The Prairie Family Chronicles posted an interesting definition of homeschooling she found while surfing.
HOMESCHOOLING: An educational method where parents teach their own children at home in order to emphasize academic excellence, restore Christian values to education, and to bring unity to the family.
As far as Christian homeschooling goes, I sort of like it. It goes beyond “religious reasons” which seem to push us into a stereotype that I do not believe is any more accurate for the average Christian homeschooling family than it is for anyone else. Maybe I can adapt the definition slightly for use next time someone asks me why I homeschool.
Homeschooling allows me to emphasize basic Christian values of education, including individuality, academic excellence and the unity of our family.
Or I might have to snag this little gem by National Home Education Network’s Laura Derrick shared by Cocking a Snook:
It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. I believe homeschooling is the art of the everyday. It ranges from the sublime to the mundane, from incredible moments that we never could have imagined, to the simple, inevitable joys and sadnesses of living. It is how we spend our days, how we live together, what we achieve, the goals we seek, and how we learn from the experiences we’d love to have do-overs on.
Especially if you have been following any of the “unity in diversity” discussion, you should take a moment to read the rest of the entry.
How do you define homeschooling? Especially when it is something so passionately embraced by such diverse groups? This is not purely an intellectual exercise. According to Deborah Stevenson, the Executive Director of National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD), the definition of homeschooling may eventually lead to further restrictions on homeschooling.
As for current issues threatening parents nationwide, there are many. First, is the enactment of federal legislation for the reasons cited earlier, but also because in any federal legislation the term “homeschool” eventually must be defined, either in the legislation itself or by the courts. Whatever that definition is, because it is a federal law, it may, and probably will, supercede any definition of “homeschool” that currently exists in each and every state, and, in turn, may and probably will, supercede the law regarding homeschooling in each and every state. Home Education Magazine
I have always been rather neutral in these discussions because I favor choice in education, no matter what form that takes. From a legal perspective, I see the potential for problems.
…The problem here is that whatever legislation affects public schooling will affect those doing a public school curriculum at home. If those people doing government school at home are referred to as homeschoolers, then autonomous homeschoolers will be brought into the net of that legislation, just by the use of the word “homeschool” in legislation…
…People must be made to understand that when public money is involved in home education then it is no longer private and autonomous. With public funding comes accountability and oversight, and if you choose to accept those terms then it is perfectly acceptable. The problem comes when that accountability and oversight is applied when you are not part of the crowd that accepts public money, or not enrolled in public schooling, especially at home. NHELD Bulletin
From a personal perspective, however, I have seen homeschoolers become rather aggressive in debates with those using charter schools to educate their children in their homes. It is a perfectly valid option for many families and I cannot help but wonder what they must think of homeschoolers after these debates.
Personally, I would prefer to see no legal (especially federal) definition of homeschooling. Regardless of what HSLDA may think of the matter. Here in Nebraska, for example, I am an “unaccredited private school.” I have two options when filing my paperwork: Rule 12 and Rule 13. I do not really understand why there are two rules. Rule 13 states that the process of accreditation undermines my sincerely held religious beliefs. But Rule 12 effectively covers me, as well. It states that accreditation would “interfere with the decisions of the parents or legal guardians in directing their child’s education.”
“Home school” only comes up in reference to deadlines to file paperwork, and only because it relates to part of the Missing Children’s Identification Act. Other than that, homeschooling is not mentioned in Nebraska homeschool law.
It seems to me to be a workable model to consider when legislation is being considered. If we can somehow shift the focus of legislators off of “homeschooling” and toward “the right of the parent to direct the child’s education,” how you or I define homeschooling is fully irrelevant.
Hat tip: Home Education Magazine, for the link to Laura Derrick’s words.
[tags]homeschooling, homeschool[/tags]
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
I personally view the ‘definition’ of home education as being parent determined and directed education w/o the use of tax-payer funds. It is an all-inclusive defintion, because the reasons for HSing are so varied. Some folks homeschool for reasons that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.
The gov’t (this includes taxpayers)is within its rights to expect accountability for how taxpayer funds are used, so I don’t believe that cyber-schooling, charter schools, etc, that are receiving federal or local funds, can be lumped in with homeschooling- it is too fundamental of a difference. If I am not using public money to educate my kids, the gov’t should have no oversight into my life until there is reason to believe I am doing something immoral or illegal.
