private choices

8/12/2019 Private Choices

1/25

Homeschooling:

Private Choices and Public Obligations

Patricia M. Lines

Office of Research

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Working Paper

revised, Februar, !""#


2/25

Working papers are intended to promote the e$change o% ideas

among researchers and policmakers. &he vie's in this paper are

those o% the author, and no o%%icial support b the (.). *epartment

o% +ducation is intended or should be in%erred.

&he author is a research analst in the O%%ice o% esearch, (.).

*epartment o% +ducation. Portions o% this 'orking paper 'ere

prepared 'hile the author 'as a visiting pro%essor in the +uphemia

Hanes Chair at Catholic (niversit o% -merica C(-/. &he

author e$tends her gratitude to the *epartment %or granting leave,

and to C(- %or the support and encouragement necessar to allo'

'ork on this paper. - special note o% thanks should go to

colleagues at +* %or supporting the leave re0uest and %illing in

during the author1s absence: Milton 2oldberg, 3vor Pritchard,

Harold Himmel%arb and 4oe Conat.

&he author is also indebted to colleagues in the departments o%

education and politics at C(- %or support and encouragement.

)pecial gratitude is due to individuals 'ho commented on earlier

dra%ts o% this paper: 3vor Pritchard5 )usan O16anion, a doctoral

candidate at the (niversit o% Marland5 Craig Cunningham, o% the

Hde 3nstitute5 Claes n, o% Catholic (niversit o% -merica5 and

4ames Carper, o% the (niversit o% )outh Carolina.

3% ou have comments on this paper or 'ould like additional

in%ormation, please contact:

Patricia Lines

(.). *epartment o% +ducation

O+37O%%ice o% esearch

888 9e' 4erse -ve. 9W, oom !;

Washington *C


3/25

A

Homeschooling:

Private Choices and Public Obligations

b Patricia M. Lines

- small but gro'ing number o% %amilies are educating their school?aged children at home ratherthan at a school.! &hese %amilies, 'ho o%ten call themselves homeschoolers, have made this

choice %or a 'ide variet o% reasons. *espite their diverse motives, the all dissent %rom 'ell?

settled and democraticall determined rules about ho' -mericans should %ormall educate their

children. 6ecause homeschoolers s'im outside the mainstream, educators, polic makers and

the media have given them attention beond 'hat their numbers might 'arrant. &his attention is

more than mere curiosit. Homeschooling re0uires us to consider ane' the constitutional

balance bet'een maDoritarian rule and individual libert.

3ts critics see homeschooling as a challenge to the %undamental idea o% education as a public

obligation E one that must be met, at least in part, through cooperative e$change

'ithin a communit. &he critics see homeschoolers as isolationist, atomistic, and possiblundemocratic. &his is not al'as clear or e$plicit, but the %re0uentl?asked 0uestion 'hat about

socialiGation re%lects a 'orr that homeschoolers are 'ithdra'ing %rom the general enterprise.

)usan FranGosa has provided the %irst developed and articulate statement o% this vie'. )he

begins 'ith the 'ords o% 4ohn *e'e:

What the best and 'isest parent 'ants %or his o'n child, that must the communit

'ant %or all its children. -n other ideal %or our schools is narro' and unlovel5

acted upon it destros our democrac..


8/25

>

&his does not mean the Constitution 'as, or is, undemocratic. MaDoritarian processes decide

elections. &he House, as a directl?elected bod, serves smaller geographic areas, %aces more

%re0uent elections, and has special authorit in the area o% ta$ation. &he )upreme Court, as the

least democratic branch o% government, remains the most restricted in its authorit. )tate and

%ederal constitutions have been amended since, but the basic structure remains recogniGable.

9ational maDorities and communities are held in balance. 9ational and local maDorities andindividual libert are held in balance.

