Don’t Tread on Me: I Home-School

As the legion of home-schoolers rapidly grows, sensible government oversight seems to be a reasonable option — or it’ll invite a firestorm of opposition.

Is sensible government oversight on home schooling a reasonable request or an invitation to firestorm of opposition? (stockxpert.com)

That seems to be the resounding (and long-held) sentiment among many home-school advocates. And they certainly have a point: The widespread deficiencies of the one-size-fits-all public school system are becoming ever more apparent, some instructors are more often babysitter than teacher, and many home-educated students simply don’t need traditional schools to join sports teams or social groups anymore.

While many of the old arguments against home schooling have corroded (namely that certified teachers, in the majority of cases, can educate better than parents and that home-schooled children will grow up bewilderingly sheltered from the “real” world), there always seems to be new fronts in this distinctly American culture war.

Culture war. That’s really what homeschooling signifies circa 2009: a sound rejection of the splintering mainstream (and, perhaps now, the perceived heavy hand of an Obama nanny-state) out of deep ideological or personal convictions. Roughly half, and perhaps more, of these home-schoolers are drawn from an evangelical Christian subculture that’s more than wary of encroaching secularism. For these parents, there’s no more pronounced statement than this: “I’ll educate my children however I please — and don’t stand in my way.”

But as the practice rapidly grows — it has seen more than 74 percent increase since 1999 and estimates peg the current number of those home-schooled between 1.5 and 2 million students — it might be time to consider some sensible oversight.

This, obviously, is much easier said than done. Any meaningful reform must walk an impossibly thin line between preserving a parent’s right to individually tailor curriculum while still ensuring that their children meet certain universal standards of achievement.

In a new article in the journal Theory and Research in Education, professor Robert Kunzman proposes a small step to improve homeschooling: Require states to mandate a basic skills test at key intervals to ensure that students are able to meet appropriate academic benchmarks in subjects such as math and reading.

Unlike in the public system, many home-schoolers are not subjected to frequent assessment tests — however imperfect they may be — to ensure that students aren’t left behind as grade levels progress. While many, perhaps even the majority, of home-schoolers have been shown in (perhaps controversial) studies to perform better than their public school counterparts, others can just as easily be left behind by poor teaching.

Currently there are a variety of diagnostic tests that home-schoolers may take by choice, but roughly half of states do not require any periodic skills testing throughout these students’ formative educational years. In 10 states parents don’t even have to even initiate contact with the government (another reason why it’s hard to estimate how many children are actually being home-schooled).

In theory, a required basic skills test could be a useful tool to help homeschooling parents understand which areas their child is excelling and struggling in and, if constructed properly, could illuminate where to focus additional attention.

Above all, it’s essential that the test be crafted by individual states (just as individual states create tests for public schools in compliance with federal testing mandates) and be viewed as “neutral” (evolutionary science off-limits?) by parents and students. Then perhaps local home-school organizations could work with the state to create a skills assessment that contains no ideological or moral “litmus test.” The result, as Kunzman conceives it, “would involve computation skills (adding, subtracting, multiplication, division) and reading comprehension.” In other words: a simple, rudimentary, noncontroversial test that even a serviceably educated student could pass.

Even if a home-schooler fails this hypothetical assessment, Kunzman writes, “we should not simply conclude that this is a result of poor homeschooling and insist they attend public school.” Indeed, that student might perform even worse in a traditional setting. “What chronic test failure should prompt,” he explained, “is a closer look by the state into that particular home school context, the quality of instruction and the needs of the student before deciding how best to protect his or her educational interests.”

Obviously, this “closer look by the state” could easily become unnecessary bureaucratic meddling fraught with embarrassing examples of Orwellian over-regulation. “It’s very possible that some otherwise proficient home-schoolers may fail a ‘mandated basic skills’ test simply because their child hasn’t covered math or English in the time frame the government dictates,” says Ian Slatter, spokesperson for the Home School Legal Defense Association (the largest national home school organization — and an irksome thorn for some homeschooling parents).

“Over time, home-schoolers could indeed lose effective control over their curriculum because they would have to ‘teach to the test.’” And that would stamp out inspiring, if anecdotal, trajectories of home-schooled youths who ignored one skill for years before blossoming in it at age 16.

If poorly executed, testing could also miss the point of a home-school education entirely. As one Virginia parent cited in Kunzman’s research explained, “[home schooling is] not just schooling; it becomes your whole way of life.” Parents will never be public school teachers — who, sometimes laughably, must feign impartiality in the classroom — instead they impart their bias to their children and encourage “morality-based” learning.