In other words, I am innocent until proven guilty, which is not how home educators are treated in most states. It is often assumed that parents will be irresponsible and lazy unless Big Mama Gov’t stands over us with a hickory switch.
I would define homeschooling as educating my children at home. I wouldn’t figure the hows and whys were anyone else’s business. (But then, I’ve always been a contrary child.)
Sunniemom has a good point about using taxpayers money. However, for argument’s sake, I say as long as I wasn’t taking out more tax dollars than I was putting in, it still shouldn’t be anyone’s business how I spend it. After all, it would be my money.
(Sorry, no caffeine yet. Feeling snarly.)
You are wise to be wary of pending legislation which serves to define something which falls under the umbrella of God given rights. Each time we permit government to infringe on these rights yet another portion of those rights vanishes from view.
I have seen this happen in the locksmith industry where a group of folks got together and defined each aspect in such a way as to do away with a free market industry and turn it into a fully licensed government agency. When you have to get permission to do that which up until that moment was considered a freedom then you can mark your calendar as to the date you lost that freedom.
The gov’t (this includes taxpayers)is within its rights to expect accountability for how taxpayer funds are used, so I don’t believe that cyber-schooling, charter schools, etc, that are receiving federal or local funds, can be lumped in with homeschooling- it is too fundamental of a difference.
You are very right. And I think that is why I am leery of vouchers and against Bush’s faith based initiatives. Once the government’s money is involved, you lose control.
LOTP, in conversation, I would agree with you.
But if we have a legal definition like that, and legislation is written to govern those who are accepting government money, I see a potential problem. I’d prefer there to be no legal definition.
I don’t think your snarkiness will fly in court. If you take the money, you have to follow the rules. : ) After all, the state of Nebraska pays more to the federal government than we get back (would you believe that was even the subject of some dismay in an article I read?). But we still have to follow the rules to get what we do get.
Look at the history of the 55mph speed limit. Dear little Kansas tried to stick to its position of state’s rights but couldn’t afford it. They lost all their highway funding and finally relented.
Tax credits should be different, but honestly I am more concerned about Ron Paul’s promise of tax credits than I am about Huckabee’s apparent flip-flop on homeschool laws in Arkansas. Homeschooling will need to be defined. And you will have to provide proof that you homeschool. There are enough groups that object to even notifying the state. Why should we notify the federal government of our educational status?
I suppose it isn’t a big deal so long as we have the choice. But it still concerns me.
First Timothy 6:10 says love of money is the root of all evil, which I take to mean that money-love makes for a dramatic plot point but never the transcendent principle in any “triumph of human spirit” story.
Home education’s power of story soars when we focus it on parent-directed, parent-protected principles, on real learning and meaning and growth within organic human family relationships. Whatever the law calls it or where and how it happens, how it is funded or misconstrued by others, are all ancillary diversions from that central truth.
So the real power of story in home education — all education! — cannot be reduced to the technical specs of mere schooling: law and rule, test answer data, programming loops, “education” as a series of decision hierarchies installed into each child by certified and regulated factory reps, either at home or at school. . .
“Choice” applied politically — to school choice or religious choice or reproductive choice — is so much bigger than “the money.”
I encourage all homeschooling parents to think of home education as academic freedom rather than school choice (much less religious freedom or the right to bear arms!)
Academic freedom is a first amendment guarantee to every citizen rich or poor, religious or not, schooled or not. And virtually everybody is for it! — especially democrats and journalists and university liberals and unionized schoolfolk, who work *against* homeschooling and public school choice even as they cherish their own “academic freedom” and free speech, etc.
So every family’s sovereignty over education of its own is a constitutional constant, no matter how they vote or pay their bills and taxes. Remember even if we agree to reduce home education to mere shcooling, the government is accountable to US for its schools, not the other way around!
Ergo there is nothing about education that “organized others” (in church, school, Congress or corporate offices) can either impose on us or forbid to us.
But here’s the rub once you think through that principle — that means we homeschoolers can’t blithely define public school kids as indentured to government as if our taxes bought us control of their time and beliefs and knowledge labors, and thus any less deserving of intellectual autonomy than our kids.