&o understand %ull the political philosoph o% the Constitution, and especiall the role o%

individual libert, one should also consult the -nti%ederalists. &he -nti%ederalists 'ere those

'ho entered the great pamphlet 'ar over the adoption o% the (nited )tates Constitution.!! &he

initiall opposed adoption, but most gave support in the end. -lthough it has endured, their

name is misleading: the did not oppose a %ederal government, and the did not like the term

-nti%ederalists. )ome chose pen names impling support o% %ederalism, such as a Federal

Farmer. Federalist propagandists gave them their name, %or political purposes, in a nice piece

o% misdirection.!


9/25

"

his de%initive collection o% the -nti%ederalist papers 'ith a volume entitled, ,hat the nti1

*ederalists ,ere *or!Ato emphasiGe their positive contribution to -merican thought.

-nti%ederalists 'ere more inclined to be democratic, although like the Federalists, man had

mi$ed vie's on the matter. More than the Federalists, -nti%ederalists believed in a private

sphere 'here government ma never intrude.

Federalist and -nti%ederalist both regarded human kind as capable o% good and evil, but the

di%%ered in 'hom the trusted and distrusted most. &he Federalists 'orried about the uneducated

and lo'er classes. *aniel )ha1s rebellion galvaniGed their vie' in this regard. -bigail -dams,

'riting %rom London, e$pressed a 'idespread Federalist opinion 'hen she described the

)hasites as ignorant, 'restless desperadoes, 'ithout conscience or principals and mobish

insurgents 'hoI are %or sapping the %oundation, and distroing the 'hole %abrick at once.!#

With such e$amples in mind, -le$ander Hamilton declared, Wh has government been

instituted at allJ 6ecause the passions o% men 'ill not con%orm to the dictates o% reason and

Dustice, 'ithout constraint.!8

&he -nti%ederalists 'orried about those 'ho held po'er, believing that po'er could corrupteven the best o% men. &hus 6rutus obert Kates/ argued that po'er lodged in the hands o%

rulers to be used at discretion is almost al'as e$ercised to the oppression o% the people and the

aggrandiGement o% themselves, et most men think . . . the 'ould not emploe it in this

manner. Poeticall, he recalled +lisha1s prophes to HaGael that HaGael 'ould commit great

evils against the 3sraelites: their strongholds 'ilt thou set on %ire . . . and 'ilt dash their

children, and rip up their 'omen 'ith child. HaGael protested, but +lisha responded, pointedl,

thou shalt be king o% )ria.! Po'er mired one in evil. Po'er as a universall corrupting %orce

'as a recurring theme among -nti%ederalist 'ritings.!;

13 )toring, ,hat the nti1*ederalists ,ere *orChicago and London: (niversit o% Chicago Press, !">!/.

14 Letter o% -bigail -dams to &homas 4e%%erson, 4an


10/25

!=

2iven this di%%erence over 'ho the trusted, Federalists and -nti%ederalists di%%ered in their

pre%erence %or legitimate restraints. Federalists tended to see a 0uasi?aristocratic tradition, la'

and the Constitution as providing the needed order. -nti%ederalists 'ere more likel to %ind the

sources o% restraint in neighborl communities. &hus, an over?arching principle %or

-nti%ederalists 'as that government should be as close to home as possible.

&he desire %or a strong government led Hamilton, 'ho had hoped %or a single national

government, to %avor a %ederal government 'ith a direct relation to the individual. While his

rhetoric grounded this in strong support %or democrac,!>Hamilton1s primar concern 'as

bureaucratic control over individuals. Citing the propensit o% individuals to go astra, he

argued that bodies o% men 'ill be even 'orse. He reasoned that 'hen the in%am o% a bad

action is to be divided among a number the group is read to commit improprieties and

e$cesses, %or 'hich the 'ould blush in a private capacit.!"

