In her comment on a previous discussion, Renae of Life Nurturing Education writes,
“Whoever defines your words, controls you.”
A definition determines the boundaries of a word and with it the boundaries of an idea. Today, I received two examples in my inbox about how definitions may affect education, and particularly those educating at home.
First, virtual charters:
Online learning is a growing trend nationwide, enrolling thousands of students who learn at home, but are overseen by licensed teachers and work through state-approved curriculae. These virtual schools are frequently referred to as “online charter schools,” or “government school at home” to help maintain the distinction from independent homeschooling since many in the homeschool community worry over what will happen if homeschooling is ever defined by the federal government.
Interestingly, it is the charter schools in Wisconsin who are currently suffering due to the lack of a distinction.
But critics, including the nation’s largest teacher’s union, say the so-called cyber charter schools amount to little more than home schooling at taxpayers’ expense. They complain they take away money from traditional public schools and profit companies who sell curricula to districts. TMJ4
They could have stuck with citing Wisconsin state law in the case, but Barbara Stein of the NEA doesn’t seem to have been able to resist making a jab at the entire concept of homeschooling (emphasis mine).
“The issue is whether a program where you don’t have licensed educators and where you don’t have students working directly with other students should be getting fully funded as though it were a quality educational experience,” she said. Ibid.
For the moment, the teacher’s union (NEA) has won. In December, an appeals court unanimously ordered the state to stop funding the Wisconsin Virtual Academy, the state’s largest virtual school, leaving other schools worried about their funding as well.
Siding with a Wisconsin teacher’s union, the appeals court ruled the school was violating Wisconsin’s open enrollment, charter school and teacher licensing laws.
The court found parents were the primary educators — a violation of a state law requiring public school teachers to be licensed. And districts who operate schools cannot receive taxpayer money for students who do not attend school within their boundaries under current law, the court said. Ibid.
It is also leaving legislators scrambling in a debate about how schools should be funded and regulated. Homeschoolers are also gearing up for a fight as they watch how legislators define a teacher, and the difference between a public and private school. In a letter from the Wisconsin Parents Association, a local homeschool support and advocacy organization, the distinction is made clear as they prepare homeschoolers in the state to monitor the legislative debate and the many bills which are likely to be introduced.
Virtual charter schools are PUBLIC schools and are subject to state regulation, including complying with state standards and administering state-mandated tests. Homeschools are PRIVATE schools and are not subject to state regulation. In order to insure that we are not subjected to the same regulations as virtual charter schools, we must maintain the distinction. Parents of virtual charter school students are willing to accept state regulation; some even welcome it. WPA
State money brings state control and regulation. And unfortunately for Wisconsin students, a narrowing of educational opportunities at a time when diversification of educational opportunities is probably most needed.
Hat Tip: Annette at National Charter School Watch Blog who also offers some thoughts on the definitions debate.
And on to special education:
Depending on what state you live in, federal law may preclude homeschooling parents from obtaining funding for special education services according to revisions to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act.
The policy, according to the memo, stems from federal law that allows money for home schools only if they are recognized by the state as schools. New York state law does not do that. The new policy does not apply to private and parochial school students. timesunion
Homeschoolers in New York cannot receive funding for special education services because a homeschool is not defined as a school by state law. Here in Nebraska, however, there is no difficulty. We are unaccredited private schools.
Definitions set the boundaries and with it the control.
[tags]homeschooling, charter school, virtual school, special education, special ed[/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! 
Terrific post.
“The policy, according to the memo, stems from federal law that allows money for home schools only if they are recognized by the state as schools.”
Oh, that’s brilliant.
This whole definition debate is very frustrating. I’ve decided it’s because we are isolated in the frigid north where the state and local districts freely finance homeschooling and parent-directed education.
I have learned that we don’t actually ‘homeschool’ according to the gatekeepers of the definition because we do spend gov’t bucks to do so. This, even though we choose our own curriculum, our own schedule and if we choose to pay others for certain instruction like music that’s ok, too. Yes, we are required to have our kids sit for the standards-based assessment in exchange for the dough and the educational guidance we receive if needed.