The right to direct our lives (and by proxy our childrens’ educations) is inherent, and not a right granted to us by the gov’t.
One of the best articles I have read on this topic is at http://www.nheld.com/20060508_article.htm
Excerpt-
It is important to note that the compulsory attendance laws were aimed at those children who were not being educated by other means. In fact, there were many exemptions to these laws. Most importantly, these laws simply did not apply to those children who were being educated by other means. In other words, the legislatures did not declare education of children by their parents, or by private schools or tutors for that matter, to be illegal (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0491c.asp).
Today, most states still have “compulsory attendance laws.” BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT WAS EVER ILLEGAL FOR PARENTS TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN CHILDREN. THE TRUTH IS, IT WAS NEVER “ILLEGAL” FOR PARENTS TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Can we please stop perpetuating the lie that it was illegal?
…From this lie flows a host of issues. For example, if you believe the lie that it was illegal for parents to instruct their children, it follows that parents would have to seek “permission” from the government in order to do so. If you believe the lie, it follows that parents would be fearful that they would not receive that “permission.” If you believe the lie, it follows that parents would be grateful when the government magnanimously grants that “permission.” If you believe the lie, it follows that parents are more apt to see “regulation” of parental instruction by the government as a matter of course. After all, if the government has the “authority” to grant “permission” to parents to instruct, certainly the government has the “authority” to impose “regulation” of parents’ ability to instruct, and it is reasonable for the government to do so.
**But here’s the rub once you think through that principle — that means we homeschoolers can’t blithely define public school kids as indentured to government as if our taxes bought us control of their time and beliefs and knowledge labors, and thus any less deserving of intellectual autonomy than our kids.**
This is what I have been struggling with while currently trying to define my own definition of homeschooling! Finally, something that says that homeschoolers need to look at themselves as labelers as much as being labeled.
And, while trying to define my own definition I have to agree with the quote by the NHELD Bulletin: …when public money is involved in home education then it is no longer private and autonomous. With public funding comes accountability and oversight…
This is where I am currently at. We are homeschooling through our District’s Homeschooling Program. Essentially, it is nothing more than an Independent Study Program and I have become overwhelmed and dismayed with it. Frustrated with it.
It is a valid choice for many families, but I do have to say that it takes much of the control away from parents while trying to make it seem as if they are there to assist parents in homeschooling. It’s mere appeasement, while still collecting funds per student enrolled and holding parents accountable to state standards for testing purposes.
I appreciate their materials. I do not appreciate their timelines, the scheduling and lesson plans dictating what we will be learning and when, their questioning and having to answer to them.
I think that having taken this route, I would count these programs out of the true definition of homeschooling.
Luckily, in California I was able to register as a private school and having done so I can pull my son from the District’s homeschooling program. It is mere confidence that has kept me from doing this to date.
Dana said, “Why should we notify the federal government of our educational status?”
Sing it, sister.
Sunniemom - You are right about school attendance laws.
Also, I am not sure about other states, but in Louisiana the attendance law basically states that a student must attend school X number of days and be given instrution in various topics. It says nothing about what level of proficiency a student must gain. Food for thought.
Dana - Feeling much less snarky now. Caffeine kicking in. Grey matter engaging. Thanks for your tolerance.
No need to give me a tax credits. Just give everyone one. Or tax those who use the public school system on a sliding scale. It is our right to travel as we please, and yet toll roads exist. If I choose not to travel on that road, I don’t pay the toll. If it is looked at from that perspective (which it won’t be), homeschooling won’t need to be defined. There would just be those who use public schools and those who don’t.
I know, I know, but a girl can dream, can’t she?
Hmmm, I love the toll road idea above, though I too doubt it would ever be the case.
For me homeschooling is education that does not occur inside public or private schools. But such a broad definition would never work in legal matters I’m sure. I worry that having a set definition would exclude some, unschoolers for example. Hmmm, food for thought.
Thank you for your additions, JJRoss…I think you’ve been in this discussion much longer than I and I appreciate any insight you have.
I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but is there really nothing that “organized others” can make you do? I’m not so sure. My thoughts may be going in a different direction than what you are intending, but take Sunniemom’s point that homeschooling was never illegal. As cases came before the courts, it became pretty well established that the rights of parents superceded the interests of the states.
