevalent but they have not
23 entirely been purged from existence either. There are
24 still colleges that provide interracial dating that are
25 Christian-based. So my concern is that this doesn’t open a 37
1 door or prevent some kind of intervention that only puts us
2 toward the total termination of that kind of value which I
3 think certainly is captured or inculcated in religious
4 teaching, which is not in reality what I would consider---
5 REVEREND CLATER: I understand.
6 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: -- really what is
7 proper religion. Proper is not the right word--
8 REVEREND CLATER: Yes.
9 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: ---but what is not
10 what I would think is the standard of what should be
11 religious teaching.
12 REVEREND CLATER: Mr. Chairman, I ’m not familiar
13 myself with any colleges at this point that, for example,
14 actively teach against interracial dating at this point.
15 Now, there are some that I know taught that until a decade
16 or two or three ago, but I ’m not aware of any at this point
17 in time. There could be some out there.
18 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Well, I don’t want to
19 get into that argument. I mean we could certainly go back
20 and forth on that, but I just want to make sure that what
21 w e ’re doing here is not providing a means for that kind of
22 thing, whatever it is, to---
23 REVEREND CLATER: It’s clearly not--
24 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: ---gain governmental
25 sanction at this point. I mean we live in certainly a 38
1 turbulent world. Lots of things are happening in our
2 society which certainly raises serious questions in my mind
3 as to where we're going. And I would like to be confident
4 that in adopting this we're not opening a way for some of
5 the less desirable aspects of religious teaching to be
6 given government sanction.
7 REVEREND CLATER: Clearly, I don't believe that
8 there's any sanctioning that government would be giving to
9 any religion through any of these things. And clearly, I
10 would not even want to have a religious person to have to
11 pass judgment on somebody else's religious exercises as
12 they rear their children.
13 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. MURREN: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one
15 point to that?
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: You are recognized,
17 yes.
18 MR. MURREN: In the definitions in the Bill, the
19 only ministries that are protected are those that are
20 recognized as tax-exempt under Code IRC Section 501(c)(3),
21 and there is a provision denying tax exemption to racially
22 discriminatory institutions under Section 501(c)(3). So I
23 believe that what you're suggesting might happen really has
24 a barrier against that drafted into the Bill.
25 MINORITY CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Okay. Thank you. 39
1 MR. McALEER: And, Mr. Chairman, can I add
2 something?
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So recognized.
4 MR. McALEER: Sure. In the Catholic schools,
5 Mr. Chairman, some of our populations are 90 percent
6 African-American, and we have never taught that. And I
7 know you know that but I just wanted to comment on it.
8 Thank you.
9 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: I think that’s a good
10 point. I was going to make that point, too, that these
11 prekindergartens, they’re so diversified today---
12 MR. McALEER: Absolutely.
13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: -- and that’s welcomed
14 by the church. They want that diversification in the
15 school.
16 MR. McALEER: Yes, it is.
17 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And also I know some
18 of the children that I ’m aware of that are in a
19 prekindergarten school, they’re taught this and I ’m sure
20 w e ’ve all learned it. Red and yellow, black and white, all
21 are precious in his sight.
22 MR. McALEER: Right.
23 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So I think that’s a
24 good thing that they work by.
25 At this time, the Chair recognizes Representative 40
1 Conklin.
2 REPRESENTATIVE CONKLIN: I want to thank you,
3 Mr. Chairman.
4 And please forgive me but, Mr. Murren, you made a
5 comment I found interesting, and the reason I found it
6 interesting is that when you invoke the separation of
7 church and state, I normally hear that invoked by folks
8 other than the religious community into it. And so just
9 out of my own curiosity, not a loaded question, could you
10 please just elaborate on your thinking of the separation?
11 Again, it’s not a loaded question. I just found it rather
12 interesting when you invoked separation that, to be honest
13 with you, I ’ve never heard it used through the religious
14 community as a reason for separation. So if you could just
15 elaborate on the reasoning behind that just for my own
16 curiosity. I ’d appreciate it.
