Sunday’s Parade Magazine included a brief article on homeschooling to accompany their normal celebrity and general entertainment fare. In good homeschooling fashion, it has already made the rounds in forums and blogs, with all 16 blogs technorati shows commenting on it in favor of the homeschoolers. A few thoughts of my own.
First, the title
Should homeschooling be illegal?
This seems to have rankled a few. Spunky deems it “absurdly inflammatory,” and was enough to catch the attention of The Welcome Home Blog. I may be the odd one out on this one, but the title did not strike me as inflammatory or offensive, although certainly eye-catching. My only criticism is that the article did not actually deal with the subject matter brought up in the title, making it rather misleading.
Actually, I am going to go further and say I liked the title. More articles criticizing homeschooling should lead off that way. Why? Because most Americans will say “no.” It may be a measured “no” and they may like to see additional regulations in order to ensure that homeschooling meets their standards of education, but very few people actually want to see homeschooling completely outlawed. Think of the average American leafing through Parade magazine. This is not National Review or Mother Jones. People are not thinking deeply nor heavily engaged while thumbing through. They catch a headline, skim the article and move on. A more neutral headline (and one which actually would have had more to do with the actual story) such as “California court rules homeschoolers must have teaching credentials” might have actually been worse because more people would have responded to the title sympathetically, allowing the headline to become one more support in their mind for more oversight of homeschools.
¶ I
Uninteresting summary of the case in California.
Actually, this sentence did catch my attention:
The judge, citing a state education law, said that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children.”
Can you cite law to determine what is constitutional? I don’t think so, and that isn’t really what the court did. Right in the second paragraph of the decision we find what the court used to determine that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool:
However, California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. re Rachel L. (pdf)
In other words, they looked at judicial precedent and specific cases showing why the relevant rulings could not be used to support a constitutional right to homeschool. That is probably neither here nor there, but it shows the level of understanding the authors have of the topic and the time they spent researching.
¶ II
Overview of the potential effect of the ruling.
Not very interesting, really, but it demonstrates a classic example of formula writing.
¶ III
Obligatory “Expert”
Who on earth is Richard Kahlenberg? Just because he has written “a number of books on education” makes him a sudden expert on what this ruling means to education? He is actually a senior fellow for the Century Project, a progressive public policy research institution which looks to the public school much as Horace Mann did. Kahlenberg’s thoughts:
If upheld, the California ruling will send shock waves nationwide.
True. Look what the ruling did the first time around.
He says the case “pits those who believe parental rights are paramount against those who place a premium on well-educated citizens.”
But of course, it does no such thing. He actually sets up a false dichotomy by assuming that parental rights and an educated citizenry are at odds in the first place. This comes as little surprise from someone who places the “democratic” function of public education central in the education debate. Writing on the voucher system passed in Utah last year, he says:
The late Albert Shanker, longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers, articulated something more important. “Our public schools have played a major part in the building of a nation,” he argued. “They brought together countless children from different cultures—to share a common experience, to develop understanding and to tolerate differences….Only public schools are designed to educate every child; only public schools serve to bring many diverse groups together.” Utah’s School Voucher Folly
Homeschooling is not about “parental rights,” and this case does not test whether parents have the right not to educate their children. The fundamental issue is whether the parent or the state is best equipped to look out for the best interests of children. The underlying assumption inherent in this reformulation of the debate is that it is the state which is best equipped to oversee the rights of children.
But we cannot state that directly, else parents might catch on. Even people without children might start to question these vague assertions.
¶ IV
Brief summary of the varying regulations across the nation.
Not interesting.
But then comes the poll. The one we have all been asked to go contribute to.
What is really absurd is the fact that nothing in the article helps you to make an informed decision. It is merely an off-the-cuff opinion poll. You may as well take a poll on how high the gas prices will be next year. That and the results are likely skewed a little in favor of the active homeschoolers, but this is a nice opportunity to engage in the discussion a little more with people who may not be too likely to stumble across your homeschooling blog. Assuming they wade through very many of the 600+ comments to see any of it.
Should we be required to be certified? I’ve already dealt with that at length. The West Corner shares an anecdote. But to be brief, no. What could it possible serve? Oh, yes. Without it, we are doomed to educational anarchy.
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’m afraid the Parade article did nothing for me. We’ve heard it all before, haven’t we? They could at least come up with a new angle.