Score one for American liberties.
But in the 1965 case State V. Vaughn, Justice Schettini stated,
As in all cases of judicial interpretation, the cardinal rule is that we should find a sensible, workable view of legislation if the language at all permits that.
The cardinal view? Really? This came up recently in a New Jersey case. The original appears to no longer be available, but I have some of it summarized here:
http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=385
But essentially, they took this “workable view” of judicial interpretation to outline their vision of the kind of oversight the Department of Education should take over homeschooling, including registering with the school district, submitting curriculum, parent training and regular testing. Granted, the New Jersey Superior Court is not likely to be cited in any upcoming case law, and this decision was not to be used as legal precedent at least at the time I posted on it. But how does any court in the United States come to a decision like this which clearly gives the state powers it does not have?
But here’s the rub once you think through that principle — that means we homeschoolers can’t blithely define public school kids as indentured to government as if our taxes bought us control of their time and beliefs and knowledge labors, and thus any less deserving of intellectual autonomy than our kids.
I agree with you completely. In fact, I specifically stated in my entry,
If we can somehow shift the focus of legislators off of “homeschooling” and toward “the right of the parent to direct the child’s education,” how you or I define homeschooling is fully irrelevant.
I support the parent’s rights to direct the education of the child.
But we have a problem here, too. This, too, is from an older post:
Parental rights is a big issue recently, highlighted by conflicts between parental wishes and the interests of the state. In 1996, Federal District Judge Melinda Harmon stated in a ruling that “Parents give up their rights when they drop the children off at public school.” In Fields v. Palmdale School District, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision in a case involving parental objections to a survey containing sexual items that was given to their children without their consent. They used the tradition of the state’s authority as parens patriae (father of the people) “to restrict parents’ interest in the custody, care, and nurture of their children.”
Links to the decisions are in the original post, assuming they are still available.
http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=399
I have no problem with parents enrolling their children in public school. That is something each parent much decide for himself, and you will not find a lot of rhetoric here against people who choose other methods of education. I’m sure my biases are evident…I don’t pretend neutrality…but the decision rightfully belongs to each family.
Summer, you raise an interesting question. I think the problem here goes deeper than just definitions.
We are defining our rights, in a sense. But what is a right? The Constitution is pretty clear that any right not expressly given to the federal government is given to the states or the people. I have the same issue with the Parent’s Rights amendment. Why on earth do we need an amendment to give us rights we already have?
I know why, at least according to HSLDA, but this is all symptomatic. How do we address the cause rather than focusing all our energies on stop-gap measures which ultimately may cause the opposite of what is intended in them?
One of the problems is that compulsory attendance laws were enacted for reasons that are no longer valid- they make as much sense as having horse-drawn carriage parking at the mall.
Thanks Dana, for recognizing a veteran of the definition debate. I’d say yep, I’ve been steeped (pickled?) in this discussion!
But it’s educational if nothing else, and the truth is that nothing is better as a writing prompt!
You might really enjoy this, for instance:
Another Cloud on Home Education’s Clarity Campaign Horizon?”
(If anyone reading is from Minnesota, I apologize for whatever offense you may take with the fuin I’m having but I swear, I’m not making any of this up!)
Thanks to all who joined in Dana’s comment section with a wide variety of ideas and clear thinking. I’ll continue to sit back and enjoy the discussion. I tend to be “just this side of paranoid” when it comes to any governmental agency or branch; how’s that for a retired cop who worked within the system for 20 years? I see legislation from the bench as the most dangerous assault on God given rights because of the long term effects of blatantly left leaning rulings. As was pointed out, certain judges have provided a means of circumventing parental rights and turning citizens into servants of the state.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to say much more than thanks. Your posts are thought-provoking and so excellently written. I have many of your posts bookmarked with the intention of reading them again and again when needed. So again…thanks for taking the time to write! It is much appreciated!
JJ–I’m new to the discussion and never would have entered into it if it weren’t for all the talk of presidential candidates and tax credits for homeschoolers. My first reaction was, “Woohoo! I’m a big enough minority to officially be pandered to!” What an honor.
