An educator’s perspective on parental freedom, responsibility, and the future of hybrid homeschooling.
By: Genevieve Peterson
When a parent chooses to homeschool their child, does that mean they must personally teach every lesson? Can they hire a math tutor? Enroll their child in a science class? Join with other families to hire a teacher for a few days each week?
And at what point does that educational support become something else entirely?
These are important questions, and ones Pennsylvania is beginning to wrestle with as hybrid homeschooling continues to grow.
A recent PublicSource article highlighted some of the regulatory questions surrounding homeschool cooperatives and hybrid educational programs in our state. While the article focused on one particular situation, the larger conversation affects many families and educational organizations across Pennsylvania.
As the founder and Executive Director of A One-Room Schoolhouse, a nonprofit hybrid homeschool program that has been in development for nine years and opened its doors seven school years ago, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about these questions.
I believe strongly in parental educational freedom. I also understand the very real responsibilities that come with operating an educational program for children.
I do not believe these two convictions are in conflict.
Parents Remain at the Center
When I founded A One-Room Schoolhouse, my goal was not to recreate traditional schooling on a smaller scale. I wanted to build a community where homeschooling families could share resources, benefit from experienced teachers, and give their children opportunities to learn alongside other children.
At its heart, hybrid homeschooling is a partnership.
Parents remain responsible for directing their children’s education, but they recognize that they do not have to do everything alone. They may choose to teach some subjects at home while relying on others for additional instruction, experiences, or expertise.
This is hardly a new idea. For generations, families have relied on tutors, music instructors, athletic coaches, and community organizations to help educate their children.
Hybrid programs simply bring some of these resources together in a more organized way.
Of course, hybrid education is not one single model. Some programs are informal parent-led cooperatives. Others employ professional teachers, operate established campuses, and provide structured academic instruction. These differences matter, and we should be careful not to treat every arrangement as though it were identical.
But the underlying principle remains important: parents should have meaningful freedom to determine how their children are educated and whom they invite to assist them.
Freedom Comes With Responsibility
After seven school years of operating A One-Room Schoolhouse, I can say with confidence that running an educational program is both rewarding and demanding.
Families place tremendous trust in us. They expect their children to receive quality instruction, but they also expect a safe environment, responsible adults, and an organization that takes its obligations seriously.
They should expect nothing less.
Background clearances, emergency preparedness, appropriate supervision, and thoughtful facility planning are all part of responsible operation. These are not merely boxes to check. They are ways we honor the trust families place in us.
At the same time, I believe we must distinguish between protecting children and requiring every educational organization to operate like a traditional school.
A parent-led science cooperative meeting once a week is different from a five-day private school. A hybrid academic program is not the same as a childcare center. The responsibilities of these organizations may overlap, but their purposes and operations are not identical.
Good policy should recognize these differences.
The goal should be meaningful safety and accountability, with expectations appropriate to the services being provided.
Understanding the Laws We Already Have
Pennsylvania already has a framework for home education.
Under Section 1327.1 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code , parents or other qualified supervisors of home education programs have specific legal responsibilities, including educational documentation, portfolios, and annual evaluations.
In other words, homeschooling in Pennsylvania is not an absence of educational accountability.
But the responsibilities of parents and the responsibilities of organizations providing educational services are not always the same. Pennsylvania also has laws governing private academic schools, childcare, and the safety of children in organized programs.
The challenge is understanding how these existing laws apply to educational models that do not fit neatly into traditional categories.
Before creating additional regulations, we should ask whether our current laws already address the concerns being raised. Where clarification is needed, it should be provided clearly and consistently.
And where a genuine gap exists, we should approach it carefully, with a clear understanding of both the problem and the possible consequences of a proposed solution.
Regulation should serve a purpose, not simply create another layer of requirements.
Learning From Other States
Pennsylvania is not alone in considering how emerging educational models fit within existing laws.
Georgia’s “Learning Pod Protection Act” recognizes qualifying parent-organized learning pods and provides significant protections from regulations designed for traditional schools and childcare facilities. The law specifically recognizes that parents may pay for educational services without automatically changing the nature of their learning pod.
