Homeschooling

Running head: POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

Positions on “Homeschooling” Janie Dam October 23, 2016

ELM 8855 – Current Education Issues and Trends Professor: Dr. Joseph Adwere-Boahmah Alliant International University, San Diego

1

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

2

Positions on Homeschooling Practitioners and researchers have referred to the concept of “homeschooling” by many other names: home-based education, home education, home-centered learning, home instruction, unschooling, deschooling, autonomous learning, child-centered learning. This paper adopts Michael Donnelly (2012)’s definition of “the elective practice whereby children are educated directly under the personal oversight of their parents in a home setting.” This definition implies a decision by parents to not educate their child in an institutionalized setting found in government operated schools, and their concurrent decision to educate their children at home (Donnelly, 2012).

Universal compulsory school age began in the United States in 1852 and culminated in the 1920s, when every state had passed compulsory school attendance laws (Glenn, 1988).

Following World War I, out of a concern for the influence of “foreign values,” some states drafted laws designed to promote a common American culture through the public school system.

By 1925, however, the landmark case Pierce v. Society I, Sisters coming out of Oregon had reached the Supreme Court. Its ruling expanded the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to cover personal civil liberties, and tipped the scale in favor of legal exemptions from states’ compulsory school attendance laws, including homeschooling (268 U.S. 510 (1925)). Today, some scholars consider the absence or presence of legal protection for citizens’ rights to educate their children independently of the state run school system a “litmus test of democracy,” a phrase popularized by John Warwick Montgomery (2012). Others such as Perry Glanzer (2012) propose that homeschooling is indispensable in a free society, serving to “check upon public education” and to push back against ideology that children are political puppets of the state rather than individual persons with their own varied definitions of self-fulfillment. At the same time, Martha

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

3

Albertson-Fineman and Karen Worthington still make the case for mandatory and universal public education (2009). Convinced that “parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children,” they call for Americans to struggle together to “define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals.” Diane Ravitch (2013 & 2016), former U.S. Secretary of Education, finds the “disdain for the education profession” to be one of the “most disheartening aspects of the current [school privatization] reform movement.” Despite its faults, Ravitch defends the American system of democratically managed schools as the mainstay of American communities and the foundation for the nation’s success. She wrote: “We must work together to improve our public schools. We must extend the promise of equal educational opportunity to all the children of our nation. Protecting our public schools against privatization and saving them for future generations of American children is the civil rights issue of our time."

A civil rights attorney staunchly advocating for home education, Donnelly concedes that it can be argued that the state may “rightly possess broad authority to prescribe minimum educational standards.” But he also points out that some insist that “inappropriate standards to evaluate socialization of homeschoolers leads to monopolization of education – which is the hallmark of a totalitarian regime” (2012).

Written in the aftermath of World War II, Article 26, paragraph 3, of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” The 1952 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides that “in the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

4

convictions." Countries such as Germany that harshly treat families seeking homeschooling rights are criticized by the United Nations and the international community in general (Donnelly, 2012). Alongside Germany, Donnelly also listed Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Greece, and Spain as nations that currently prohibit homeschooling. Possible changes in theory and practice in Brazil and China are discussed in more recent writings by Luis Mauro Barbosa (2016) and Fangyan Yuan & Huquan Liu (2016), respectively. Lack of legal recognition of educating children at home is still occurring in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Malta, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and Uruguay. Overall, existing national policies regarding educating children at home vary across the globe, and can be categorized as “high regulation,” “moderate regulation,” or “low regulation” (Glenn & De Groof, 2012). Jurisdictions classified as “high regulation” (parents are required to apply for and receive approval for homeschooling by the government and administrative burdens are restrictive) include: Albania, Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Quebec and several American states: Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The states with “moderate regulation” (notification of intention to homeschool to authorities along with regular evaluation of student performance, parental qualifications, record-keeping requirements) are: Austria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Qatar, Slovenia, the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Yukon Territory; and the American states of Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. “Low regulation” states that require only that the

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

5

parents notify the governing authority when they begin homeschooling and abide by minimum standards that apply to all educational options, such as the subjects to be taught, include: the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick; Indonesia, Philippines, Russia; and the American states of Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Kentucky, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

While the discussion on home education is now a global one, the majority of the literature and body of research had come out of the American experience (Donnelly, 2012; Kraftl, 2016).

Proponent Joseph Murphy proclaims that homeschooling in the United States is a “social movement” that has attained “remarkable success” (2012). Kunzman & Gaither are just as fascinated by homeschooling as a social phenomenon as Murphy, but more cautious toward claims of its achievement in practice (2013). Describing past studies on home-based education as more anecdotal than quantitative in nature, lacking in demographic basis and highly politicized, these authors sought to distill legitimate conclusions from the available data to “foster high caliber future work on one of the most dynamic contemporary educational trends.” They warn readers about the design limitations and disingenuous generalization of findings in past studies conducted by researchers with clear agendas either for or against homeschooling such as Brian Ray and the National Home Educational Research Institute (NHERI).