I’ve referred the matter to the cat.
Yeah, that was about my take on it. It wasn’t very interesting, really. Seemed kind of like wasted space given the coverage the topic has received. But I guess if you need to increase your pageviews, post a survey about homeschooling and we all will turn up.
“The fundamental issue is . ..”
Perhaps there are two different fundamental issues.
Your fundamental issue is that you think you are better equipped as a parent to educate your child. This may very well be true.
Of course there are lots of different kinds of parents and you might hold them, as a group, in better esteem than I do. I’m not convinced the average parent is at all equipped to educate their kids. Especially parents who don’t have educations themselves.
The problem for society is that there are some hugely irresponsible and just plain stupid parents out there who will not properly educate their children. But, society plays the price for uneducated children who grow into ignorant adults.
So the fundamental issue for me is that homeschoolers be able to show they actually ARE educating their children.
Should homeschooling be illegal? You’re right, it’s not a Yes or No question.
To my mind, maybe parents should have to prove their kids are able to pass some tests and not growing up illiterate to become a future burden on society.
But that is already happening in the public schools where oversight is a given. I don’t think that model is proving effective where it was designed, and less so in public schools.
No amount of regulation will guarantee every child will grow up to be productive, just as no amount of regulation can effectively prevent all cases of child abuse. The question, then, is one of when to allow the state to move in. I believe that in a free society, regardless of how important we hold specific issues to be, the state needs some sort of probable cause to investigate private homes and relationships.
Which means that yes, it may be possible for some parents to misuse this freedom. Just as some use their freedom to hide drug use and every other crime. But we do not open every home to searches because of the possibility that they may be committing these crimes.
And it should be the same with home education.
society plays the price for uneducated children who grow into ignorant adults.
Society also pays the price for folks who abuse their bodies with cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and Quarter Pounders with Cheese. There are stupid people driving down the road talking on their mobile phones and changing the CDs in their car stereo. There are stupid people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Where will the stupidity end?
It isn’t reasonable or even possible to prevent every irresponsible behavior. In spite of the warning label, someone somewhere will use a toaster as a flotation device.
Laws are in place to provide consequences (and hopefully also a act as a deterrent) for those who steal from or harm others or their property. This is real life, not Minority Report. We can’t criminalize a legitimate activity because of what someone might do. And we can’t support a Big Brother approach either, with every home being monitored in the hope that it will prevent someone from doing something stupid.
So the fundamental issue for me is that homeschoolers be able to show they actually ARE educating their children.
Some might apply that thinking to children’s health, and move for legislation so that every parent has to prove that they are ARE providing three squares, healthy snacks, enough exercise, and beneficial activities. No PG-13 movies for anyone under 13. No playing video games not rated for that child’s age group. One could keep going, but you get the picture- once you start down that road of assuming guilt and demanding ‘proof’ of good behavior, you have placed an ENORMOUS amount of power in someone’s lap.
Very true, Sunniemom.
The burden of proof has always been on the state in proving probable cause before we allow them the power to even collect evidence from your home. Why is this suddenly such a foreign concept when applied to education?
Why is this suddenly such a foreign concept when applied to education?
Because the folks who oppose homeschooling don’t think they are invested in or affected by the outcome of their hare-brained ideas concerning oversight and accountability. They won’t take their train of thought all the way to the station, and realize that they are essentially criminalizing parenthood, and once you start assuming guilt in one area of private family life, then you can start looking in folks’ refrigerators and monitoring their other activities that might affect the health and well-being of the child.
I have said on more than one occasion that parents with children in the system should be held accountable to have their kids in school, on time, dressed appropriately, fed, and with their homework done to the teacher’s satisfaction. Oh, the indignation when I dare suggest such a thing! Which is one reason why, IMO, public schools are just one more big blood-sucking vampire of a welfare program that is more socially acceptable than food stamps and Medicaid.
With all the evidences that the public schools are failing, we should call for public schools to be illegal!
The socialist indoctrination is a barrier in seeing the real education that goes at home.
I think the real problem here is that people assume that the government is looking out for our best interests. That if you are doing nothing wrong, you should not object to oversight. That government should be used as an agent of improving life, rather than just protecting it.