&he -nti%ederalists, 'ho 'ere more concerned about lack o% restraint b those 'ho held po'er,

'anted to keep political po'er at the local level, 'here it 'as less dangerous. &he-nti%ederalists sa' those 'ith less po'er E the common people E as the necessar check on

abuses o% po'er. &hus, the %avored strategies that 'ould keep %ederal o%%icials under the thumb

o% the voter: %re0uent elections, rotation in o%%ice, a greater number o% representatives. 6ut more

than this, the simpl did not 'ant a po'er%ul central government.

Hamilton concluded that the great, and radical vice o% government under the -rticles o%

Con%ederation to be the L+23)L-&3O9 %or )&-&+) O 2OB+9M+9&), in their

COPO-&+ or COLL+C&3B+ C-P-C3&3+), and as contradistinguished %rom the

39*3B3*(-L) o% 'hom the consist.


11/25

!!

vie'ed states as little, Dealous, clashing, tumultuous common'ealths, the 'retched nurseries o%

unceasing discord . . . .

3n contrast, concern %or the integrit o% state government 'as universal among the

-nti%ederalists.


12/25

!;, 4anuar !>, in -llen Llod, pp. !;;E"


14/25

!#

essential to de%ine an inner sphere 'here governmental authorit could not intrude: that

residuum o% human rights, 'hich is not intended to be given up to societ, and 'hich indeed is

not necessar to be given %or an good social purpose.A; &he also thought it important to

secure %or the states their right%ul place as the principal source o% political authorit in the (nited

)tates, through the tenth amendment.

&he 6ill o% ights, much more than the Constitution itsel%, ma appear to re%lect a radical

individualism. 6ut this vie' ignores the tenth amendment and the neighborl aspects o% states at

that time. &he tenth amendment asserted a sphere o% authorit that 'as, %or man o% the

%ounders1 generation, coterminous 'ith communit.

9or did the -nti%ederalists assume that the %irst nine amendments 'ould lead to the unrestrained

pursuit o% rugged individualism, as is o%ten supposed. 3ndividual rights in the Constitution held

out man possibilities. 3t could leave a human being %ree to live an isolated and antisocial li%e, or

%ree to participate in the li%e o% a cohesive communit. &he %ormal 'ritings o% a people o%ten sa

nothing about the most essential part o% their belie%s E the things the take %or granted. Famil

and communit 'ere the bedrock o% -merican li%e. 3n the -nti%ederalist vie', strong individualrights meant a strong role %or %amil and communit.

&hus, the -nti%ederalists 'ere the strongest proponents o% t'o vital elements in the restraining

%orces on the trann o% the maDorit: communit and individual libert. &he trusted in close

and neighborl relations among individuals as the source o% restraint on sel%ish uses o% po'er.

&he %elt alienated b the idea o% remote government controlled b e$perts, 'ith little personal

contact 'ith the people a%%ected b %ederal la'. &he pre%erred that government that 'as closest

to home: state and local government. Man %avored a more egalitarian democrac,A>but onl at

this local and more personal level, 'here the trann o% the maDorit 'as more easil checked.

&he had %aith in local to'ns, in local congregations, in ordinar people acting 'ithin their

communities.A"

Most -nti%ederalists, and indeed, most Federalists, assumed that individual rights 'ould secure

the %ree association o% each into communities bound b mutual caring and %aith. &hus, as the

%irst -mericans sa' it, the 6ill o% ights 'as a statement o% individualrights, but its purpose 'as

to permit a communitarianli%e. (nanimit on this idea saved the Constitution. -nti%ederalists

%inall assented to it, a%ter the secured a promise that a 6ill o% ights 'ould %ollo'. -ll o% this

is part o% the de%inition o% our democrac.

37 ichard Henr Lee, ObDections 9e' Kork, October !, !;>;, -llen Llod, pp.


15/25

!8

&he %undamental assumptions o% both Federalists and -nti%ederalists about the signi%icance o%

state and communit help e$plain 'h the Constitution 'as adopted 'ithout a 'ord about

education. 3t also e$plains 'h the nation1s leading citiGens 'ere soon bus 'ith education

proDects o% all sorts. -cting through local communities and state governments, citiGens pressed

%or public schools, and %or compulsor attendance re0uirements.