It’s not that these bristling parents dislike having to meet academic standards, it’s that many want to pick and choose educational organizations and communities that have standards that are right for their children. If anything, many home-school parents can be characterized as hyper-vigilant with respect to their children’s education (which, again, has pros and cons.

But despite being much more attuned to their children’s individual learning style, parents are usually not as well versed in liberal arts as many certified teachers and could struggle to teach a wide variety subjects. “It’s important to have a loving parent,” explained Randall Curren, editor of Theory and Research in Education and a leading educational philosopher at the University of Rochester, “but love and competence to teach a suitable range of academic subjects are not the same thing.” Curren, while not endorsing Kunzman’s proposal, reasoned that, “a return to standards for the qualifications of all educators (hence home educators) should be considered, in addition to periodic demonstrations of academic progress.” But regulation, he did add, is “an imperfect art and these are complex matters.”

Complex indeed — legislatures have largely strayed from taking steps to regulate homeschooling. It just takes too much time and money that states, especially now, don’t have. Or as Slatter put it: “Wouldn’t the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer resources needed to test over two million home-schooled students be better spent improving the education of millions of students who are being failed by the public school system?”

True, but what happens when homeschooling grows to the point that it’s no longer seen as boutique, alternative education — when the ideologically motivated 2 million becomes 5, even 10 million? Are money, time and effort for additional oversight necessary then?

Reform advocates can only be certain of one thing: Now, and in the future, they’ll receive a similar response — don’t tread on me.

Sign up for our free e-newsletter.

Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.

Follow us on Twitter.

Add our news to your site.