Then I started to wonder what that would really mean. Nothing, probably. Tax credits are a little different from vouchers and we’ve had tax credits in education for years with no deleterious effects I know of. But if they exist, “homeschooler” will need a legal definition and we will need some proof that we are doing it to give to the IRS. If we want the tax credit. Would the existence of a definition affect the rest of us? I don’t know. Just questions I am exploring.
I can’t find it now, but there was a bill before our unicameral to provide tax credits to people with their children in public school. I thought that an interesting twist. Something about gas and school supplies.
TF–I tend to agree. But the one thing I keep coming back to is that we cannot “fix” faulty judges with legislation. If they are not going to rule based on the Constitution and the legislation before them, there are deeper issues.
Linda, what a nice thing to say. I really appreciate your kind words.
I personally think that California’s got the right approach. There is no such thing as “homeschooling” under state law. Children who are being educated at home are either:
(1) Private school students
(2) Public school students
(3) Tutored students
Most families choose option #1 and create their own individual private school since it offers the most freedom and flexibility. No standardized tests. No specific credentialing for the teachers. No portfolio review by busybody school administrators. No specific number of instructional hours. No restrictions on using religious materials if that’s what the family desires.
As a Catholic Christian, I’m a bit sensitive about seeing a certain segment of a group attempting to define membership in the group in such a way that deliberately excludes another segment with which the first group disagrees. If a charter school family is educating their children at home and considers themselves to be “homeschooling”, then what right do I have to say they’re not? I may have some very fundamental disagreements with charter schools, but I don’t get to deny them the use of the “homeschooler” label as a result.
Crimson Wife-
California has something right? Be still my heart! j/k :p Actually, I think those definitions are great. Perfect even.
However, agreeing with a certain educational approach and attempting to qualify a ‘legal definition’ of home education are two separate subjects.
I think it is great that folks can have so many choices in education, but for the purposes of ‘defining’ homeschooling for legislative reasons, there is home education that is completely separate from the public school system, and home education that utilizes the public school system.
Expecting accountability from those who do not use the system is like telling when and where and how I can go driving my own car. But if I borrow the gov’ts car, even if I am buying the gas, I can expect them to hold me accountable for the use of their vehicle.
This has nothing to do with agreement or approval of methods, IMO. The only time I would ‘deny’ someone the label of ‘homeschooler’ is if someone were keeping their kids at home for nefarious reasons and denying them an education while hiding behind the label of ‘homeschooler’.
I think you are right- identifying as a private, public or tutored student would seem to take care of the situation. Ultimately I think we still need legislators to keep in mind that the right of parents to direct and determine factors in their childrens’ lives- from education to healthcare- is essential and sacred.
Nobody’s child is rightfully held accountable to the government for learning what the government commands they must learn.
JJ Ross, “rightfully” is a key word. And no, my child isn’t, but in some states, the parents are. It doesn’t mean that people are not being held to state standards.
Crimson Wife, I agree with you:
I may have some very fundamental disagreements with charter schools, but I don’t get to deny them the use of the “homeschooler” label as a result.
I actually ask…if this isn’t “homeschooling,” then what is Abeka or another program that delivers the entire program to the family. Abeka even has a DVD series so you don’t have to do much of anything and more than one offers to grade your child’s work. Is this a “private charter school?”
But what I am sort of pondering is what would happen if there were a legal definition of what homeschooling is. And where that would leave those who do not fit. If it is all semantics, I don’t care in the least who wants to claim themselves to be a homeschooler. And I’m only wondering because of all this talk of tax credits for homeschoolers.
I think the trouble is in the semantics that homeschooling throws out to try to address the “confusion” with charters. We wind up making things worse, wrongly defining each other as in or out and worst of all, alienating ourselves from our own principles. As any sort of policy proposal, it gets to be an irrational mess.
For example, the public funding question seems like a logical place to divide schooled and unschooled kids, but — we all already get tax benefits for the children themselves, from the moment they get a social security number. And that has not endangered our parental sovereignty. (Maybe there are parents who don’t claim this “public” money but I never met or heard of one — including all the homeschoolers with whom I have disputed funding source as the definition of what’s home education and what’s not.)
And my family fully intends to claim whatever public scholarships, tax credits and deductions are available for college (which Favorite Daughter already attended for several semesters at public expense, as a legally dual-enrolled homeschooler completely in charge of her own learning.)
