Keeping Homeschooling Private

Homeschoolers have been vigilant in protecting their rights, rising to the occasion when they discover threats to clamp down on their activities.

‘‘There’s no place like home" has become the mantra of successful homeschoolers. By most measures — scholastic, social, economic — the modern homeschooling movement is a triumph. The actual undertaking requires initiative, patience, and, in many cases, financial sacrifice. But this grand educational adventure continues to work because resourceful homeschoolers have largely been left alone.

Unfortunately, it is the "home alone" aspect that scares opponents, who waste precious human resources criticizing this successful private-sector, parent-managed endeavor. Meanwhile, thousands of ill-supervised children have languished, decade after decade, in public schools.

Rob Reich, a Stanford University assistant professor of political science, is one such critic. In a paper entitled "Testing the Boundaries of Parental Authority over Education: The Case of Homeschooling," Reich states, "… I argue … that at a bare minimum one function of any school environment must be to expose children to and engage students with values and beliefs other than those they are likely to encounter within their homes. Because homeschooling is structurally and in practice the least likely to meet this end, I argue that while the state should not ban homeschooling it must nevertheless regulate its practice with vigilance."

This attitude is seen in the resolution passed by the Representative Assembly of the National Education Association (NEA). Last July, at their annual summer convention, the NEA passed Resolution B-69, which states that "home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience."

But the NEA cannot begin to inflict the same kind of damage on homeschoolers as can zealous state officials. Phonics specialist and homeschooling advocate Samuel Blumenfeld has observed: "Today the law is not being used to force delinquents and truants into the schools, but to harass and regulate home schoolers...." In Blumenfeld’s home state of Massachusetts, Kim and George Bryant, homeschooling parents, endured a seven-hour standoff with police officers and social service employees merely because the Bryant children — teenagers Nicholas and Nyssa — declined to take a standardized test ordered by the Department of Social Services.

Like minutemen of old, homeschooling families must also be ready to fight unexpected assaults on their rights. For example, last year in Connecticut, home educators challenged the Act Concerning Independent Instruction, which contained a tedious list of new mandates, including ones requiring homeschooling parents to possess a high school diploma, as well as have their individual curriculum plans scrutinized by school superintendents.

The Hartford Courant reported that state Rep. Cameron Staples (D-New Haven), the act’s sponsor, championed this proposal because in Connecticut "the only law on home schooling requires parents to let local school districts know that they plan to teach their children at home." Apparently, this approach was too laissez faire for the lawmaker, and one wonders what Staples would do if he were in Oklahoma, where there is no requirement for parents to initiate contact with the state if they choose to homeschool their children.

Staples and his ilk, however, were probably not expecting scores of parents to challenge his clumsy attempt to increase homeschool regulations. Diane Connors, president of the Connecticut Homeschool Network, sent an e-mail to parents and other concerned citizens, alerting them to the public hearing regarding the bill. Her dispatch was wildly successful. On March 4, 2002, over 1,000 people — many coming from the Legislative Office building in Hartford — attended the hearing to voice their opposition to the House version of the act (H.B. 5535). According to Connors, only one Connecticut superintendent showed up to support the legislation.

Summarizing the prevailing sentiment against the bill, homeschooling parent John Paradis was quoted in the Courant as explaining, "We have removed our kids from the public schools because we think the public schools are not educating our students properly. This [the bill] puts their education back in the hands of the public schools."

Legislators didn’t ignore the outcry. On March 22, 2002, H.B. 5535 died, missing the deadline for receiving a favorable vote.

Even though no evidence exists indicating that state regulation improves homeschoolers’ performance, legislators continue their campaigns to control and restrict home education. This year, another showdown — like the one in Connecticut — occurred in Montana.

State Senator Don Ryan (D-Great Falls) sponsored Senate Bill No. 276. If the legislation passed, it would have required homeschoolers to take state assessment tests to measure academic competency. Even though Montana is a state with an undemanding existing homeschooling law and where homeschoolers had outperformed public school students on national standardized tests, the responsible were to be penalized. Ryan, employing the emotional language of left-wing children’s rights advocates, said he was concerned about protecting at-risk children from "inadequate" or "abusive" parents.