&his took time. First, there had to be a su%%icient suppl o% schools, but as soon as there 'as,

states began to compel attendance. Massachusetts, al'as the leader in advancing public

education, passed the %irst compulsor attendance la' in !>8


16/25

!

Like the vast numbers o% -nti%ederalists, the vast numbers o% homeschoolers assert their right to

an inner sphere o% conscience and privac, but not %or the sake o% sel%ish individualism. &he

assert it %or the sake o% belonging to a communit o% their o'n choosing.

While the -nti%ederalists %ocused on the state as the communit, their basic principles probabl'ould have shi%ted as the state gre' more populous. &heir concern over the small number o%

representatives in relation to the population re%lects this possibilit. Homeschoolers share 'ith

the -nti%ederalists a stubborn conviction that each individual must control his o'n destin, that

highl centraliGed, comple$ governments threaten the right to do so. Birtuall all

Homeschoolers, and virtuall all -nti%ederalists 'ould assert a sphere o% individual rights 'here

government should never intrude.

&he %ounders assumed that given individual rights, people 'ill %orm their o'n communities and

'ill voluntaril contribute to the general good. &he eighteenth centur proponents o% individual

rights nonetheless 'ere active supporters o% communit li%e. 3s this also true o% contemporar

homeschoolingJ

-re homeschoolers asserting their individual rights onl to turn into sel%ish isolationistsJ Or are

the contributing to the public debate about educationJ *o the care about the general goodJ

Consider again the 'ords o% *e'e, What the best and 'isest parent 'ants %or his o'n child,

that must the communit 'ant %or all its children. 6ut 'hat does the 'isest parent 'antJ -nd

does the communit 'ant the precisel the same education %or all childrenJ Or does it 'ant

some diversitJ

3t is unlikel that *e'e 'as urging universal public school attendance. He 'as too dissatis%ied

'ith the tpical public school. While *e'e believed that the communit must collectivel

address education, he remained unhapp 'ith the tpical school o% his da.

- societ is a number o% people held together because the are 'orking along

common lines, in a common spirit, and 'ith common aims. &he common needs

and aims demand a gro'ing interchange o% thought and gro'ing unit o%

smpathetic %eeling. The radical reason that the present school cannot organi6e

itself as a natural social unit is $ecause ;ust this element of common and

productive activit( is a$sent.#=

&urning to a theme central to his 'ork, *e'e then noted ho' action contributes to the

development o% the spirit needed to achieve a true school communit.#! Most schools %ail. Most

do no more than impart in%ormation. &his th'arts their social ends: the mere absorbing o% %actsand truths is so e$clusivel individual an a%%air that it tends ver naturall to pass into

40 School and Societ(, p. !# emphasis added/.

41 Pp. !8??!.


17/25

!;

sel%ishness.#


18/25

!>

*e'e sa' the home as the ideal model %or the school, because he sa' schools as divorced %rom

social li%e, and %rom doing. Here *e'e and homeschoolers are in accord. Ket, *e'e hoped

%or re%orm o% schools. Holt, and man homeschoolers, appear to believe that such re%orm is

unattainable, at least in time to serve those 'ho are children no'. *oes this constitute

'ithdra'al %rom the larger public debateJ

&he ans'er is not clear. -s alread noted, FranGosa is among the %irst to attempt a philosophical

criti0ue o% homeschooling, and deserves credit %or the attempt. Ho'ever, as it is %irst, her

analsis re0uires care%ul scrutin. -s she %ocused on the thought o% 4ohn Holt alone, and not

homeschoolers in general,#>this discussion 'ill also be limited to Holt. -%ter care%ull checking

her claims about Holt against Holt1s 'ork, it appears that she has seriousl misrepresented him.