It seems to me the definition should be based upon parent involvement. Who chooses the curriculum? Who determines how educational money is spent toward an individual child’s education? The parent or the school?
Public school teachers are required to be licensed because they are entrusted by the parents of pupils attending those schools, not so much to educate; but as a means of providing a minimal level of competency while working with the youth while away from their parents. The distinction lies with the quality of the finished product as can be pointed out by the poor track record of the public schools which continue to decline based on the requirements of college entry level students to take remedial basic courses of study prior to actually advancing onto university level courses.
The idea that the state should license parents who teach their children at home is an absurdity. Parents are presumed to be teaching and nourishing their children as part of the title of parent, to hold a license to teach a group of children with whom the parents have been entrusted to such teachings by virtue of friendship or other trusted relationships other than the larger scope as defined in public schools is Orwellian at best and should strike a nerve with anyone paying attention.
The second absurdity is the presumption that home schooling costs the state any extra money. The intrusive taxes which are levied by school districts via home owner’s property taxes and other confiscatory policies reflect the audacity of these institutions in matters of presumed autonomy. I should have the same arbitrary taxation policies afforded the public schools as I go about funding my locksmith business; say twenty five cents per household with an increase of not more than 10% per year for as long as the sun shines, rivers flow and grass grows green. Did you want that key to work; that costs more.
Citizens should be permitted to opt out of paying property taxes levied for the purpose of supporting public schools if they do not have a student enrolled in that school district; going a step further, there should not be taxes levied against property at all for the purpose of financing public schools as these costs should be on a pay as you go year to year expense just like tuition paid only by those who use the public schools.
Legislators are attacking cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania as well. To learn more about what is happening in Pennsylvania go to cyberiscool.blogspot.com
Nice post. I enjoyed it
I agree- words mean things, and no matter how much we take language for granted, when it comes to making laws, it is ALL about words and their meanings.
But at the heart of home education, IMO, the primary issue is the recognition of the rights of parents. It is the root from which all these ‘definitions’ should spring.
I’ve run into a parent or two who have told me, that they too are homeschoolers.
Their kids go to public or private school all day, and then the parent “homeschools” them on afternoons, evenings, and weekends.
This to me sounds CRAZY but I never argue with them. Why bother?
I would agree that PARENTAL CONTROL AND CHOICE is a huge defining factor in what is and is not homeschooling.
I’m with lynn and oh, I guess all the commenters, under this particular post at least.
Learning doesn’t depend on the money!
(hey, which applies to schools too, right? –think we should have t-shirts made, and get up a group to wear them to the annual NEA convention?)
Homeschoolers who see the money as the big divide are concerned because they fear publicly funded scholarships or support is buying control away from the rightful parent “deciders” — and even then, only because they fear if it erodes those parents’ rights, it might suck us all under state control next.
So why not just address that real concern about preserving parent direction and control of the educational decision-making, than to displace it, remove it a couple of steps away to funding, which gets really murky in law and logic, the further you try to unravel it as the definition. (been there, done that)
How huge are the real-life educational differences between various forms of legal, legit home education from school-at-home to radical unschooling, even when none gets any funding —
while all parents teaching at home school-style in classrooms are indistinguishable to my education eye, with or without government funding. Hard NOT to confuse. . .
Lynn, I should’ve added that I was with you “from the sunny south!
JJ, comfy and unrestricted in Florida
[Their kids go to public or private school all day, and then the parent “homeschools” them on afternoons, evenings, and weekends.]
I would never have called it homeschooling, but when Marissa was still in school she had 40 minutes for each class. Typical math class… 5 minutes getting settled and taking attendance, 15 minutes grading previous days assignment, 20 teaching new material with time to do 1 to 3 problems.
Typical evening… Marissa didn’t understand a thing in the last 20 minutes of class. As I flip through her book to find what I need to teach her at 7 PM, I find that day’s homework assignment. “She forgot to turn it in.”
While I would have never called it homeschooling (I knew too many homeschooling moms who would have had me for lunch), I did wonder why I was playing the game.