On February 12, 2003, hundreds of Montana homeschoolers, alerted by phone and e-mail chains by another attentive parent (Steve White, the legislative liaison for the Montana Coalition of Home Educators), converged on the capitol in Helena to lobby against the bill. The arguments the Senate Education Committee heard ranged from the unfairness of testing homeschoolers on material they had not studied, to being held to higher standards than their lower-performing public school counterparts, to concerns about state infringement on teaching religious beliefs.

The hearing lasted a record four hours, and nearly 500 Montana citizens signed the hearing registry as opponents of the bill. Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) lawyer Dewitt T. Black wrote in an e-mail alert that "over 50 people testified against it." Only one person — Senator Don Ryan — spoke in favor. The education committee voted 9-1 to "postpone indefinitely," insuring that S.B. 276 was dead on arrival.

J. Michael Smith, president of HSLDA, notes that his organization lobbied against a cache of bad bills during the 2002-03 school year. "We had nine states where there were specific threats to home school freedom that we lobbied: Montana state assessment test required for home schools; North Dakota state assessment test; Nevada state assessment test; Wyoming state assessment test; California habitual truants would be treated as educational neglect; Texas would have required registration of home schoolers; Colorado habitual truants would be treated as educational neglect; Louisiana attempted to do away with private school exemption for homeschoolers; and Virginia wanted home schoolers to pass the standards of learning tests given to public school students. None of these bills were successfully passed."

Clearly, some state legislators are trying to regulate a nonexistent problem. These lawmakers are trying to hinder, not help, the vast majority of homeschoolers. They are also unprepared to deal with the fierce opposition and almost zero public support that their meddling produces.

The only assistance state lawmakers can offer home educators is to deregulate homeschooling — eliminate cumbersome laws and not introduce new, costly legislation. Some states are catching on. The opening of a story from the Oakland Tribune was pleasantly surprising: "Just nine months after declaring homeschooling largely illegal, the California Department of Education recently reversed its position, pronouncing the practice as essentially none of the state’s business." The California Department of Education, in fact, has begun referring interested parties to statewide homeschooling organizations to receive their information.

Frederic Bastiat, the 19th-century French economist, could have been writing about deregulating homeschooling when he opined, "It [the law] can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without use of force...." Perhaps more American legislators will get the message: Homeschooling works best when it is left alone.

Rob Reich, a Stanford University assistant professor of political science, is one such critic. In a paper entitled "Testing the Boundaries of Parental Authority over Education: The Case of Homeschooling," Reich states, "... I argue ... that at a bare minimum one function of any school environment must be to expose children to and engage students with values and beliefs other than those they are likely to encounter within their homes. Because homeschooling is structurally and in practice the least likely to meet this end, I argue that while the state should not ban homeschooling it must nevertheless regulate its practice with vigilance."

NEA Gears Up to Elect Democrats
Tropical Storm Bill roared into New Orleans this summer carrying in its tailwind 10,000 convention delegates who purport to represent 2.7 million members of the National Education Association. They call themselves "the world's largest democratic, deliberative body," but the NEA's version of democracy is: majority rules, and the minority have no rights. The NEA accords no rights to the 30% of NEA members who are Republicans. Since 1976 when the NEA became a big player in national politics by supporting Jimmy Carter, the NEA has endorsed a Democrat for President in every election.

This year, NEA federal policy manager Randall J. Moody announced plans to target 16 states he thinks the NEA can carry for a "pro-education" Democratic President against George W. Bush in 2004, and 40 to 45 House races where they can recruit "moderate" candidates. The NEA plans to raise funds for candidates, provide direct-mail services, and "turn out the vote."

Another significant minority was rebuffed when it urged NEA delegates to "stick to education issues and not promote abortion." The majority remained adamant in retaining the NEA's pro-abortion position, rejecting all pleas to be consistent with other NEA resolutions calling for tolerance, diversity, and respect for religious views of all peoples.

For many years, NEA resolutions have endorsed "early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight," specifically including "diversity-based curricula," and "bias-free screening devices." The NEA has repeatedly resolved that "kindergarten attendance should be mandatory" and "full-day," and the NEA now plans to provide model legislation and "legal, technical, and other support services" to help state legislatures enact such legislation.