word on the street

Post your comment here

Paul Adem
The word choice used in this article misleads the reader into assuming that home educators are evading oversight; “They’re getting away with something!”. The reality is that home educators already administer tests and follow curricula, in part, because the internet makes it easy. In the past, several states have experimented with restricting home education and mandating tests. The results are in: mandatory testing and bureaucracy itself impedes home education and lowers academic achievement. Government intervention doesn’t improve anything. It’s a solution looking for a problem to solve.Furthermore, public schools are required to administer tests to their students because they must be accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. The same is true for home educators. Home educators fund themselves, and accountability must follow the funding. So the accountability must remain within the household and not to the government.
Terrie Bittner
It’s important to note that the government is not really qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of a homeschool education, since they haven’t yet proven they can educate the children they are already responsible for. Where I live fifty percent of children aren’t reading at grade level. 100 percent of my students, as a homeschooling mother, were reading at college level before fifth grade, as tested by the school district. I think I was more qualified to evaluate than they were. Schools often asked me, after testing, how I taught my children to be so far ahead in everything. When I explained it, they’d invariably say that was too much work.Those tests were part of special education testing. The one time I found myself potentially moving to a monitoring state, I tried to teach the test and we all ended up frustrated, bored, and stressed. Our education was nothing but pure trivia, rather than the self-paced in-depth learning.As for the argument that parents may not know enough, my children have done very well in subjects I knew nothing about. I learned with them when they were younger and they taught themselves or worked with mentors when they were older. My goal was to teach them to be self-directed, lifelong learners, something they couldn’t learn in the schools, where knowledge was simply dumped into their heads. They often enjoyed most the subjects I disliked, such as philosophy and physics. As teens, they found a real scientist to chat with about physics and they read many books–it’s unlikely their high school physics classes would have involved real scientists or real books, as opposed to error-filled textbooks.Since studies have shown homeschooled college students outperform traditionally educated students, I think the government should leave homeschoolers be. It’s true a few children will emerge improperly educated, but until the government can show no children emerge from public schools insufficiently educated, they are not in a position to demand more from homeschoolers. If a homeschool family has one child doing badly, the government can close down the school and force the children into government schools. Imagine what would happen if they treated themselves the same way and shut down every government school that had a poorly peforming student–forcing the children to be homeschooled.As a result, they do very well in college
Anonymous User
“The government is not really qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of a homeschool education, since they haven’t yet proven they can educate the children they are already responsible for.”Terrie – that’s what it all comes down to. The government has done a terrible job at teaching the public school kids it is supposed to teach, they aren’t qualified to judge what I do in my homeschool. Small side note on something mentioned in the article…”Above all, it’s essential that the test be crafted by individual states (just as individual states create tests for public schools in compliance with federal testing mandates) and be viewed as “neutral” (evolutionary science off-limits?) by parents and students.”Erm.. I don’t think so, no. Even if the government were to totally overstep their bounds and attempt to regulate homeschoolers, it should be a single national test. Look at the current testing system and how it varies by state. How each state has progressively lowered the expectations of students for those tests in order to increase pass rates. There were several national articles about this recently, that when comparing state test pass rates to a knowledge expectation, these students were hugely considered to be undereducated, even horribly deficient in some areas. Public students, compared to those in other countries at the same ages, did even worse. No, sorry, the states have done enough damage to the public education system already – they should not be making any new tests.
Paul Adem
Great point Anonymous User! Since the states have manipulated tests (NCLB) each year to produce the appropriate pass rates needed for federal funding, what’s to stop them from manipulating tests for homeschoolers? They can devise a more difficult test just for homeschoolers so they can fine those who fail. It’s like having the fox guard the hen house. Of course, they’ll also charge all the homeschoolers a fee for the privilege of taking the test. Nevermind that we’re already financially supporting the government schools. Enough is enough with government schemes!
Anonymous User
After home schooling my three children the last eight years and having a masters degree in education, I find that the home schooling parents, in most cases, research their materials better, know their students abilities and limits, and continue their knowledge on teaching and instruction much more thouroughly than their public teaching counterparts. We take CEUs that center around the needs of our children, not CEU’s that will fill government mandates with the least personal effort. I can teach without the NEA telling me what I have to include in my curriculum to support their agendas.
Tamara Cribley
I have to laugh at myself. I read this article this morning and felt that I had to say SOMETHING for the other side. Since then, I have crafted three or four responses. All of which have since been rewritten because I kept drifting from my real point, which is simply this: You can never substitute another person’s personal experiences. No matter how many resources you have access to, one or two people cannot be everything to anyone. When you choose to only allow people and influences that you support and/or believe in, you take the opportunity to make the right choice from your children. You effectively do not trust that they will choose the right path. I’m not saying that you should expose your children to everything because that would be irresponsible. When you allow your children to experience opposing views/opinions (and you CANNOT effectively, and WITHOUT BIAS, teach something you are entirely opposed to), and teach them why you believe in what you do, your lessons will be that much more effective. Your children will have learned, not been told, what is right. They can then make an educated choice on their own.I generally don’t disagree with any of the comments posted here. I don’t have an answer for how to ‘fix’ the homeschool system, if it even needs fixing. But the argument that you can be everything that your child is grossly overstated.People in general need to be exposed to, and experience, opposing views. These are situations that reinforce our beliefs and shape who we are and how we deal with opposition and detractors.It is important to trust your children to make the right decision. It is your job to instill those values and beliefs, but you must trust your children to make the right choice in the face of opposition, and give them the opportunities to do so.