West Virginia has taken another approach, “expressly recognizing learning pods and microschools” as distinct educational arrangements, with defined responsibilities for participating families and programs.
Utah has also made room for educational innovation by recognizing “home-based microschools and micro-education entities” in state law. Its approach includes provisions addressing the use of facilities and certain regulatory requirements, acknowledging that smaller educational organizations may operate differently from traditional schools.
These laws are not identical, nor would every provision necessarily be appropriate for Pennsylvania. Each comes with its own definitions, protections, and responsibilities.
But they demonstrate that there is more than one way to approach this issue.
We can learn from the experiences of other states without rushing to adopt an entirely new system of regulation.
Clarity Matters to Families and Operators
One of the greatest challenges facing educational innovators is uncertainty.
I know firsthand what it takes to establish and sustain a hybrid program. Finding facilities, hiring teachers, developing curriculum, purchasing materials, establishing policies, and managing a nonprofit organization require significant time, planning, and financial commitment.
At A One-Room Schoolhouse, we spent two years developing our educational model before opening our doors. Since then, we have grown to four campuses, each requiring thoughtful planning, strong relationships with families, and the careful management of resources.
Consider what it takes to open even one small educational program. Before a single child arrives, organizers must consider the suitability of the building, staffing, insurance, safety procedures, curriculum, and the financial commitments they are making to families.
Now add uncertainty about how the program will be classified under state law.
A property owner may hesitate to lease space. Families may be reluctant to enroll. Organizers may decide that the financial and legal risks are simply too great.
The result may be one less educational opportunity for children.
Clear and consistently applied laws benefit everyone. They help responsible operators understand their obligations, give parents confidence in the programs they choose, and allow state agencies to address genuine concerns without unnecessary confusion.
A Conversation Worth Having
As Pennsylvania considers the future of hybrid education, I hope the conversation includes the people who are actually doing this work.
Parents, teachers, homeschool cooperative leaders, nonprofit directors, and educational entrepreneurs all bring valuable perspectives. So do those responsible for protecting children and administering existing laws.
We may not agree on every detail, but we should be able to agree that children deserve safe educational environments and that parents deserve meaningful choices.
We should also be cautious about creating new regulatory structures before fully understanding the educational models already serving families.
Nine years ago, when I began developing what would become A One-Room Schoolhouse, I believed families needed more opportunities to create an education that worked for their children. I still believe that deeply.
I have also learned that educational freedom is sustained not simply by good intentions, but by responsible leadership, clear expectations, and strong relationships between parents and educators.
Pennsylvania has an opportunity to preserve that freedom while maintaining appropriate protections for children.
We do not have to choose between parental freedom and responsible educational practices. We can, and should, protect both.
And as education continues to change, we should be careful not to regulate away the very opportunities families are working so hard to create.
—
Genevieve Peterson is the Founder and Executive Director of A One-Room Schoolhouse, a nonprofit hybrid homeschool program operating across four campuses in western Pennsylvania. The Schoolhouse has been in development for nine years and has served homeschooling families for seven school years.
References and Further Reading
1. “PublicSource — Article on homeschooling cooperatives, hybrid programs, and regulation in Pennsylvania” (https://www.publicsource.org/homeschooling-coops-hybrid-regulation-pennsylvania/)
2. “Pennsylvania Public School Code, Section 1327.1 — Home Education Programs” (https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1949/0/0014.013.000.027.001..HTM)
3. “Pennsylvania Private Academic Schools Act of 1988” (https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1988/0/0011..HTM)
4. “Georgia Code § 20-2-690 — Learning Pod Protection Act” (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-20/chapter-2/article-16/part-1/subpart-2/section-20-2-690/)
5. “West Virginia Code § 18-8-1 — Compulsory Education, Learning Pods, and Microschools” (https://code.wvlegislature.gov/18-8-1/)
6. “Utah Code § 53G-6-212 — Home-Based Microschools and Micro-Education Entities” (https://law.justia.com/codes/utah/title-53g/chapter-6/part-2/section-212/)
Leave a Reply