17 MR. MURREN: Certainly. Well, I ’ve been involved
18 in practicing constitutional law and First Amendment law of
19 religion clauses specifically since I began in 1975. So
20 I’ve been steeped in this for my entire professional
21 career. The separation of church and state is really a
22 shorthand phrase. It’s not a precise legal phrase. It’s
23 meant to sum up the impact or the effect, the intended
24 effect of two separate legal clauses in the First Amendment
25 to the United States Constitution, the Free Exercise Clause 41
1 and the Establishment Cause. And Thomas Jefferson coined
2 the phrase church/state separation. Both of those clauses
3 are meant to assure that government and religion do not
4 control one another. And there has to be a healthy balance
5 between the two.
6 In modern times, the areas that the church was
7 traditionally involved in, especially the social and
8 educational ministries, it was their exclusive province
9 when the religion clauses were first adopted. State-run
10 educational institutions and charities, agencies, social
11 welfare organizations really came after the church-run
12 educational institutions and social welfare institutions.
13 And government operates by the coercive force of
14 law, and so it has to some extent displaced or exerted
15 sovereignty over what had been in their genesis religious
16 ministries. So there’s an historical aspect to it all and
17 we see through the evolution of time more and more
18 government assertion of its will, its goals, its
19 objectives, its values, and that’s where w e ’re trying to
20 come again, draw a wall into this law that would preclude
21 government from overstepping into what started out as, and
22 really want to be maintained as, areas of religious
23 concern.
24 REPRESENTATIVE CONKLIN: Thank you.
25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 42
1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
2 gentleman and recognizes Representative Rapp.
3 REPRESENTATIVE RAPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 I wanted to comment on what Representative
5 Roebuck stated if you don’t mind. I can’t pretend to know
6 what slavery was really all about as a person of color
7 would understand, but I do know that through the actions of
8 Wilberforce in England and John Newton, who wrote "Amazing
9 Grace” who was in the slave trade, who came from the
10 founding of Christian principles, that they were
11 instrumental in England in ending slavery. And I think
12 everybody is familiar with the song "Amazing Grace" written
13 by John Newton, who was very instrumental in ending that
14 horrible blight on any nation’s history.
15 And I also want to state, as a woman, I believe
16 that Christianity, through the teachings of Jesus, when the
17 woman was caught in adultery, who actually couldn’t have
18 been there by herself without some man being involved, that
19 Jesus elevated women. And I am very thankful for that,
20 that in this country, through the actions of Judeo
21 Christians, that women have the right to vote and even have
22 the right to sit here in this legislature, as well as any
23 person of color.
24 But away from that, I wanted to say that I have
25 constituents who teach in the public preschools and I see 43
1 that they are increasingly concerned about the curriculum
2 that they are asked to teach through Federal programs and
3 through public education programs. Especially people of
4 faith who are teaching in those programs, they are
5 increasingly concerned about the direction of where our
6 Nation is going in distancing itself from our Judeo-
7 Christian values. And I applaud you for the paragraph
8 where you stated, "the child is not the mere creature of
9 the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny
10 have the right, coupled with a high duty, to recognize and
11 prepare him for additional obligations."
12 Just recently, I had about 10 just-turned
13 teenager boys at my home who all go to a Christian school.
14 You know what I noticed about those boys? Their
15 politeness. There wasn’t one swear word that was mouthed
16 in my home. And I was just amazed at their behavior. And
17 I applaud people who will take the time and energy and the
18 money, the church and religious institutions, to provide an
19 alternative for our children in this culture today.
20 So I applaud you for your testimony. I certainly
21 applaud Representative Stan Saylor for his legislation and
22 support it. So thank you for your testimony.
23 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
24 gentlelady.
25 And that concludes the testimony and the 44
1 questions asked by the Committee. So I thank you for being
2 here this morning and joining us in this very important
3 legislation on House Bill 1388. The Chair thanks each of
4 the gentleman for being with us this morning.
5 Our next panel of testifiers is Jen DeBell, the
6 Government Relations Director, Pennsylvania Partnerships
7 for Children; and Diane Barber, Director of the
8 Pennsylvania Child Care Association.
9 As you make your way to the table and to the
10 microphones, the Chair would like to make an announcement,
11 and that is that this will be the last panel we will have
12 before us this morning. Carolyn Dumaresq, Secretary of
13 Education; and Beverly Mackereth, Secretary of the
14 Department of Public Welfare; and representatives from the
15 Governor’s office have asked to be excused because of
16 certain reasons, but have committed themselves to working
17 in a very positive way to move this legislation through the
18 legislative process. And the Chair accepts that
19 recognition and their sincerity and their willingness to be
20 cooperative as we look at this legislation. So I wanted to
21 make Members of the Committee aware of this change in the
22 agenda.
