|
Homeschool Information Library
....(HEM's Information Library Index | Foundations Of Freedom Index)....
This is Homeschooling Freedoms At Risk
Part 2
HSFAR Part 1
| HSFAR Part 3 | HSFAR Part 4
Freedoms Responsibilities And The "Four Pillars"
by M. Larry Kaseman
If we as
homeschoolers are going to safeguard our freedoms to homeschool, we must
take seriously the responsibilities that we have for the health, direction,
and future of homeschooling. Although it is often tempting simply to focus
on our own family, as homeschoolers we are inevitably drawn into larger
questions concerning homeschooling. This happens as we decide about
curriculums, tests, periodicals, national organizations and their services,
support groups, state organizations, and laws and regulations. Whether we
like it or not, the daily decisions we make in our own homeschools affect the
direction homeschooling is going, simply because it is a grassroots
movement made up of the sum of the actions of many individuals. We do not
have the luxury of deciding whether we want to work in isolation or be
politically active--our daily decisions and actions or inactions have
political consequences both inside and outside the homeschooling
community.
Three aspects of this responsibility will be discussed in
this article. First, it will present ideas and strategies that could be
followed by homeschoolers who are acting responsibly to protect their
freedoms. Second, recent developments in Wisconsin will be described to
show the ways in which the actions of the "four pillars" have failed to
support and have threatened to interfere with the actions of responsible
homeschoolers. Third, it will explore actions that homeschoolers are taking
to reclaim their responsibility for homeschooling and to counter the negative
effects of the "four pillars."
I. Freedoms and
Responsibilities
For us as homeschoolers to assume responsibility means
several things. Among them are:
--We should inform ourselves about
what opponents of homeschooling (such as large educational bureaucracies
and teachers unions) are doing or may be likely to do, and about what is
happening within the homeschooling community. We can get this information
by reading periodicals, talking with other homeschoolers, and attending local
support group meetings and state-wide conferences.
--We need to
be realistic about the difficulties we face. When only 25% of the adult
population has school-aged children and less than 1% of these children are
homeschooling, we are clearly a very small minority. We also face strong
opposition from the educational establishment, teachers unions, and people
involved in the huge educational industry that spends $1 billion each
day--talk about vested economic interests!
--We should have a clear
understanding of what our goals and priorities are concerning homeschooling
and our involvement in the homeschooling community.
Homeschooling rights and freedoms are being challenged both by opponents of
homeschooling and by the general trend in our society to take away
individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. Therefore, in order to maximize
our strength, we must work for unity (but not uniformity) among
homeschoolers. To be the most effective we can be in protecting our
freedoms, we must focus on the one thing that homeschoolers agree about:
the freedom of a parent to choose an education for his child consistent with
his principles and beliefs. If we agree that each family should make its own
decisions about approach to education, religion, and lifestyle, we can all
work together without compromising our own personal principles, beliefs,
and commitments.
One of our primary goals as homeschoolers should
be to unite in inclusive grassroots organizations to fight political battles to
ensure our freedoms to decide about our approaches to education, religion,
and lifestyle. We would seriously weaken our ability to protect our
freedoms if, instead, we began by forming competing organizations based on
educational approaches or religion or lifestyle, or if we divided into smaller
groups of homeschoolers who all agree about education or religion or
lifestyle. We would have to spend some of our limited resources
of
time, energy, and money in efforts that duplicate or compete with the
efforts of others. Division among homeschoolers would give opponents of
homeschooling a powerful weapon to use against us and a golden opportunity
to increase the regulation of homeschools. We would not be in as strong a
position to protect our freedom, and we might end up losing it and then
having no real choice in these important areas.
In a way this
seems backwards. It seems like we are giving first priority to political and
legal concerns which in the long run are less important than decisions we
must make about education, religion, and lifestyle. But it is only by putting
these secondary political questions first in time, by setting aside personal
differences and working together with other homeschoolers, that we can
ensure that we will have the freedom we need to be able to make choices in
the most important areas, such as education, religion, and lifestyle.
Working for political freedom with homeschoolers whose approaches to
education, religion, or lifestyle differ from ours does not diminish us as
individuals nor does it mean that we must adopt other people's beliefs.
Instead, working together to protect our freedoms makes us more than we
would be otherwise, because we have a much better chance of safeguarding
our freedoms and thereby ensuring that we can make our own decisions about
education, religion, and lifestyle.
