|
Home Education Magazine
November-December 2003 - Articles and Columns
Taking Charge - Larry and Susan Kaseman
Who Is Pat Lines and Why Is She Writing About Homeschooling?
The homeschooling movement is large enough and successful enough to be used by non-homeschoolers working toward goals unrelated to homeschooling in ways that misrepresent homeschooling or undermine our homeschooling freedoms or both. Intentionally or not, recent writings by Patricia M. Lines work against homeschooling. She encourages the development of public school programs to "recapture" homeschoolers. Her writings present inaccurate information about homeschooling and blur the distinction between homeschoolers and students enrolled in public school programs. She misrepresents key points of education and homeschooling law. She is associated with big players who appear to be using homeschooling as part of larger agendas.
Background
Pat Lines has a long-standing positive reputation as a writer/researcher on homeschooling in the U. S. She has a law degree and a Ph.D.; her work, begun in 1985, appears scholarly. She seems to be a neutral, impartial observer. She is neither a critic of homeschooling nor an advocate for it. She is not associated with HSLDA, as are researchers like Lawrence Rudner and Brian Ray. Many academicians accept her conclusions without realizing they are inaccurate. Many public school people appreciate Lines' assurance that homeschoolers have only "resorted" to homeschooling temporarily and want to participate in public schools. Some homeschoolers may be attracted by the fact that someone as well-respected and conventionally-credentialed as Lines appears to take homeschooling seriously, especially since she acknowledges that homeschoolers are a very diverse group; that the movement arose from the liberal left; and that there's much more to homeschooling than HSLDA.
However, Lines' writings are working against homeschoolers in a number of ways. This column will focus on "Homeschooling Comes of Age," an article published in Public Interest (Summer, 2000, pp. 74-85, http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=Misc&command=view&id=277) and a 2003 monograph titled Support for Home-Based Education: A Guide for State Policymakers, Local Boards of Education, and School Administrators (http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=4412).
Lines' monograph encourages school districts to establish programs to draw homeschoolers into public schools. "Quite practically," she writes, "districts are seeking to regain some of the students they have lost to homeschooling." (p. 7) She describes one district working to "recapture students lost to the district because of homeschooling." (p. 24) A checklist suggests: "Announce the program on the web, at homeschooling organizations, public libraries, and parks department facilities. Be family friendly." (p. 61) To help school administrators assess the feasibility of home-study programs, a table indicates states that have statewide open enrollment (allowing local districts to establish statewide virtual charter schools) and the amount of state funds that districts can anticipate. (pp. 74-75)
Lines claims that many homeschoolers are interested in participating in public schools, at least on a part-time basis. "Finding students willing to participate in the [home study] program may worry some districts, but this is usually not a problem....Sometimes all a district must do is have a solid program for its enrolled students and allow part-time enrollment." (p. 65) However, readily available statistics show that very few homeschoolers participate part-time in public schools. According to state data, in Washington in the late 90s, only 11% of homeschoolers received services from public schools or attended part-time. The figure has since declined to 8.6%. Only 4% of Wisconsin's high school homeschoolers use a statute that allows them to take up to two public school classes, for which the district receives state aids. (Homeschoolers who want to participate part-time would not choose "enrolled home study" because those programs are full-time.)
Intentionally or not, Lines blurs the distinction between homeschooling and public school programs. She claims she will use the term "independent homeschooling" for the former and "enrolled home study" for the latter. However, she also uses "home study," "home-based study," and "off-campus learning" to apply to both groups. This terminology (plus some undefined terms such as "homeschooling") allows her to make statements that may be technically correct but that mislead the reader, statements that may serve Lines and her intended audience but that present inaccurate information about homeschooling.
The two preceding points undermine homeschooling freedoms. The more public school programs offer home study and the more the distinction between them and homeschooling is blurred, the greater the risk that homeschoolers will be caught in the net of government regulation that accompanies public school programs.
Lines' understanding that "enrolled home study" undermines homeschooling freedoms can be seen in passages such as this: "On the other hand, public spending demands accountability in a way that private spending does not. That means public schools will be more uniform, cannot promote religious beliefs, and must have more rules. The extension of public support inevitably requires the extension of public regulation as well, threatening the essential nature of the private choice." (Monograph, p. 58)
We homeschoolers need to remember that maintaining homeschooling freedoms is not one of Lines' concerns. It is something for which we must take responsibility.