Sunniemom, you captured the heart of my thoughts:
But at the heart of home education, IMO, the primary issue is the recognition of the rights of parents. It is the root from which all these ‘definitions’ should spring.
I think it interesting that while many of us are concerned about what these definitions may do to independent homeschoolers “sucking us under state control” as JJ Ross describes it, the ones that seem to be affected are the ones who are accepting the money.
I think JJ Ross is also correct in what our emphasis should be: the parent’s right to direct the education of the child. So long as that is preserved, the rest doesn’t matter.
I am all for a highly diversified education system and think there is definitely room for virtual schools…even publicly funded.
Lynn, I’m curious about your experience. I assume you are talking about homeschool advocates as opposed to government officials, correct? That is the part of the discussion that frustrates me. And why I think that we might do better to focus on the inherent right of parents to direct the education of their children rather than focusing too narrowly on homeschooling.
The more I think about it, the more it seems unlikely to me that the state would define homeschooling any other way than some sort of unaccredited private school which receives no funding from the state. It is the only thing that makes sense for what they are trying to accomplish.
“Reflections on *Homeschool* Assistance Programs”
http://www.americanhomeschoolassociation.org/blogs/HS-PSatHome/?p=143
Very interesting post. Here in Ohio homeschoolers are busy trying to educate parents about the difference between charter/public school at home and homeschooling. I find it interesting that in WI the school system itself (via the NEA and unions) may be the downfall of charter virtual schools. Who would have guessed?
Carol
born and educated K-12 in WI and lived to tell about it
No, I don’t think this will be the downfall of cyber charters. There are legislative bills in the works already to address the problems in WI. Public virtual education is in, and since it is that should expand the life of cyber charters. But then again the price difference between some…
Dana, home education students in our state legally have been eligible for all sorts of publicly fuinded participation, for years now. It makes sense, works well and keeps complete control with the parents.
I believe that many homeschool advocates have always helped parents find the rights and responsibilities that accompany the educational option they have chosen for their child(ren), no matter if it was private schooling, public schooling or homeschooling. We did it before cyber schools came along and we have continued since they came on the scene here in Ohio.
I believe providing those details for families is providing a kindness and it is not an attempt to “define homeschooling”.
Legal nuances that vary state-to-state so dramatically that Ohio and Florida might as well be different countries — but no matter which state we may be in or how accurate our legal and applied analysis of “details”, I believe inserting our advice and definitions into other families’ decisions should be limited by waiting to be asked for help, not foisted upon them even in the name of “kindness.”
Thanks for making me sound smart.
Your examples illustrate the idea very well.
Now I am even more determined to find the original context of that quote. I have a good idea which notebook to look in, but it is too thick to delve into tonight.
It is easy to make you look smart, Renae. : ) If you find it, please post the attribution! You’ve been quoted twice, now!
I know next to nothing about the history of the definitions discussion as previously noted. It seems to have taken an entirely different direction, as the original concern was that regulations would somehow affect all homeschoolers. The opposite seems to be happening, with the association with homeschooling having deleterious effects for those who have chosen to be enroll in virtual schools.
It seems the logical way such definitions would play out.
Nothing has been “foisted” upon families when they have attended our monthly getting started or h.s. information meetings. They come, they ask, we provide information.
Dana, one of the concerns hs parents have is reflected in this quote on the AHA:HSing & PS blog: “A danger is if the very concept of homeschooling is replaced in the common consciousness by public-school-at-home.”~Valerie Bonham Moon
People might say, “Ps-at-home isn’t negatively affecting hsing because no hs laws have been changed.”
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.
http://www.americanhomeschoolassociation.org/blogs/HS-PSatHome/?p=121
Legal nuances that vary state-to-state so dramatically that Ohio and Florida might as well be different countries
If the legalities are so dramatic, then maybe it’s not a nuance?
“but no matter which state we may be in or how accurate our legal and applied analysis of “details”, I believe inserting our advice and definitions into other families’ decisions should be limited by waiting to be asked for help, not foisted upon them even in the name of “kindness.””