Holt 'as %irst a school teacher, 'ith an educational philosoph much like *e'e1s. Like *e'e,

he hoped onl to re%orm schools, b integrating them into the li%e o% the communit. He

despaired, ho'ever, and ultimatel became a clear leader o% a child?directed, largel secular

'ing o% the homeschooling movement. +ven a%ter his death, his in%luence continues among this

group o% homeschoolers.#"

&o debunk Holt, FranGosa turned to ousseau as the archetpical thinker, and attempted to sho'

similarities bet'een Holt and ousseau. - more care%ul analsis 'ould %ind that Holt1s thought

resembled that o% *e'e, not ousseau. FranGosa apparentl con%used Holt1s ideas about child?

directed education 'ith notions about unrestrained individualistic %reedom. )he is not alone.

Man people, even some homeschoolers, con%use these ideas. )he apparentl also sa' the

communit as some larger sphere than did Holt. 3t ma be that she vie's communit as

coterminous 'ith a local school district. Holt 'ould de%ine it as that circle o% intimates 'ho

kno' and are committed to one another E the -ristotelian de%inition. 3t includes not Dust %amil

members, but neighbors, relatives, %riends and associates 'ith shared goals.

6oth *e'e and Holt advocated a child?directed educational philosoph. 6oth believed that the

child should have %reedom to pursue his or her interests. 6oth believed that a child 'ould not

learn i% not interested in the topic at hand. Holt, like *e'e and unlike ousseau, believed that

the child should gro' up in the intimate compan o% their %amil, %riends and a true communit.

6oth *e'e and Holt concluded that most schools do not re%lect anthing that resemble a true

communit. 6oth %elt that most schools had become bureaucratic and inept.8=

Ket FranGosa concluded that Holt, like ousseau, advocated a romantic individualism. ousseau

48 Some homeschoolers she admires very much. Personalcommunication.

49 Future 'orking papers ma address the di%%erences among the various schools o% homeschooling.

50 )ee the te$t discussion above %or *e'e5 and belo' %or Holt.


19/25

!"

'as an isolationist. 3n his philosoph and in his li%e8!he believed that the creative individual

should be released %rom the inconvenient burdens societ placed on him. &he child +mile must

go to the countr, to be %ree o% the corrupting in%luence o% civiliGation, even that or especiall

that/ o% the child1s parents. ousseau also sought this %reedom %or himsel%, and liked it best

'hen, in his %inal das, he sought total isolation %rom everone else.8


20/25

.


21/25

siblings, and a communit o% others.

Holt e$pressl reDected the romantic child?'orshippers 'hoI sa that in %itting children %or the

'orld 'e destro most o% the goodness in them.A He thought about and approved %irm and

gentle discipline %rom adults in the child1s 'orld.# He gave advice on ho' to sa no, ho' to

teach a bab not to bang on a cello Holt1s o'n beloved cello/, and ho' to deal 'ith children'ho are testing adults. Holt had heard criticism like FranGosa1s, that homeschooling %ostered

societal dropouts. He ans'ered, that true unschooling 'ill help and is helping oung people

%ind 'as to live active, responsible lives insociet, and to %ind 'ork 'orth doing.8

FranGosa rarel moves beond Holt to paint her particular picture o% homeschooling philosoph,

but she does at one point e$tend a second e$ample. )he e$amines a letter to Holt %rom a doctor

in (tah, one 'ho highl valued religion and tradition. 6ased on this letter FranGosa concluded

that home?schooling parents assert o'nership and eminent domain over their children . . . .

&he parent 'rote, in part:

&he %act that m children e$ist and that 3 am their %ather con%ers upon me . . . bnatural la', an eminent domain, and 'ith that the inescapable original obligation,

and . . . the right . . . to rear and to train them according to the dictates o% m o'n

conscience be%ore 2od5 there%ore, b 'hat la' . . . can 3 be . . . compelled to

allo' that obligation to be %ul%illed b . . . anotherJ

-n unsmpathetic interpretation 'ould see this parent as claiming o'nership;o% his children,

and there%ore treating the child as an obDect rather than a human being. - smpathetic reading

such as Holt 'ould give/ 'ould see the parent as dening state o'nership o% children. &he

parent is appealing to a higher la' to elevate parental authorit over the state1s.