These are the kinds of real situations along the education continuum or spectrum (there are dozens) that make “tax funding” not a clearcut definition to divide them at all, and expose as a convenient untruth, our fixed ideas about “private” as so different from “public.”
Imo, public programs and funding aren’t the issue; compulsory attendance laws are. Prison-like coercive schooling with criminal penalties to the parents for resisting, isn’t right or fair or worthy of a free nation.
And compulsory schools don’t even work . . .the final indignity. Heck, even military service isn’t compulsory any more, for similar reasons — nothing is as good when you’re forced into it. Everything wrong with public schools is transformed when the compulsion is dropped, including all these conversations and probably home education too, but in good ways.
And if we still see the need to clarify semantics, I suggest working on the difference between “schooling” and “education.” Now there’s a topic!
“As a Catholic Christian, I’m a bit sensitive about seeing a certain segment of a group attempting to define membership in the group in such a way that deliberately excludes another segment with which the first group disagrees.”
Crimson Wife puts her finger on exactly what happens with “we stand for homeschooling” politics — protestants in America cut Catholics (and Mormons) out of their “Christian” herd by definition, and diminish them thereby. (Wish I had a dollar for every evangelical radio caller complaining that Mitt Romney isn’t really a Christian!)
Btw, Thinking Parents evaluating these issues privately might want to know that the federal government does officially define different religions! Almost 40 different flavors made the list to date, including atheism and wicca –I was amazed to learn this, and to that nobody seems to be calling it dangerous.
It is interesting that you bring up the federal grants. That is what I was looking at as I was writing this and trying to decide what I thought of it.
While the existence of these have not hindered our rights as parents and individuals, they have had an effect on institutions of higher learning. I’ll look up the details later…my kids need me. But I know that Hillsdale college stuck to their issues and, even as a private college, ended up with federal involvement. It came down to the fact that they accepted students who accepted federal aid, thus they had to comply with federal laws regarding education.
So now they won’t take students with these scholarships in order to maintain their complete independence.
I gotta ditto Dana- with ‘federal’ money comes strings. “There is no such thing as a free lunch” applies to educational issues just as it does all other gov’t programs.
Now, if you *want* to jump through those hoops, that is your decision, and I don’t think any less of anyone who uses federal grants or public schools or any other available programs.
I don’t see the point of the federal gov’t defining different religions- they don’t legislate along those lines. Making distinctions is not necessarily a bad thing- I am a female- that is a gender disctinction. As long as it isn’t the basis for legislation, I have no problem being identified as a woman.
As I see it, there is a move to define ‘homeschooling’ *for the purpose* of legislation- and that makes me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs.
Some truth in that I agree, but also easily noted historical exceptions that make it clearly not true enough for “clear” separation of education freedoms.
Take the GI bill for example, which did exactly the opposite of tying up (or tying down) veterans. It set them free intellectually, socially, and economically:
Utilizing gov’t programs and being dependent on gov’t programs are different mindsets. I think Reagan recognized that gov’t programs could help people, but that there was a danger in folks falling into the entitlement trap of a gov’t program for every human need or desire.
Which is why there is a difference between involved parents who use the public schools or cyber schools or charter schools to direct their childrens’ educations, and those who hand them over to the system and don’t show up at school until graduation. And then of course there are those who don’t want to use the system at all, and go the home education or private school route.
I am still thinking Crimson Wife’s mention of CA’s definitions is a good one- public, private, and tutored, with no gov’t intervention or accountability for private or tutored students. I haven’t done any research into other state’s statutes yet, but the marbles are certainly rolling around in my head now.
In Florida a homeschool education quite legally can be public, private and tutored — all at the same time in combination even — with parents directing rather than government. Doesn’t help much with the defining, huh?
It all works for me. If you want to call yourself a homeschooler, afterschooler, carschooler, part-time homeschooler it really doesn’t bother me. I’m sure all have very interesting experiences to draw from. : )
If the federal government defines homeschooling, what will that definition be? And how will it affect us?
Will it be like definitions of the religious groups you brought up, ie., odd but essentially meaningless?
Or will it be like the definition of marriage?
Or somewhere in between?
I think these are definitely things I prefer to think about now rather than pass off as meaningless and find something later.