In addition, Lines undermines the definition of the word "homeschooling." Her use of the term "independent homeschooling" clearly implies that the single word "homeschooling" is no longer describes the families it has been used to refer to for the past 25 years. Some homeschoolers may be drawn to the term "independent homeschooling" because it acknowledges our strength, but accepting it means giving up our right to the term "homeschooling," a loss that many homeschoolers are unwilling to accept.
Lines presents misleading statistics and information about homeschoolers, although she made her name as an expert on homeschooling statistics. For example, she exaggerates the rate at which homeschooling is growing. In her 2003 monograph, Lines admits that "the number [of homeschoolers] now appears to be growing at a less dramatic pace," but she still assumes "a 10 percent future annual growth rate." (p. 7) In fact, since the 1998-1999 school year, the number of homeschoolers has declined in Washington by an average of 1.8% a year; increased in Wisconsin at a rate of only 4.1% a year; and in Florida, just 7.7%. (Notes: Lines cites Florida as a high growth state. From 1990 through 1995, Washington and Wisconsin had higher average growth rates than Florida. The decline in the rate of growth began before virtual charter schools opened.)
In her article published in June, 2000, Lines claimed that there was evidence of a rate of growth of homeschooling of 15 to 20%, citing Florida as the basis. Also in this article she wrote: "I know of no state where the number [of homeschoolers] is declining." However, the Washington state 1998-99 Home-Based Instruction Annual Report, published in March, 1999, showed the number of homeschoolers had declined by 3% from the previous year, and Washington is a state Lines knows very well and has focused on. Perhaps it's not in the interest of Lines or her audience to acknowledge that the rate of growth of homeschooling has declined markedly.
Lines relies on studies that she admits are not based on representative samples, The key requirements for a study to be considered valid by social scientists. For example, she says Rudner's sample was "a highly select group of homeschoolers." Describing a 1995 study by Mayberry and colleagues, Lines writes, "The sample, a substantial part of which was drawn from Utah, was 25 percent Mormon." (p. 11) If she's going to be objective and accurate, she should not use such studies.
Lines makes bold statements about homeschooling that she does not support with evidence, statements that, in fact, are contradicted by readily available data. For example, she writes, "Educators who work closely with independent homeschoolers believe that two years is an average time for homeschooling a child." (Monograph, pp. 5 and 56.) Clever. Educators seldom meet homeschoolers who do not want to participate in public school programs, who are likely to homeschool for a long time. So these educators may well believe the average is two years, which is technically all Lines is saying. Never mind that if they do believe it, they are wrong. (Statistics from Lines' home state of Washington show that only roughly 10% of children who homeschool in any given year attend public school the next year.) But the reader is likely to conclude that the average homeschooler homeschools for two years. At least Henry Levin, who wrote the Foreword, did. "[Lines] informs us that the average tenure of homeschooling is probably about two years." (p. xii)
Other misleading statements from Lines' monograph include: "People disagree on whether homeschooling can help a child academically." (p. 14) "There is considerable debate and only a little research on whether homeschooling helps or hinders a child's social development." (p. 15) "General public approval of homeschooling is low but increasing." (p. 58) "The typical homeschooling child does not remain in a program for long." (p. 66) Her article states that many homeschoolers break the law: "Many [homeschooling] families still stay 'underground.'" "Further, even where state law requires testing, substantial numbers of homeschoolers do not comply."
Lines misrepresents key points of education and homeschooling law, although she has a law degree and 18 years' experience writing about homeschooling. For example:
? Lines uses the term "compulsory education laws" although statutes require attendance, not education. This distinction is essential if we are to maintain a free society. It is well understood by courts that have ruled against parents who sued conventional schools for failing to educate their children. Lines' incorrect term also reinforces the idea that the state has the authority to define education and that it must take responsibility for education because families are either unwilling or unable to do so.
? Lines mistakenly assumes that homeschooling is a privilege granted by the state rather than a fundamental right that comes from nature or God and is retained by the people. For example, Lines writes, "During the last two decades of the twentieth century, many state legislatures changed their laws to accommodate homeschooling. As a result, all states now accept homeschooling as a valid way to meet compulsory education requirements." (Monograph, p. 12) Actually, no state statutes ever said it was illegal for parents to teach their children at home. Lines also discusses Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a 1925 case in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not have a monopoly in education. "Although Pierce involved private schools, the parental rights defined there seem to extend to homeschooling." (Monograph, p. 13) Seem to extend?!