Sounds like good advice. But yet, your PDE partner called KY authorities to find out how their drop-in home visits worked? With the notion that the social worker was just a friendly face for these families with little ones and that it was only a program designed for the poor in the community? Maybe phone calls like that are not something that you support?
Universal Preschool yahoo list:Message 894 ‘Some follow-up on Newport KY story’ thread.
Sorry to get off the virtual school track in this post on to UP issues with this response, Dana. But then again, maybe it is related.
Susan, I think it is related. If for no other reason than the fact that once universal preschool is deemed universal (and mandatory) so will reporting to the state for homeschoolers with younger children.
Annette, this is the way I tend to think:
“A danger is if the very concept of homeschooling is replaced in the common consciousness by public-school-at-home.”~Valerie Bonham Moon
It is sort of an ill-defined issue, and I’m not sure everyone is always talking about exactly the same thing. Any time legislation is written, people are going to be affected. The two cases above show how the definition can leave many people without the educational option they have chosen, simply by the way “homeschool” is defined.
I have tended to look at this strictly as how we define something legislatively, in which case I really do think it is better to focus on parental rights rather than homeschooling in particular. I would just as soon have homeschooling left undefined, especially on a federal level.
What happens in the public conscience is an interesting matter.
I don’t think there is a way to satisfy everyone, really. I don’t know specifically what we are talking about with “foisting” anything. Is this a particular case or series of cases? Or just the perception of the effect of group actions? Bear that in mind when I say this, but how does homeschoolers working collectively to liberalize homeschooling laws and protect their educational liberties “foist” anything on anyone, especially when we are generally responding to legislation that has been “foisted” on us?
I think it is quite possible for states to take very different positions regarding home education, and for the effect to be generally possible. I am leery of the federal government taking the same approach, even if it works in one state. Legislation can be “nuanced” at the state level, and laws are a little easier to change when we see unintended consequences.
Take WI, for example. There are already multiple bills in existence to solve the problem with the virtual schools. WI wants them as part of their overall education strategy. So they will change what needs to be changed. If this were coming from the federal government, they would be out of luck.
Dana wrote: I would just as soon have homeschooling left undefined, especially on a federal level.
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.
ARVS & Federal Probe: An Undeserved Black-Eye for Homeschooling
http://www.americanhomeschoolassociation.org/blogs/HS-PSatHome/?p=70
I don’t think a second thought is given to this strategy (take care of your own mess in your own backyard before you start picking on hsing) when it comes to brick and mortar public schools. I do think that when it comes to ps-at-home that some think we homeschooler advocates ought to approach things differently.
sorry-typo: homeschool advocates not homeschooler advocates. I try to use homeschool as an adj. rather than a noun.
No, the legalities are not dramatic at all, thanks for sharpening the point by challenging it.
In any state or home, it’s not education law nuance and detail that’s dramatic, but the real-life differences in how families live and learn and choose and believe — apparently all the more so between the few states (OH, PA, WI and WA, now IL too it seems) where charter law looms so large in “homeschool” advocacy that it becames enduring drama, and happy homeschoolers just free to be, wherever there’s no driving drama defining and dividing them.
To Dana, I’m still thinking about what the important questions are in homeschool freedoms and all education freedoms, and how we can best resolve them while respecting every family’s autonomy and worldview and choices.
As we were discussing at Unity-n-diversity, people sharpen differences for examination, usually into two purposely adversarial views. Those “sides” are then argued in debate, in court, at the bargaining table or between candidates and political parties — but that’s only the first part of the political or judicial process! 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. Put plainly, for the adversarial process to have any benefit, the debate phase must end with integrating the sides in sound public policy for all.
I’ve hoped and even believed once or twice, that we were approaching that point in this polarizing and dramatic debate. So far, not so much.
About universal preschool, I agree it’s related.
The stands we take on OPC (other people’s children) should be principled and consistent and politically strategic with the stands we take for OOC (our own children) whether we’re focusing on school choice and vouchers; public charter and virtual programs, marriage, adoption and family planning; health screenings and treatments; spanking kids being legal or illegal in public and private; preschool programs, testing and accountability issues a la NCLB, access to information and resources versus privacy from solicitations, etc.