23 So at this time, the Chair will recognize our two
24 testifiers here this morning.
25 Would you introduce yourselves as you give your 45
1 testimony?
2 So we will start with Jen.
3 MS. DeBELL: Good morning, Chairmen Clymer,
4 Roebuck, Committee Members and staff. I'm Jen DeBell, a
5 Government Relations Director for Pennsylvania Partnerships
6 for Children, a statewide, independent, non-partisan and
7 nonprofit child advocacy organization committed to
8 improving the education, health, and well-being of children
9 in the Commonwealth. PPC's vision is to make Pennsylvania
10 one of the top 10 States in the Nation to be a child and to
11 raise a child. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
12 before the Committee today on House Bill 1588.
13 As you know, there has been a long-term effort on
14 behalf of some faith-based organizations to enact
15 legislation to establish a separate and less stringent set
16 of child care health and safety rules for religious child
17 care facilities. The issue also has been litigated, as we
18 have discussed previously through the St. Elizabeth's Child
19 Care Center v. Department of Public Welfare court case,
20 which upheld the Department of Public Welfare's authority
21 to require a Certificate of Compliance for all child care
22 facilities. There was also a ruling that the child care
23 certification regulations do not infringe upon religious
24 liberties.
25 PPC opposes efforts to establish separate rules 46
1 for religious child care facilities, believing all children
2 in child care settings deserve the same level of
3 protections regardless of the type of program that they
4 attend. At the same time, PPC appreciates efforts by these
5 groups to make it clear that a religious curriculum may be
6 taught in a child care setting.
7 Over the last year, PPC met with representatives
8 of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the Keystone
9 Christian Education Association, and the Pennsylvania
10 Family Institute to better understand each other’s
11 positions on these issues and to see if there were areas in
12 which a compromise could be reached. The Pennsylvania
13 Child Care Association and the Early Care and Education
14 Consortium, organizations representing early learning
15 providers, also participated in these meetings. This
16 effort was encouraged by Senator Corman and his staff.
17 PCC, KCEA, and the Family Institute made it clear
18 their concerns no longer were focused on child care
19 programs, but instead on ensuring that prekindergarten and
20 before- and after-school child care provided at K-12
21 religious schools no longer fell under the jurisdiction of
22 DPW’s child care regulations. Based on this information,
23 PPC, PACCA, and ECEC developed a framework under which we
24 could support legislation to make it clear these programs
25 no longer fell under the jurisdiction of DPW’s regulations 47
1 and instead would be under the jurisdiction of the
2 Department of Education. The parameters of our framework
3 are as follows:
4 1. All services provided to children from birth
5 to age two years, seven months old should be excluded from
6 the legislation. The age limit aligns with the State Board
7 of Private Academic Schools entry age for nursery school
8 and ensures that infant and toddler child care programs are
9 excluded and continue to fall under the DPW regulations.
10 Therefore, religious child care providers caring for
11 infants and toddlers still would have to be certified by
12 DPW to operate lawfully in the Commonwealth.
13 2. Prekindergarten, preschool, or nursery school
14 programs operated by a religious education facility shall
15 operate no more than six hours per day and be supervised by
16 PDE under similar standards as those applicable to
17 parochial schools under the nonpublic school components of
18 the Pennsylvania School Code. The six-hour operation limit
19 is aligned with the limitation in operating hours by the
20 State Board of Private Academic Schools standards for
21 nursery schools. Programs which operate beyond the six
22 hours are currently referred to DPW, as they would be
23 considered child care facilities.