My best guess is that homeschooling would be defined as somehow independent…unless we bring up HONDA again. But I’m viewing this in the context of defining homeschooling for the purpose of offering tax credits. In which case, it would be rather odd for the state to create a definition which allowed families to apply which were already using state funds to educate their children.
I don’t want to be defined, nor do I want special status as any group. I just want to be me. With the state having as little influence over what that means as is possible. : )
(For the record, I am opposed to the marriage amendment. I don’t think churches should be forced to marry homosexuals against their conscience, but I also don’t think the central government should have the power to regulate marriages.)
I am trying to mesh this together with the Principle Approach educational method of defining words and a quote I heard, “Whoever defines your words, controls you.” (or something similar to that)
I understand we don’t want others defining our terms for us, especially in ways that threaten our liberty, but if we are not specific in our conversation how can we truly communicate? Maybe it is not the government’s job to define. What do you think? I’m sure I’m missing something simple, but sometimes the simple eludes me.
Oh, you would have to go and throw that into it. : ) I was thinking about that but am not sure.
The definition is important and the idea of that statement shows how important this discussion is. A definition determines the limits of an idea. Should that be determined by the state?
Katherine Dang says we should give up the word altogether. We are not homeschoolers…if anything the government school at home, charters, etc. are. We are home educators.
The word “school” normally denotes something institutional. We are not “schooling” our children but educating them. The Webster’s 1828 dictionary has some interesting insights into the word, but I haven’t really thought through it that much. Maybe later, but I liked this part:
SCHOOL, n. [L. schola; Gr. leisure, vacation from business, lucubration at leisure, a place where leisure is enjoyed, a school. The adverb signifies at ease, leisurely, slowly, hardly, with labor or difficulty. I think, must have been derived from the Latin. This word seems originally to have denoted leisure, freedom from business, a time given to sports, games or exercises, and afterwards time given to literary studies. the sense of a crowd, collection or shoal, seems to be derivative.]
homeschool
One entry found.
homeschool
Well, looky here-
From Merriam-Webster Online-
Main Entry: home·school
Pronunciation: \?h?m-?skül\
Function: verb
Date: 1980
intransitive verb
: to teach school subjects to one’s children at home
transitive verb
: to teach (one’s children) at home
So that’s the current dictionary definition- fairly simplistic, but not entirely accurate, depending on how picky you wanna’ get.;)
IMO it isn’t so much as who defines what, but for what purpose is it being defined? If it was never illegal to home educate, if it has always been an inherent right of parents to provide, determine and direct their child’s education, then the state ‘defining’ the qualities and limits of home education for the purposes of legislation is a violation of the Constitution.
You know what- conversations like this prove to me that we who were schooled in traditional methods ourselves are constantly having to deprogram our thinking. And that’s a good thing.
homeschool
One entry found.
homeschool
Well, looky here-
From Merriam-Webster Online-
Main Entry: home·school
Pronunciation: \?h?m-?skül\
Function: verb
Date: 1980
intransitive verb
: to teach school subjects to one’s children at home
transitive verb
: to teach (one’s children) at home
So that’s the current dictionary definition- fairly simplistic, but not entirely accurate, depending on how picky you wanna’ get.;)
IMO it isn’t so much as who defines what, but for what purpose is it being defined? If it was never illegal to home educate, if it has always been an inherent right of parents to provide, determine and direct their child’s education, then the state ‘defining’ the qualities and limits of home education for the purposes of legislation is a violation of the Constitution.
You know what- conversations like this prove to me that we who were schooled in traditional methods ourselves are constantly having to deprogram our thinking. And that’s a good thing.
LOTP said, “I would define homeschooling as educating my children at home.”
Webster said, “Main Entry: home·school
Pronunciation: \?h?m-?skül\
Function: verb
Date: 1980
intransitive verb
: to teach school subjects to one’s children at home
transitive verb
: to teach (one’s children) at home”
Hah! I was right! That’s twice this week.
(I’m on a roll!)
Hi people!!! I want introduce my [url=http://www.xrum.977mb.com]new year foto. [/url]
To LOTP - of course the catch is, that parents choosing virtual public charter programs typically fit the dictionary definition you cite, of teaching their children school subjects at home. And I don’t as an unschooler because I do not “teach” — yet I’m a legal home educator.