Terrie Bittner
Tamara, you’re quoting a popular line of propaganda and not thinking about what it means. School children are never offered a full range of belief possibilities. In fact, schools are banned by law from doing so. My children attended public schools for several years, despite the fact that I did all their teaching at home and they only reviewed in school. (The schools can’t cope with a child who is years ahead.) They did not learn evolution is a theory and they did not learn some people believe in creation. They were told everyone believes in evolution. When the Gulf War broke out, they received hours of indoctrination on what they were to believe.Schools not only teach only the official party line, they test and grade children on it. There is no room for individual opinions and they certainly aren’t taught to think. Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if students started thinking?It was only when my children switched to homeschooling that they were exposed to the full range of beliefs. I purchased the Opposing Viewpoints series and we read all the different ways of looking at the evolution and creation issue. We used this series to study opposing viewpoints of many different topics. In addition, I provided materials for them from experts with opposing viewpoints.Do you think homeschoolers only learn from their parents? Most homeschooled children take community classes, work with mentors, watch the news and live in the world. Instead of being locked up in a classroom with one all powerful teacher who will fill the children’s heads with her personal propaganda (and some of it, I assure you, was totally false and provably so) my homeschoolers were out in the world learning the range of ideas. They are adults now and they agree with me on some issues and don’t on others. I did a much better job of this than the schools, because the laws didn’t prohibit me from telling them the truth or giving them opposing viewpoints.
Anonymous User
Before testing the home-schoolers, why not the private schools? There are already 5 even 10 million enrolled without the benefit of the “regulation” Hayden proposes. But of course Hayden’s erstwhile snarky point would seem to be that NCLB and other federal oversight generally of public schools are unduly intrusive of local public education systems. The point he actually makes actually is that we would be better off just replacing the public schools with a voucher system as the very concept of governmental oversight in education has become synonymous with farce.
Tamara Cribley
Terrie, I completely agree with you that the curriculum in the public school system is faulty. My point is simply that you cannot be everything to your children and some of the most valuable life lessons that I learned came from the PEOPLE I encountered in school. I think it is equally as close-minded to assume that teachers are all simply the mouthpieces for a faulty and inaccurate education system. The lessons I learned from teachers and administrators and other students had little to do with formal education. As much as I love and respect my parents, I would be a very different person than I am now. And I believe that I can attribute my well-rounded values and beliefs on my life experiences, not simply what I was ‘taught’ to believe. I happen to feel the same way about people who never leave home to experience the world, people, and other cultures. If you don’t expand your world and your experiences, you rob yourself of the ability to make informed decisions based on REAL experience.I think that homeschooling offers the opportunity for a very advanced education. But I also think that parents who choose to teach their children at home need to be extra vigilant and careful to understand that you probably don’t even know what you don’t know. And without other people to share that knowledge, it can’t be passed on to your children. It sounds like you’ve done a very good job teaching your children, but I know children who have suffered both socially and academically from homeschooling. In my opinion, I think that in order for homeschooling to become more widely acceptable to the general population, home school parents need to acknowledge that there can be deficiencies in their methods as well. If we can all agree that there are deficiencies in both systems, then we as a community, can choose which system is best each of us and move forward. It can become simply a choice and not a battle over right and wrong.
Paul Adem
Tamara,You have several misconceptions about homeschooling. Homeschooling is not a “system”, and we don’t stay isolated in our homes. Homeschooling is a very decentralized, but networked form of education. In part, thanks to the internet, homeschools don’t have and don’t need a politically-minded bureaucracy to direct their education.Secondly, most homeschool parents teach their children how to learn independently. We emphasize quality learning material, which is where students will be exposed to a variety of well articulated ideas other than the parents’. An independent learner is more likely to read more books, learn more than one foreign language, and take a variety of science courses at a local junior college or at MIT OpenCourseWare.Finally, homeschoolers are involved in so many activities away from home that this shouldn’t be a question anymore except from people who don’t know any homeschoolers. Government schools try to simulate real world experiences, but homeschoolers are actually out in the real world.
Paul Adem
Tamara,You have several misconceptions about homeschooling. Homeschooling is not a “system”, and we don’t stay isolated in our homes. Homeschooling is a very decentralized, but networked form of education. In part, thanks to the internet, homeschools don’t have and don’t need a politically-minded bureaucracy to direct their education.Secondly, most homeschool parents teach their children how to learn independently. We emphasize quality learning material, which is where students will be exposed to a variety of well articulated ideas other than the parents’. An independent learner is more likely to read more books, learn more than one foreign language, and take a variety of science courses at a local junior college or at MIT OpenCourseWare.Finally, homeschoolers are involved in so many activities away from home that this shouldn’t be a question anymore except from people who don’t know any homeschoolers. Government schools try to simulate real world experiences, but homeschoolers are actually out in the real world.
Anonymous User
The idea of testing homeschool students is really a red herring thrown out to distract us from the fact that public schools aren’t “making the grade”. The problem is NOT with homeschoolers (who are only about 1-2% of the school-age population in the US), but with the 20-30% of public school students who fail at least one of their yearly basic skills tests. THAT is the system that needs to be fixed. I say we need to put the focus back where it belongs – on educating the students in the public school who are failing – and stop worrying about the minority of a small population who may (or may not) be ‘failing’. Even if homeschoolers where failing at the same rate as public school students, we’re talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of the school-age population! The money that would be used to test the homeschool population would be much better spent bringing ALL public school students up to grade level in reading and math.
Anonymous User