&he use o% this particular 0uote is also highl selective and %ails to represent Holt1s %ull vie'. 3n

the same book, Holt 0uoted and strongl recommended the %ollo'ing thought e$pressed in a

school pamphlet:

63 T:O, p. !#>. He also reDected the vie' o% hard?nosed tpes 'hoI sa that to %it children %or the 'orld 'e

have to beat the badness out o% them.

64 9ote almost all o% chapter Living 'ith Children/ %ocuses on the e$change bet'een children and their

parents, teachers or other adult %riends. For the e$amples in the te$t, see p. !8#, !88 and !8>??8".

65 Holt, T:O, p. ;>.

66 uoted in FranGosa, at p. !A=, and at Holt, T:O, p.


22/25

Holt did not reDect communit endeavors. He did not even reDect schools. He reDected schoolingthat %ailed to re%lect a true communit.

)ince FranGosa 'rote her criti0ue, a homeschooling advocate o% the Holt school has delivered a

thesis that goes beond Holt in presenting a romanticiGed vie' o% homeschooling. One

homeschooling parent, 'ho also happens to be a public school +nglish teacher, *avid 2uterson,

has 'ritten a book,*amil( 4atters, that spends considerable time debating the %undamental

issue. (nlike Holt, 2uterson enthuses over ousseau. He apparentl believes, like ousseau,

that the child is naturall good. 2uterson also believes that the best education is one that begins

'ith and nourishes the child1s interest and he seems to think this is also ousseauan. He is guilt

o% misreadingEmile. For e$ample, +mile is not to see his parents, not to have an books, not to

learn to read, even i% these are things that interest him. 3s 2uterson then guilt o% FranGosa1scharges o% isolationism and individualismJ 9ot at all.

2uterson devoted an earl chapter to the 0uestion, What about *emocracJ -s he almost

al'as uses dialogue as his literar mode, this chapter describes a conversation taking place on

an all?night %ishing trip 'ith his %riend, salmon gillnetter 6ill McFadden. &he t'o cogentl and

thoroughl argue %or and against homeschooling based upon its impact on the education o% all

children in a democrac. McFadden promotes the ideal o% a common school sstem as the

binding %orce in societ. 2uterson counters that the public school sstem has largel %ailed to

achieve these lo%t goals, and that the real goal is a democratic countr, not democratic schools.

McFadden asserts the necessit %or communit responsibilit %or all children. 2uterson argues

that basic ine0ualities in the 'a 'e do things no' prevent trul democratic results."

*isagree 'ith him or not, one cannot sa that 2uterson is avoiding the educational debate. He

criticiGes public schools 'here children %all through the cracks, but he doesn1t sa much about

'hat homeschooling 'ould look like %or these children. 3t seems highl likel that even more

'ould %all through the cracks in a societ that relied entirel on homeschooling. While 2uterson

ackno'ledges that homeschooling is not %or everone, he also seems to think it 'ould solve

man o% the educational problems %acing the nation.

Moreover, a criti0ue o% Holt cannot be e$tended to all homeschoolers. Man homeschoolers

give high priorit to religion in their homeschooling program and tend to %orm communities o%

%aith 'ith others. 3t 'ould be e$tremel di%%icult to determine 'hat proportion o% home

68 Center %or Communit +ducation *evelopment o% the )anta 6arbara Count )chools, as 0uoted in Holt,

T:O, p. AA>.

69 *avid 2uterson,*amil( 4atters' ,h( "omeschooling 4akes SenseHarcourt 6race 4ovanovich, !""


23/25


24/25


25/25

private choices

Documents