24 3. Before- and after-school programs operated by
25 a religious education facility for children enrolled in 48
1 K-12, operating no more than five total hours per day,
2 enrolling only children attending the religious education
3 facility during the traditional school day, and staffed
4 using the same individuals employed by the religious
5 education facility would be exempt from DPW child care
6 certification. Currently, all before- and after-school
7 programs are considered child care and are regulated by
8 DPW.
9 4. Only programs in full compliance with child
10 care certification and all related regulations shall be
11 eligible to receive child care assistance and child care
12 services funding. Only programs in compliance with Federal
13 and State requirements for Head Start shall be eligible to
14 receive Head Start Supplemental Assistance Program funding.
15 Only programs in full compliance with Pre-K Counts
16 statutory, regulatory, and program guidance shall be
17 eligible to receive Pre-K Counts funding. And all future
18 funding streams will be limited to programs in full
19 compliance with all State and Federal statutes,
20 regulations, and program guidance unless otherwise stated
21 in statute. This provision ensures programs receiving
22 government funding are all following the same rules.
23
24 This framework was agreed to by the faith-based
25 organizations and presented to Senator Corman’s staff. 49
1 Legislation was drafted by the religious organizations and
2 introduced by Senator Corman as Senate Bill 1030 and by
3 Representative Saylor as House Bill 1588.
4 While we agree to a framework that aligns with
5 State oversight of private nursery schools under PDE
6 auspices, it is important to note that the health and
7 safety requirements governing these programs are not as
8 stringent as DPW child care regulations. We were
9 comfortable with this as a compromise position as our State
10 already allows private, part-day nursery schools to operate
11 in this manner.
12 PPC initially supported this legislation until it
13 was made clear the Bill did not actually provide adequate
14 authority for PDE’s jurisdiction over religious pre-k and
15 before- and after-school programs for children in K-12
16 religious schools, which was the intention of our
17 agreement. PDE supervision is critical for PPC to support
18 this legislation, as it would safeguard against additional
19 debate or court battles over what constitutes health and
20 safety provisions in a DPW-regulated child care program.
21 As we negotiated the Bill contents, we all agreed that DPW
22 should have no role in these preschool and before- and
23 after-school facilities. Unfortunately, the legislative
24 language didn’t accomplish this agreement.
25 If House Bill 1588 is amended to make it clear 50
1 these programs fall under PDE’s jurisdiction and the other
2 facets of our agreement remain, PPC will support the Bill.
3 We have articulated this position to Representative Saylor,
4 Senator Corman, the faith-based groups and the
5 Administration. We appreciate Representative Saylor’s and
6 Senator Corman’s support to find a solution to a long
7 standing issue and their patience as all of our collective
8 organizations have worked on a compromise.
9 Thank you again for the opportunity to testify
10 today.
11 MS. BARBER: Good afternoon -- or good morning, I
12 should say, lost in time.
13 Chairman Clymer, Chairman Roebuck, and the
14 Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My
15 name is Diane Barber. I am the Director of the
16 Pennsylvania Child Care Association, otherwise known as
17 PACCA, a statewide nonprofit association with a diverse
18 membership base that includes organizations and individuals
19 with a professional and business interest in early care and
20 education.
21 PACCA exists to be a strong and effective voice
22 for quality early care and education programs, to give
23 leadership and support to those organizations, and to
24 assist the early childhood education community, families,
25 and children in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 51
1 Our nearly 1,800 members include center, group,
2 and family child care providers employing nearly 20,000
3 staff and caring for over 200,000 children aged birth
4 through school-age each day. Our membership includes those
5 programs that are structured as either for profit,
6 nonprofit, as well as faith-based organizations.
7 Approximately 20 percent of PACCA’s members have a faith-
8 based affiliation.
9 PACCA’s membership also includes individuals,
10 organizations, and businesses that provide services or
11 products to the child care provider community.
12 Many our members provide pre-K programs. In fact
13 over 38 percent of direct grants for Pre-K Counts are held
14 by PACCA members. Additionally, PACCA members partner with
15 Head Start, school districts, and others to implement Pre-K
16 Counts programs.
17 PACCA believes that parents should have choices
18 when it comes to the care and education of their children.
19 Faith-based programs play an integral role in supporting
20 families and their children. However, to ensure
21 consistency between faith-based and secular programs,
22 requirements and regulations should apply equally to all
23 children, without regard to the provider’s status: profit,
24 nonprofit, public, private, religious or nonreligious.