“while still ensuring that their children meet certain universal standards of achievement.” What ‘universal standards of achievement’ are we talking about? Each state has designed their own course of study and, while there is some agreement, there is no single standard used across the board. And since the constitution is silent on the issue of education, it is left to the states to determine their own education system and standards (which means there is no option for a federal standard that must be followed, unless the DoE mandates that federal funds are tied to its use, as they have done with NCLB).
Crys Cassano
Keep in mind that homeschooling is a very broad brush. Some states, like NY, do little to regulate or monitor non-public school education (no State certification required for parochial school teachers, for example) while other states and counties, like MD, have superintendents specifically assigned to monitor the progress of homeschoolers. Having taught some students coming to me from a poor homeschooling situation as well as others coming from an outstanding homeschooling situation, I can tell you no one can make a blanket statement that applies to all. Standardized tests are a poor indicator of student progress. I personally favor the practices of the Anne Arundel County, MD, schools. They require all homeschool administrators (be they parents or small home-school teachers) to submit portfolios (including sample homework assignments) evidencing students’ progress in each term. This isn’t “big government” trying to legislate yet another area it has no business interfering in, but it also isn’t overlooking the need to monitor children being educated, perhaps, by adults not trained as educators. This practice doesn’t limit parents to a particular curriculum, but it also assures that students are meeting minimum education standards so if and when they are once again sent to a mainstream school, they will not be scholastically outdistanced by their peers.
Karen Smith
I find the choice of vocabulary in this piece very interesting. The author characterizes homeschooling in terms of “a distinctly American culture war.” Why does the author find it necessary to characterize the issue in terms of war? Why does he imply that it is unique to America?If I choose to grow my own vegetables, am I engaged in a culture war against farmers? No – I am making a choice on how I provide for my needs.The author’s choice of words, by either accident or design, serves to create adversarial relationships. By defining the issue in terms of war, the author creates the need to choose sides. When we choose sides, all of us fall into one of two camps – winners or losers. In a world of winners and losers, educational choice becomes more limited. If the goal is to provide the best possible environment in which to educate our children, it makes sense to define the issue in terms of choice. The issue becomes a matter of making available as many choices as possible. Each child is unique, with unique interests, talents, and learning styles. The wider the availability of options, the greater the likelihood that parents will be able to meet the unique needs of their children.The author’s choice of words also serves to paint Americans as odd man out among the nations of the world. If an idea can be portrayed as unpopular, this calls into question the reasons why those who embrace it chose to do so. It opens the door to the idea that it may be illegitimate. If I frame an issue in such a way that portrays a choice as illegitimate, I enhance my ability to generate opposition against it.If many people in my neighborhood raise their own vegetables, and all but an insignificant number of the residents of all the other neighborhoods buy theirs at the farmers market, does the other neighborhoods’ propensity to purchase vegetables at the farmers market make the choice of growing my own less legitimate? No – many in my neighborhood just chose to raise their own vegetables. Most in all the other neighborhoods choose not to.Perhaps the residents in the other neighborhoods have never considered raising their own vegetables. Perhaps they do not even know that this is an option. Perhaps their neighborhood associations restrict them, or even prohibit them from doing so. By seeing my garden, they may consider doing it themselves. They may change the rules in their own neighborhoods that restrict or prohibit vegetable gardens. The options they have available for providing for their nutritional needs and their health and well being will be expanded.By either accident or design, by using the words “distinctly American” the author is framing the issue as one of legitimacy. He calls into question the validity of homeschooling as a legitimate educational choice, and creates an environment in which it is easy to generate opposition against it.In those nations in which homeschooling is not embraced as readily as it is in the US, it is not because it is unpopular. It is because it is highly regulated – or illegal. People are reluctant to adopt a practice if is illegal, no matter how effective the practice may be. It is impossible to raise and educate your children if they have been removed from your home. If parents in other nations became educated as to its effectiveness, I believe more would consider homeschooling as an option, and support for it would grow worldwide. I also find it interesting that the author uses the phrases “sensible oversight,” “meaningful homeschool reform,” and “a small step to improve homeschooling.” One of the commenters advocates national regulation. Perhaps the author and the commenter are unfamiliar with the fact that homeschooling is not in need of reform, oversight, or improvement. In all areas of academic achievement, homeschooling generates superior performance. If homeschooling were in need of reform, oversight, or improvement, parents would be rejecting it. The opposite is the case. Parents are adopting it in greater and greater numbers every year.I believe the author has mischaracterized this issue. Families who homeschool and those who do not are not at war. They are exercising their ability to choose. Those who live in school districts with excellent schools are free to choose those schools. Those who chose private school or homeschooling have those options as well. The author says that state legislatures have “strayed from taking steps to regulate homeschooling.” I think the real question is not whether state legislatures will move toward greater regulation. The real question is how long it will take for state and local government to begin to promote homeschooling among its citizenry. State and local governments face looming budget deficits, and promoting homeschooling is a very effective way to cut expenses. The typical homeschool family spends about $700 per student per year, as compared to the typical school system, at $10,000 per student per year.When we reject characterizations of war, antagonism, and illegitimacy, and focus instead on what unites us and what we have in common, we expand our choices. The author’s call for state regulation – and one of the commenter’s calls for national regulation – will only serve to further limit choice. When educational choice is expanded, everybody wins – except those who wish to limit choice.
Anonymous User
After home schooling my three children the last eight years and having a masters degree in education
Tamara Cribley
I have to laugh at myself. I read this article this morning and felt that I had to say SOMETHING for the other side. Since then
Tamara Cribley
Terrie

From:

To:

Don’t Tread on Me: I Home-School

As the legion of home-schoolers rapidly grows, sensible government oversight seems to be a reasonable option — or it’ll invite a firestorm of opposition.

Related Stories

word on the street