Is Homeschooling Being Used as Part of a Larger Agenda?
Both Lines' writings and the work of people she's associated with point to this possibility. Lines worked for the U. S. Department of Education (DOE) while William Bennett was Secretary. Bennett is now Chairman of K12 Inc. and is promoting virtual charter schools that use its curriculum. Lines is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle. Another senior fellow is George Gilder, who is committed to increasing the use of technology in education. Both Bennett and Gilder are strongly connected to Michael Milken's initiatives. Milken is the former junk bond king and convicted felon. He now heads Knowledge Universe, a conglomerate of 50 companies (including K12 Inc.) designed to use technology to provide education from cradle to grave. (See: http://www.forbes.com/asap/2001/0910/064.html) Gilder is one of very few outspoken apologists for Milken's past, claiming that he really didn't do very much wrong and was just ahead of his time in realizing how computers could be used to generate huge sums of money. (See: http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=George%20Gilder%20Archives&command=view&id=32)
Many homeschoolers agree with many of the free market principles being promoted by Bennett, Gilder, Milken, and others. For example, many homeschoolers want school taxes reduced. Many object to the values, approaches, and curriculum content in public schools and want greater freedom from the educational establishment.
However, the vast majority of homeschoolers want to maintain direct responsibility for the education of their children. This very basic principle is undermined by publicly funded initiatives that target homeschoolers and replace direct parental responsibility with public school standards, curriculum, testing, and values. Examples of such initiatives include K12 Inc. virtual schools spearheaded by Bennett, the "home-based"/ "homeschool" programs discussed by Lines, and Gilder's goal of having computer-based learning available to children. In addition, these initiatives appear to be a first step in transforming public education through technology and vouchers.
Gilder's idea for transforming education through computers includes homeschooling. As early as 1992, he wrote, "The telecomputer could revitalize public education by bringing the best teachers in the country to classrooms everywhere. More important, the telecomputer could encourage competition because it could make home schooling both feasible and attractive. To learn social skills, neighborhood children could gather in micro-schools run by parents, churches, or other institutions. The competition of home schooling would either destroy the public school system or force it to become competitive with rival systems, including those in Asia that now set the global standard." (Life After Television: The Coming Transformation of Media and American Life, Revised edition, 1992, p. 50)
In 2000, Gilder's description of "the customer of the new era" included this: "The younger two children are being taught at home through the K-12 teleputer curriculum that links them to courses across the country that are suitable for their age and aptitudes." (Telecosm, 2000, p. 250)
Insight into Lines' perspectives on this topic can be found in this quote: "Many programs for home-based education use technology in new ways. With proper evaluation, current efforts to serve home-based children could advance our knowledge about education in general. This may help educators discover more effective and efficient models for service delivery." (Monograph, p. 83)
The success of homeschooling is being used to convince investors and others that plans to transform American education are feasible. Homeschoolers have demonstrated that parents who are not certified teachers can successfully educate their children at home.
Perhaps people like Bennett, Gilder, Lines, and Milken are so focused on free market principles and so sure that programs such as virtual public schools can fundamentally change education that they see our homeschooling freedoms as a small price to pay. Whatever the reasons, we need to remember that there are more important values than money and efficiency when it comes to raising and educating our children. We need to stand up for our values when we see them threatened.
What We Can Do
? We can be aware of and inform others about how Lines' writings are undermining homeschooling freedoms. It is particularly important that we not be taken in by Lines' description of who homeschoolers are or her claim that many of us want public school services.
? We can be aware of and tell others about so-called conservatives who would use homeschooling for their own agendas.
? Lines identifies 18 states as especially good candidates for drawing homeschoolers into public schools: AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, ID, IA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OK, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI. If we live in one of those states, we can be especially alert for plans for virtual charter schools or other public school programs that undermine our homeschooling freedoms.
© 2003 Larry and Susan Kaseman
Top
November-December 2003 - Articles and Columns
HEM General Information
Subscribe to HEM
|