25 For over a year we have been meeting with the 52
1 Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the Keystone Christian
2 Education Association, PPC, and others. It’s not always
3 been an easy process. There has been a lot of give-and-
4 take on both sides. W e ’ve cited the St. Elizabeth's court
5 case. I ’ve been not around since the beginning but have
6 been around for a pretty long time in that conversation.
7 Through our discussions we agreed, as Jen
8 outlined, to specific components of what we were talking
9 about. First, we agreed that w e ’re not talking about child
10 care. And I ’m very specific about that. W e ’re not talking
11 about child care. We are talking about pre-K and pre-K as
12 described by the length of the day, the ages of the
13 children served. And we also agreed that in order to be
14 eligible for public funding, whether it’s Pre-K Counts, Had
15 Start, or subsidized child care, a program, regardless of
16 being secular or faith-based, must comply with the
17 requirements of those programs.
18 It was our understanding that the programs that
19 we ’re talking about today operate under the Private
20 Academic Schools Act and as such fell under the purview of
21 the Pennsylvania Department of Education, not under the
22 auspices of the Department of Public Welfare. A recent
23 download from the Department of Education’s own website
24 indicates there are 950 licensed private academic schools
25 in Pennsylvania, over 2,000 nonpublic, nonlicensed schools, 53
1 and an additional nearly 1,100 nonpublic, nonlicensed
2 schools. What we don't have, although I have a printout,
3 is how many of those schools are K-12, nursery, or others.
4 But we're talking about a significant group, block of
5 programs that fall under this Act. This is nearly 4,000
6 private schools operating across the Commonwealth.
7 In our discussions with the partners that came to
8 the table, we also agreed that before- and after-school
9 programs operated by a religious education facility, could
10 preside before- and after-school care under the auspices of
11 this Bill. It's not unlike a public school district
12 providing extended day programs. That's where we fell, and
13 some of which choose to apply for DPW licensing and others
14 choose not to.
15 The proposed legislation addresses the academic
16 preschool programs and again not child care. As such,
17 supervision of these facilities would fall under the
18 Department of Education and not the Department of Public
19 Welfare. However, this legislation does not prevent a
20 faith-based preschool program or a before- and after-school
21 program from seeking certification from the Department of
22 Public Welfare. A number of PACCA's own members are both
23 certified by the Department of Public Welfare and licensed
24 by the Department of Education.
25 Again, I thank you, Chairman Roebuck and Chairman 54
1 Clymer, and the Committee for this opportunity to testify
2 and comment.
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: If you could just hold
4 for one second, please.
5 There is a Member, Representative Truitt, for
6 questions.
7 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 And thank you both for your testimony.
9 I was just wondering, and as I read your
10 testimony, a lot of our discussion today has been a bit
11 abstract. W e ’re talking about who’s got control, who
12 regulates who. Can you give me a concrete example, a real-
13 world example of what you are concerned might happen if we
14 pass this legislation? What harm could be done? And give
15 me an example.
16 MS. BARBER: Actually, we support the
17 legislation.
18 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay.
19 MS. BARBER: And having the auspices of
20 supervision of faith-based preschools fall under the
21 Department of Education as we interpret the private
22 academic school licensing rules within these guidelines,
23 and these guidelines are the same for a private academic
24 nursery school. So we have time, we have ages of children.
25 Those are the criteria. We are not talking about child 55
1 care, and child care meaning infants through school-age for
2 10 plus hours a day. We are talking about a very specific
3 program type.
4 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: We are putting all these
5 restrictions on a certain number of hours per day and so
6 forth. Let’s say we decided collectively that longer
7 school days and longer school years would be a good thing
8 for our kids and the Catholic schools want to do the same
9 thing, they wanted to lengthen their school day,
10 particularly for their pre-K programs. What are we worried
11 is going to happen if the program is seven hours long
12 instead of six?