It’s a good individual test to try out — thinking about why and how our personal stands on these different issues of the day, mesh into larger principles and convictions, or noticing where they really don’t. . .
I htink I see what you are saying, JJ, but one thing I don’t support is the tendency to legislation that is supposedly ‘for the public good’. I can mesh for larger principles when it doesn’t impinge on personal freedoms, but meshing is highly overrated and misunderstood. Meshing does not require as much compromise as some people seem to think. I can agree that parents should be able to determine and direct their child’s education without any interference or accountability from the state. This does not require me to agree with anyone on health care, spanking, or recycling aluminum cans.
As long as what we are doing does not involving depriving others of or causing damage to their life, liberty, or property thru force or fraud, we should be free to plan our families, seek health care, discipline and educate our kids, do business and access resources.
If we are can talk Utopia for a minute, mine would be a gov’t that had nothing whatsoever to do with education. Education would be sought and paid for just as we purchase homes and cars and choose other services, and we could seek on the free market a school or educational option that best fit our family and interests. No definitions needed!
Well, a girl can dream, can’t she?
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 that’s true in Illinois that homeschool advocates weren’t sitting around, but did learn from Ohio circumstances, for instance. The information was much appreciated by many about the problems. Chicago has a virtual school with a website that I appreciate. Here’s one link:
http://www.chicagovcs.org/who-chooses/myths.html
One of the CVA board members is/was? a homeschooler who tried very hard to protect that distinct line between private schooled or homeschooled and public school (CVS).
It wasn’t pretty with the cvs going into business. The homeschool community took hits from the chicago union and the media. I hope it’s working out well for the families.
One of the pro-teacher union education committee reps introduced a bill to abolish the virtual schools. (She’s an education administrator.)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HB/09500HB0232.htm
As I understand it, the bill was overhauled into a task force to observe the virtuals over a period of years and see how effective they are. What a concept! It’s sitting in the senate rules committee now..as I look at the bill status.
As I remember, the Wisconsin Parents Assoc. suggested the same sort of caution when I was reading points that were made to legislators about virtuals in 2002. I don’t pretend to know much about the Wisconsin issue, but I thought the points were thoughtful, especially after seeing the manipulations done by K12 in Ohio to further their business.
http://www.homeschooling-wpa.org/issues/index.shtml#2007-charter
I am Larry Kaseman, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Parents Association, a state-wide organization of over
1,400 member families founded in 1984, that works to protect the rights of parents and families in education, pri-
marily homeschooling. However, I do not purport to speak for all WPA members and certainly not for all home-
schoolers in Wisconsin.
In conclusion, I urge that the Wisconsin Legislature declare a moratorium on all state-wide virtual
charter schools, continue to study this complex issue, and devise a reasonable way to handle it.
Sunniemom, I do agree with your principle of individual freedom, and I do apply it much as you do in my own politics, to all those areas.
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.
Ditto that, JJ.
In honor of the holiday Monday, something even more dangerous than charters and virtuals:
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity>/a>.”
- Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
JJRoss, you said:
…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….”
Annette, you wrote:
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.
Dana, do you know if any of those truly independent colleges are secular? I was wondering is this –like so many intractable education clashes including homeschool legal “defense” — is at root a religious identity issue?
Speaking of the right of the child to education reminded me of a quote from TX governor, Rick Perry;
“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.
No, I don’t. I only know of Hillsdale which is a Christian school…and I’m assuming Patrick Henry, but I never checked.
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
Dana,
I am referring to activists/advocates. The government’s definition is not an issue in our state. Statute gives Alaskans the freedom to homeschool apart from a public school or agency though the term ‘homeschool’ or synonym is not used.
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.
One more thing: most Alaska homeschoolers, that is, parents who educate their child at home, choose to enroll in a public school. These schools provide substantial bucks for mat’ls and services as well as access to extracurriculars in the District. In return, parents develop a learning plan and report grades and students sit for the required state assessments. There are nearly 10,000 Alaska kids enrolled in these kinds of schools, 10% of our student pop’n. This makes schooling-at-home part of the mainstream.
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.