I think we are beginning to look to government as an insurance policy against economic downturns, foreclosures, price fluctuations, unemployment, poverty, health issues, etc. To extend this “benefit” is only natural in this mindset, but for once, the target group doesn’t want the intervention. We don’t want the help.
And I really strongly believe that public schools are not failing as badly as we think. I think two things are going on…where they are failing, it is a symptom of the failing of our families. Because they are not taking responsibility, feeding their children, helping them with homework, and checking up on what is going on in school. Without parents, the public school (or any school) is doomed to failure. It cannot do what Horace Mann wanted it to do. The other part of that is a PR campaign gone horribly awry. The teacher’s union not only causes problems, but then accentuates them in the media while they push the image that teachers could do more if they only were paid more.
Yes, I think the public schools are a mirror of the society of today. When we say that public schools are failing, we can say that the society is failing.
Society may also be a mirror of the public schools? If the main purpose of public schooling is socialization and citizenship, it would make sense that poor schooling would be reflected in a diminished society . . .
Tracee,
“Your fundamental issue is that you think you are better equipped as a parent to educate your child. This may very well be true.”
That’s not what Dana said. What she actually said was,
“The fundamental issue is whether the parent or the state is best equipped to look out for the best interests of children.”
This is not an issue specific to one parent, like Dana, or to several parents, such as Dana, Sunniemom, JJRoss, and me. Rather, this is a generic, philosophical issue - as a matter of philosophy and principle, who is better equipped to look out for the best interests of children - that parent, or the state?
Homeschooling parents - and I think most parents in America - would argue that the state is NOT the better equipped to look out for the best interests of children. Rather, it is their parents - the ones who bore them, nursed them, fed them, clothed them, taught them to smile and to eat and to walk and to talk and to use the toilet and countless other things - who are the best equipped to decide what is in the best interests of their children. Yes, that means that some parents will make poor choices - some will feed their children unhealthy food; some will scream at them; some will neglect to teach them their shapes - and some few will perhaps choose to homeschool and fail to teach them the skills many kids learn in school. But even if those things happen, our society still operates on the assumption that most of the time, parents are still the best able to decide what is best for their children. The state is simply a lousy judge of what is in the best interests of children.
As for requiring parents to prove they are not engaging in educational neglect - well, as Sunniemom has pointed out above, that’s no different than going into a parent’s home to check out their refrigerator to make sure they are feeding their children appropriately. Given no evidence that the children are being neglected, the state simply has no right to invade the family’s home in this way. (That said, I test my children every year, because I think it’s good for them; but I know homeschooling parents who believe testing is harmful or pointless, and I support their right not to test if they wish.)
The fundamental issue is, as Dana said, who should determine the best interests of children - the state, made up of dozens of faceless individuals with who-knows-what agendas or points to prove, who neither know nor really care much about the child; or the parents, who know the child best and live with the child day in and day out, who are most invested in the child’s success, and who in almost every case sincerely love the child?
Ooh, JJRoss, that could be a book, I think.
Actually, part of my study guide I did before starting homeschooling seriously had a chapter devoted to the relationship between education and society. I’ll look it up before I say something really stupid, but essentially the point is that society constructs its education system but at the same time is continually constructed by the education system. They are dependent on one another. That is also why it is such a battle ground.
Not only is education a reflection of a society’s values, it affects what those values will be.
Yes! Why we call the whole thing a “system” I suppose?:
Interesting…I do see markets, etc., arising from the actions of individuals. But the relationship between the individual and the group is fascinating, especially in those instances where things do not play out like they “should” and individuals do stand up against the norm.
I may have more thoughts later, but right now I have young ones to take care of. I couldn’t find the quote I was looking for and am now wondering if what I was thinking of isn’t more my own construction or reaction to what I was reading. Or it was in a different book. Here is a table that represents what I was trying to get at, however…based on how the internal effects the external, how education effects government and government effects education. It might be helpful to note that this text defines government as “that which regulates and controls us” rather than the state necessarily. The goal of education is to become self-regulating, self-controlling, self-governing.
Anyway, here is the chart if you are interested. From “A Guide to American Christian Education for the Home and School.”
Judging from the social and academic skills exhibited by formerly homeschooled kids entering high school English for the first time (my 12th grade classroom), I can with all confidence declare that if homeschooling remains legal, it should be supervised with the same rigor as a public school classroom. These kids lack the social and writing skills required for success until they come to me.