13 MS. BARBER: I think w e ’re talking about those
14 4,000 programs that are licensed under the Private Academic
15 School Code and will we apply equitably supervision to
16 those programs also? So I guess what w e ’re trying to do is
17 fit what we see as defined as private preschool within
18 existing regs. And if we’re to monitor faith-based
19 programs, then we need to look at the entire constituency
20 that are licensed under the Private Academic Schools Act
21 to apply regulations to provide supervision and monitoring
22 equitably among all those programs. So I don’t know that
23 that answers your question but---
24 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: No, because we are still
25 talking abstracts. 56
1 MS. BARBER: I kind of answered around it.
2 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Yes.
3 MS. BARBER: I guess one of the things, the give-
4 and-take back and forth was trying to legislate around the
5 "what if" and are we legislating around the "what if" or
6 are we looking to do what’s in the best interest of
7 children and families and other organizations that are
8 providing similar services? So any changes to rules and
9 regulations have a system with which to review. Whether
10 it’s the State Board, Private Academic School Board,
11 whether it’s the legislative review process, this is
12 something that the General Assembly would legislate. So I
13 mean I guess that would be the extension. If it changed,
14 if we had extended day, then we would need to revisit.
15 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay.
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
17 gentleman---
18 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: -- and recognizes
20 Representative Carroll.
21 REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 Jen, you mentioned in your testimony that there’s
23 an effort underway to amend 1588. Can you characterize for
24 me the progress related to that amendment?
25 MS. DeBELL: Sure. And as I understand it, we 57
1 recently had a meeting with Senator Corman’s office,
2 Representative Saylor’s office, and all the parties who
3 have been involved in the negotiations. And I should add
4 the Administration was not part of that meeting. So at
5 least the parties that were in that room talked about
6 amending the Bill just to make it very clear that it’s the
7 Department of Education that would have the authority over
8 these pre-K and before- and after-school programs.
9 And if that amendment were to be added, that’s
10 why I indicated in our testimony that we would then be
11 supportive of the Bill. My understanding is that Senator
12 Corman’s office is taking the lead on the drafting, working
13 very closely with Representative Saylor’s office. We’ve
14 yet to receive a copy of the amendment but I believe it’s
15 forthcoming very soon.
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the
17 gentleman and recognizes Representative Grove.
18 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Jen, in your testimony you had mentioned PDE’s
20 jurisdiction over this. Would your organizations be
21 amenable if this aspect wasn’t moved over PDE and kept in
22 DPW but ensure that the curriculum and other issues the
23 religious organizations are trying to protect would be
24 addressed in that fashion?
25 MS. DeBELL: W e ’d really like to see it moved to 58
1 PDE mainly because we don’t want to have a rehashing of the
2 issues w e ’ve had around the court case around what
3 constitutes health and safety. So we really felt the clean
4 break would just make this a better agreement at least for
5 our side, and the religious groups agreed to the compromise
6 in the room. Again, just don’t want to get back into that
7 back-and-forth over what is health and safety.
8 In previous Bills in previous sessions, they have
9 really focused on child care, and in those Bills w e ’ve said
10 if you wanted to add a clause either in law or regulation
11 that says DPW has no authority over the curriculum taught,
12 that’s something we’ve supported in the past.
13 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. Would you say
14 that’s a cleaner method or moving over to the Department---
15 MS. DeBELL: I think because w e ’re not talking
16 about child care---
17 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay.
18 MS. DeBELL: ---anymore and w e ’re talking about
19 pre-K and before- and after-school programs in K-12
20 schools, it makes sense to move it over to the Department
21 of Education.
22 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. All right. Thank
23 you.
24 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the 59
1 gentleman.
2 The Chair thanks our testifiers being with us
3 this morning and sharing your thoughts on this very
4 important legislation, House Bill 1588.
5 That concludes our public hearing for today and
6 the Chair thanks the Members of the Committee and all our
7 testifiers for your very informative and helpful testimony.
8 We are now adjourned. Thank you very much.
9
10 (The hearing concluded at 11:26 a.m.) 60
1 I hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings
2 are a true and accurate transcription produced from audio
3 on the said proceedings and that this is a correct
4 transcript of the same.
5
6 Digitally signed by Christy Snyder DN: cn=Christy Snyder, c=US, o=Diaz Data Christy Snyder Services, LLC, [email protected] Date: 2013.1 1.05 10:30:05 -05'00' 7 Christy Snyder
8 Transcriptionist
9 Diaz Data Services, LLC