In spite of its recognized leading role, the controversial and tumultuous history of the American homeschooling movement itself raises more questions than provides answers. The Coalition for Responsible Home Education, gathering historical information among others from Knowles, Marlow & Muchmore (1992), Gaither (2008), and Stevens (2009), summarizes the history of the homeschool movement in the United States as follows: In the 1970s John Holt, an

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

6

educational theorist, began advocating for school reform out of an objection to the formal schooling model focused on rote learning. Arguing that this model created an oppressive learning environment designed solely to mold children into compliant employees, Holt urged parents to liberate their children from formal education and to follow what is now referred to as the method of “unschooling.” In 1977, Holt founded the newsletter “Growing Without Schooling.” Raymond Moore, another educational theorist, and friend of Holt, added to the movement by publishing his book Home Grown Kids in 1981, proposing that children should be schooled at home until the age of eight or nine, in order to first form in them a solid educational, psychological, and moral foundation. Per Moore, early formal schooling is more detrimental than beneficial to children.

By the 1980s fundamentalist Christians have become involved, significantly altering the face and tone of the homeschooling movement. James Dobson of the Focus on the Family group and other evangelical leaders described the public schools as evil “Satanic holthouses,” and took an antagonistic, uncooperative view against public school administrators. When Holt and Moore first began the movement, keeping children at home for education was legal in every state. Early homeschoolers submitted their home education plans to local school boards for approval. Moore stated in the early 1980s that “local public school administrators and primary teachers … are understanding” in the vast majority of cases. In the rare event that the homeschool parent is faced with opposition, organizations founded by Holt and Moore offered help with mediation and legal aid.

Michael Farris, a homeschool parent and lawyer, founded the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) in 1983. Farris positioned HSLDA to become “the nerve center of a national movement infrastructure.” Aided by other Christian Right homeschool leaders, Farris took control of the movement’s networking system and public image by the mid-1990s.

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

7

Secular homeschool groups and organizations were still in existence, but they were overshadowed by the political and organizational strength of HSLDA. While early homeschool leaders aimed to free children from the constraints of formal schooling to actualize their individual interests, the leaders connected to HSLDA followed a different vision: homeschool children to later deploy them in government, education, and the entertainment industries in order to transform the United States into a nation of Christian beliefs. While their practices varied, some of the faith-based homeschooling leaders endorsed the extreme rhetoric that girls should not attend college, and embraced a full return to Old Testament law. By the 1980s the emphasis of the movement had become religious ideology rather than educational ideals. Given that the main argument and original rationale for the right to educate children at home was the liberation of children from dogma and ideology, it would appear that at this point the American homeschooling movement has had the very opposite effect.

Continued vocal attacks of public schooling by the Christian Right led to a uncooperative stance among public school officials, making it increasingly more difficult for homeschoolers to implement their home based educational plans. Litigation ensued, and public school officials responded even more negatively when faced with lawsuits. Some school officials also felt threatened by the growing number students leaving the public school system for schooling at home. Historian Milton Gaither (2008) called the 1980s “the changing of the guard.” One secular homeschooling group referred to this period as “the look over your shoulder time.”

Homeschoolers began reacting to the troubling climate by going to the state level, petitioning their legislators to pass laws that protect and accommodate homeschooling. They disagreed among themselves over how much educational oversight the laws should contain, over standardized testing and over curriculum plans. Some states responded by changing their

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

8

education policy without legislative action, some by adding only a few words or a sentence to their statutes, while others by composing and codifying extensive homeschool statutes. By 1989 the vast majority states had settled in compromise with homeschoolers, with only a few states stretching into the early 1990s. Today every state has some sort of policy on homeschooling in place; but as mentioned above (Donnelly, 2012) regulations still vary widely from state to state and there is still not a national consensus on parental homeschooling rights.

Regardless of theoretical argumentation and positioning in the abstract, the fact remains that the number of children being homeschooled in one form or another is growing, motivating scholars Ari Neuman and Oz Guterman (2016) to develop a broader taxonomy for both structured and unstructured elected home education (EHE), and practitioners Joanne Puryear (2016) and Aaron Saiger (2016) to write about local hybrid-homeschool collaborative communities and the erosion of the public/private binary via virtual learning. The examination by Jennifer Lois in the United States (2012) and Peter Kraftl in the United Kingdom (2016) of the personal experiences of mothers who made the decision to homeschool their children provides a psychological, emotional explanation for the phenomenon. Lois began her book Home is Where the School is: The Logic of Homeschooling and the Emotional Labor of Mothering with three questions that homeschool parents are most frequently asked: “Won’t your children be social misfits?”; “Do you think you can really teach them as well as a professional teacher?”; “What about the prom?” These judgmental questions that parents are faced with when they make the choice to educate their children at home, from childhood to young adulthood, refer to the two primary benefits of public schooling: opportunity for socialization with peers and professional trained teaching staff. Through her eight years of observing and interviewing homeschooling moms, however, Lois would characterize them as “extremely concerned about their children’s

