Those of us in a public program always have the option of doing it on our own with complete freedom. We’ve done both and found the PS route much, much better for our family.

Alaska Statute (14.30.01): “every child between seven and 16 years of age shall attend school…(unless) a child is being educated in the child’s home by a parent or legal guardian.”

There is not any reporting requirement. It is assumed that a parent will act in a child’s best interest so there is no regulation requiring reporting to a state or local agency. Parents do not have to show continuously they are acting in the child’s best interest. That may seem like a small thing but it’s not. In the case of neglect the burden of proof rests on the state as it should. Not on a family to disprove a negative.

But I do not see why the federal government should have this kind of control over any educational institution, whether Christian or secular.

If you do not have philosophical objections to what you are asked to do, you aren’t as likely to fight it.

The issue with Hillsdale was that it had a policy of not regarding race, gender, etc., in its application process. It refused to collect that information and turn it over to the federal government. It is a point a secular university could have made based on their own convictions, it wasn’t specifically a religious issue. I know of secular groups who object to the same kind of records in public school. This resonated with me:

“We find that Hillsdale College stood defiantly
by its old ideas that it is a place where leaders are trained, and that the training of leaders should not be done by the government itself; and, finally, that people ought not to be counted by the color of their skin, above all in education.”

Liberty and Learning (by Larry P. Arnn, President Hillsdale College), p. 59

“Parents that can’t afford private tuition and can’t afford to quit their jobs to home school their children have fewer choices, and their children have fewer opportunities. They deserve better than to leave their fate in the hands of a local monopoly that is slow to change without the benefit of competition.

Every child is entitled to a public education, but public education is not entitled to every child. Let’s give children who need a second chance new choices that can forever change their future. Let’s give them school choice.”

The rest of the speech is here:
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/speeches/speech_012605

No wonder I like homeschooling in Texas. The scenery could include some mountains, but I do enjoy the freedom.

Sure, so would I. But we can agree that public schooling has a definition already? Since it does, it might be a reasonable strategy to encourage the government to focus on enforcing their own regulations (already in place) when they attempt to pull homeschooling in to the political messiness of educational choice.

That is always where it comes down to…I have my preference, and then there is what will likely actually happen.

Nebraska’s definitions seem to work, at least to me. We don’t have homeschooling, per se. We have public schools and private schools. Private schools have the choice to seek accreditation and thus take on some regulation but receive other benefits. Or they can remain unaccredited. Like me.

I definitely agree that we have to look at what is happening carefully and protect our rights against unnecessary intrusions.

My response to that is that active homeschool advocates aren’t sitting around waiting for legislation to be drafted before they act. They are being proactive–at least in some of our states like WI and WA. The fact that homeschool laws haven’t changed is not because the legislators come into office understanding the differences between ps-at-home and hsing. Homeschool advocates have been busy keeping their legislators straight (and the media & general public) as to what needs to be regulated and why. Public funds = oversight and accountability. No public funds, no oversight and accountability.

I think an interesting illustration of this is found in our “private” universities. “Private” would entail independence from government, but that isn’t true in the United States. Most of our private schools gave up their independence when the Supreme Court ruled that a school that takes a student with federal aid is subject to federal law. Most caved…it was just too much money to lose. Thus there are only a handful of truly independent colleges in the United States.

Homeschools are a little different, but with the money comes control, as you pointed out.

Pro-active is good.

…Those “sides” are then argued in debate, in court, at the bargaining table or between candidates and political parties…The idea is eventual resolution into one comprehensive decisions that covers all the important points, and then moving on to other just-as-important issues….

Is that like the Hegelian dialectic applied to minority groups? We have the thesis, the antithesis and out of that conflict comes the new synthesis? : )

I think that is sort of what the fear is. Out of this conflict will be born something new that is neither wholly independent of state control nor wholly controlled by the state.

I agree completely about compulsory education laws. Talk of a child’s “right” to an education has been interesting as several legislatures have tackled the issue. The problem is that a certain group of people have defined what an education is and then determined that all children have a right to that.

But should the state, particularly the federal government, even be in the business of defining education? I tackled some thoughts on that some time ago in a two part post:

http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/02/08/the-right-to-an-education-part-i/

Unfortunately, the comments were lost when I moved the blog. It might be worth looking at it on my old blog:

http://gottsegnet.blogspot.com/2007/02/right-to-education-part-i.html

One of my commenter’s made a point eerily similar to yours in your post on MLK:

“…But, that “right” ceases to be a right if it is compelled and forced….”

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity>/a>.”

- Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

When I say public policy resolutions, I don’t mean legislation specifically but big change, changing important directions as a nation. I mean building the kind of lasting consensus it will take to get us to your Utopia, for instance — abolishing compulsory attendance laws. I see “compulsory” service in schools as the biggest inconsistent principle in all education, one that government apologists cannot defend as meshing with freedom.