What's new this year is that the NEA delegates resolved to make an all-out push for the establishment "in every state" of two years of "universal," taxpayer-funded, "full-day -- as opposed to half-day" pre-kindergarten "for all three- and four-year-old children." The NEA claims this is the fulfillment of the national education goal that "all children in America will start school ready to learn."

The pre-kindergarten demand is based on the NEA's false assumption that "there is no longer any serious doubt about the value of pre-kindergarten." In fact, what there is no longer any serious doubt about (as shown by the authoritative study just released by the National Institutes of Health) is that the more hours children spend in daycare, a.k.a. pre-kindergarten, the higher the incidence and severity of problem behaviors, such as disobedience, over-aggressiveness, and stress.

The NEA's pettiness and vindictiveness against homeschoolers was manifested by the contentious debate on Resolution B-69 which originally read: "The Association also believes that unfunded home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools." The word "unfunded" got into the proposed resolution because a handful of public schools provide funding for homeschoolers to participate in after-school activities. NEA delegates voted to delete the word "unfunded" because they oppose allowing homeschoolers, funded or unfunded, to associate with public school students who are "with us all day."

Two years ago, the NEA received damaging national publicity when word leaked out that the convention was going to adopt an in-your-face resolution demanding that the gay rights agenda be incorporated into everything from school curricula to teacher hiring. Revolt in the ranks caused it to be withdrawn. But that was all smoke and mirrors; that convention quietly adopted at least ten separate resolutions that added up to the same objectives, and this year's convention re-adopted the same resolutions.

The NEA's Standing Committee on Women's Issues demanded continuing NEA support for Title IX quota policies, the University of Michigan's position on affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the United Nations treaties on Discrimination against Women and the Rights of the Child. The NEA Standing committee on Sexual Orientation/Gender Identification reported enthusiastic NEA support for "comprehensive sexual health education in schools," which of course means the positive presentation of homosexuality.

The 2003 convention proves again that the NEA is always about coopting more taxpayers' money, creating more jobs for NEA members, getting tighter control over children from the earliest possible age, and preserving the teachers union monopoly in the public schools.

Excerpts from NEA Resolutions Passed at the 2003 Convention in New Orleans
A-24. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The National Education Association believes that voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other funding/financial arrangements that use tax monies to subsidize pre-K through 12 private school education can undermine public education; reduce the support needed to fund public education adequately; cause racial, economic, and social segregation of students; and threaten the constitutional separation of church and state.

B-1. Early Childhood Education. The National Education Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight. The Association also believes that early childhood education programs should include a full continuum of services for parents/guardians, and children, including child care, child development, developmentally appropriate and diversity-based curricula, special education, and appropriate bias-free screening devices.

B-9. Racism, Sexism, and Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identification Discrimination. Discrimination and stereotyping based on such factors as race, gender, immigration status, disability, ethnicity, occupation, and sexual orientation must be eliminated.

B-31. Multicultural Education. Multicultural education should promote the recognition of individual and group differences and similarities in order to reduce racism, homophobia, ethnic and all other forms of prejudice, and discrimination.

B-40. Sex Education. The Association also believes that to facilitate the realization of human potential, it is the right of every individual to live in an environment of freely available information and knowledge about sexuality and encourages affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs. Such programs should include information on sexual abstinence, birth control and family planning, diversity of culture, diversity of sexual orientation and/or gender identification, parenting skills, prenatal care, sexually transmitted diseases, incest, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, homophobia.

B-69. Home Schooling. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used. The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

H-7. National Health Care Policy. The National Education Association believes that affordable, comprehensive health care, including prescription drug coverage, is the right of every resident. The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States.

H-11. Statehood for the District of Columbia. The National Education Association supports efforts to achieve statehood for the District of Columbia.

I-2. International Court of Justice. The Association urges participation by the United States in deliberations before the court.

I-12. Family Planning. The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom. The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.

I-26. Freedom of Religion. The Association also opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.

I-39 Elimination of Discrimination. The Association is committed to the elimination of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or gender identification.

I-47. English as the Official Language. The Association believes that efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged.

I-50. Equal Opportunity for Women. The National Education Association believes that all persons, regardless of gender, must have equal opportunity for employment, promotion, compensation (including equal pay for comparable worth). The Association supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (such as the Equal Rights Amendment) that guarantees that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state because of gender. The Association endorses the use of nonsexist language. Who Controls Education Policies?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.