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING

9

education,” and seeing homeschooling as a way to be “ultraresponsible parents.” While she admits that not all homeschooled children succeed academically and socially, she argues that the same can be said about children attending conventional state-run schools. Furthermore, where the content knowledge base of the mother is limited, Lois found compensatory behavior of becoming more innovative and assertive about obtaining additional learning resources, ultimately leading to a sense of satisfaction within the mother that the best educational experience has been provided to her child. For example, one homeschool mother was very happy that she tailored her son’s education to their family’s interests and his artistic talents by combining outside theater classes and piano lessons with other coursework at his school. Some of the mothers in Kraftl’s study felt that the public school their children attended were “inappropriate.” That is, the formal learning behaviors (such as cursive handwriting or critical thinking in Kindergarten) rigidly expected of students by the school system are not age appropriate for all young children, and threatened to take away their “right to childhood.” This echoes the concerns brought up by Moore in the United States the 1980s. Others considered the public school environment physically and emotionally dangerous – bullying, for example, can cancel out any advantages to the peer socialization experience of schooling. Yet others were concerned that moral concepts taught at school not aligned with the values of the child’s family would have a negative effect on the parent-child relationship. The ineffectiveness of public school special education services was also cited as a reason for homeschooling (Kraftl, 2016). Over all, the British mothers interviewed

by Kraftl described homeschooling as a “very freeing experience.”

It is difficult to imagine the disappearance of public schooling any time soon; it is such a deeply rooted cultural experience especially here in the United States. While steadily growing, the home-educated population still remains in the lower few percents in spearheading America.

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING 10 On the other hand, it is equally difficult to argue against the civil liberty of being able to decide for oneself how to raise one’s own children. In this regard, constitutional due process should be well afforded to those who would benefit from home-based education. Making a distinction between “schooling” and “education,” Kunzman’s proposed paradigm of “Life as Education” (LaE) (2012) offers a rational, neutral common ground where public and private educators alike can find their important role in a “broader universe of learning experiences.” The schooling mainstream can find itself in a much larger life mainstream, and in loco parentis can be kept in loco.

References Albertson-Fineman, M., & Worthington, K. (2009). What is Right for Children? The Competing Paradigms of Religion and Human Rights. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing.

Barbosa, L. M. R. (2016). An overview of the homeschooling in brazil: Analysis of its principles and attempts of legalization. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(04), 203.

Coalition for Responsible Home Education (2016). A brief history of homeschooling. Retrieved at http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/a-brief-history-ofhomeschooling/ Donnelly, M. P. (2016). A global perspective on freedom in education through the eyes of the homeschool movement. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7(1), 51.

Gaither, M. (2008). Homeschool: An American History. New York: Palgrave.

Glenn, C. L. (1988). The Myth of the Common School. Amherst, MA: University of Massachussetts Press.

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING 11 Glenn, C. L., De Groof, J., & Candal, C. S. (2012). Balancing Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability in Education. Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP).

Vasile, A. (2013). Balancing Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability in Education by Charles L. Glenn and Jan De Groof (Eds.) (2012). Volume 2. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers. Journal of School Choice, 7(4), 597-600.

Kraftl, P. (2016). Moments of withdrawal: Homeschooling mothers’ experiences of taking their children out of mainstream education. Body/State, 157.

Knowles, J. G., Marlow, S. E., & Muchmore, J. A. (1992). From pedagogy to ideology: Origins and phases of home education in the United States, 1970-1990. American Journal of Education, 195-235.

Kunzman, R. (2012). Education, schooling, and children's rights: The complexity of homeschooling. Educational Theory, 62(1), 75-89.

Kunzman, R., & Gaither, M. (2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education, 2(1), 4-59.

Lois, J. (2012). Home Is Where the School Is: The Logic of Homeschooling and the Emotional Labor of Mothering. New York: New York University Press.

Montgomery, J. W. (2012). The justification of homeschooling vis-Ă -vis the European human rights system. In Homeschooling in America and in Europe: A Litmus Test of Democracy.

Sweden: Culture & Science Pub.

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING 12 Murphy, J. (2012). Homeschooling in America: Capturing and assessing the movement.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016). Academic achievements and homeschooling—It all depends on the goals. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 1-6.

Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016). Structured and unstructured homeschooling: a proposal for broadening the taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1-17.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art.

2, Mar. 20, 1952, 213 U.N.T.S. 264.

Puryear, J. (2016, March). Emerging local hybrid-homeschool collaborative communities.

In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2016, No. 1, pp. 2291-2295).

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools. New York, NY: Vintage.

Ravitch, D. (2016). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Saiger, A. (2016). Homeschooling, virtual Learning, and the eroding public/private binary.

Journal of School Choice, 10(3), 297-319.

Stevens, M. (2009). Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

POSITIONS ON HOMESCHOOLING 13 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (1ll) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(Ill) (Dec. 10, 1948).

Yuan, F., & Liu, H. (2016). 13 From Homeschooling to Non-School Experimental Education. In Chinese Research Perspectives on Education, Volume 3 (pp. 237-251). Brill.