Good example of how easy and clear this ISN’T, although any reasonable person would expect it to be. But what actually happened when a concerted national effort was made to do this politically, was more like the founding fathers trying to define race terms by various fractions of “black” blood - they thought the difference was so plain to see and easy to define in objective terms, and too many dismissed or missed altogether, the monstrous policy impact on real human lives of their efforts.
If homeschooling goes back through this again, I just can’t let it be because I didn’t speak up and try to describe how it all got twisted into something so ugly and lastingly divisive.
Dana,
Just my two cents or less:
http://ncsw.homeschooljournal.net/2008/01/13/the-definition-debate/
Thank you, Annette! I enjoyed your entry and think the points you raise are very true.
JJ Ross, sorry I completely missed your comment. I haven’t been lurking around online as much and my email box sort of got buried.
From a political standpoint, I favor sticking with the idea that parents have the inherent right to direct the education of their children rather than trying to hammer down exactly what homeschooling is or isn’t. So long as I have the right to determine what it is I am doing and the state has minimal power to intervene, I am happy.
Here is something I found interesting in relation to this topic:
http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2008/01/13/opinion/01edvirtualschools.txt
It doesn’t say who wrote that editorial, but there isn’t a single gov’t official who isn’t going to follow the money and attach strings. It’s the nature of gov’t, and that leopard ain’t gonna change his spots.
I firmly believe in being supportive of and fellowshipping with those who use cyber-schooling or virtual public schools at home. I have done so and continue to do so, regardless of the laws on the books, or what some support group in Sheboygen is doing. But as long as tax dollars are attached to it (and I am including tax vouchers in that description) then there is going to be some amount of gov’t regulation.
As a home educator who does NOT want gov’t strings of ANY kind, I do not want, for the purposes of legislation, for charter and cyber schooling through the use of public education dollars to be included as ‘homeschoolers’. And there is no way on this side of Pluto that politicians are going to grant virtual public schoolers autonomy, so if they ‘define’ home educators as ‘anyone’ who educates at home, then all HSers can expect regulations.
I don’t see why the issues can’t be separated. It isn’t as if we are back in high school where the jocks and cheerleaders and brains and geeks all have to have their own clique. I think inclusive support groups should be supportive, and include anyone who does any educating at home, regardless of what method or means they employ (obviously this doesn’t apply to Charlotte Mason groups, or Principle Approach groups…).
But if we are talking by what definition lawmakers are going to decide the use of ‘public funds’ then leave home educators who don’t use ‘public money’ completely out of it.
JJ Ross - Ah! Now we have another problem. You say you are an unschooler so you don’t “teach” your children.
I know quite a few unschoolers and I would say that every single one of them teaches their child.
The problem is, how do we define the word TEACH?
The definition game could go on forever.
Dana, I am completely with you on this! –
“From a political standpoint, I favor sticking with the idea that parents have the inherent right to direct the education of their children rather than trying to hammer down exactly what homeschooling is or isn’t.”
LOTP - exactly. Could go on forever, and no doubt will.
The peculiar part is how any contrast between two things is SO important, enough to fight over, while the overwhelmingly similar comparisons are ignored or even denied outright, as if all similarity were were zeroed out by any difference.
Most things about “parenting” and “teaching” for example, are very similar. Many things about mother and grandmother are similar, etc.
Most things about any kind of “schooling” are the same whatever the program (some homes even have actual classrooms, desks, homework, grades and tests, practically the OPPOSITE of what we as unschoolers do! When I look for similarities, they are all parent and family things, not education things.)
So to me, that difference is much more important a confusion politically and every other way, than taxes and such.
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us.
–Franklin D. Roosevelt
And this one applies too, yes?
No group and no government can properly prescribe precisely what should constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is concerned.
–Franklin D. Roosevelt
Here’s a link to my blog post in support of your comment here that I appreciated so much.
http://www.americanhomeschoolassociation.org/blogs/HS-PSatHome/?p=142
Thanks, Annette!
And yes, those are good quotes, JJRoss. : )
Another quote about all real education as beyond dictionary definition:
and my personal favorite on this topic of defining and redefining without regard to the kids this all is supposed to be about in the first place, “Dwarfing Pluto and Shrinking Ourselves: A Joyfully Unclear Meditation”