--We must work on the
grassroots level, everyone doing his share, and not rely on outside experts,
regardless of their approach to education, religion, or lifestyle. Use of such
experts is inappropriate, unwise, and possibly very harmful for several
reasons, including the following:
(1) Outside experts decrease the
commitment and energy that members feel they need to put into the work of
a grassroots organization. This weakens the organization.
(2)
Homeschoolers (or anybody else) who turn their battles over to an outside
expert lose a very important opportunity and often their freedoms. The
challenges homeschoolers face from opponents gives us a chance to develop a
deeper understanding of our freedoms and how to protect them. Fighting our
own battles may also enable us to avoid the seemingly inevitable
compromises that are often made by an outside expert trying to do, as an
individual, the work that really should be done by hundreds of people working
on the grassroots level.
(3) No outsider can do what residents of a
state can do for themselves in terms of understanding the specifics and
complexity of their unique situation and forming and maintaining personal
contacts and relationships.
(4) An outside expert cannot care as
much about the outcome as the people who live in a given state--the expert
goes home and the residents have to live with the results.
(5)
Legislators view outside experts differently than they view constituents.
Once an outside expert becomes involved in a legislative debate, legislators
have to start judging the conflicting claims of competing experts. It is more
helpful for homeschoolers to have legislators focused on meeting the needs
and requirements of their constituents than to have them concentrating on
statements made by experts.
If we as homeschoolers are going to
protect our rights and freedoms, we need to be prepared to act responsibly
by working with other homeschoolers through grassroots organizations and
not relying on outside experts.
II. Freedom and the "Four
Pillars"
It would help us fairly and accurately assess what the
four pillars are doing if we examine the specifics of what has happened in
one state. This article will discuss events in Wisconsin. This requires
examining some potentially confusing details which amplify and support
general points, but it is important to understand the subtle and often
confusing ways in which the "four pillars" sometimes act.
Two
pieces of background information are necessary at this point. First, the
"four pillars" have been identified as Michael Farris of Home School Legal
Defense Association (HSLDA) for legal and legislative matters; Gregg Harris
of Christian Life Workshops for workshops, seminars, and conferences; Brian
Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (funded in large part
by HSLDA) for research; and Sue Welch of The Teaching Home for
communications. Gregg Harris has been said to have identified himself with
the others by use of the term "four pillars." The point, however, is not
whether these four persons and their organizations call themselves the "four
pillars." Rather, it is important to understand what these "four pillars" do
and how that impacts on the ability of homeschoolers to secure and maintain
their freedoms.
The second piece of background information concerns
the homeschooling situation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has had a very
reasonable homeschooling law since 1984. Numerous challenges to this law
by opponents of homeschooling have been successfully countered by
homeschoolers working on the grassroots level primarily through Wisconsin
Parents Association (WPA), a state-wide inclusive organization which was
formed in 1984 to help shape the homeschooling law and now has a
membership of over a thousand families with diverse backgrounds.
The most serious challenge to Wisconsin's homeschooling law was
formalized in June, 1990, when the leadership of the Legislative Council
used power politics to force a questionable vote that authorized the
formation of a Special Committee to study homeschooling. Wisconsin
homeschoolers realized action was required since all but three of the
Legislative Council studies done in the last 20 years had ended in new
legislation, which then had a much greater chance of passing than legislation
introduced in other ways. Working on a grassroots level through WPA,
homeschoolers refused to focus their efforts on the Committee and thus give
it credibility. Instead they met with legislators throughout the state,
building on work previously done, and collected over 5,000 signatures on a
petition that opposed further regulation of homeschooling.
Actions
by the "four pillars" have failed to support work being done by responsible
homeschoolers and have threatened to interfere with it. Among recent
examples are the following:
--HSLDA and others associated with the
"four pillars" have consistently recommended action to Wisconsin
homeschoolers that could have caused them great difficulty, and we cannot
think of an example of advice from HSLDA which has proven valuable. For
example, in March, 1990, one legislator introduced a bill to require that
homeschoolers take standardized tests. WPA found that there was very
little support for the bill (it had no co-sponsors), that the chairperson of the
Assembly Education Committee did not plan to hold hearings on the bill, and
that it would be best not to give this bill any further visibility, but to let it
die instead. WPA informed its members of the bill and settled on the
strategy of not giving the bill visibility. However, in May, after the
legislative floor session had in fact ended and the bill had died, HSLDA sent a
memo to Wisconsin homeschooling leaders from its newly formed National
Center for Home Education. The memo recommended that Wisconsin
homeschoolers write to the Assembly Education Committee to protest this
bill. The memo went only to WPA, then the only state-wide homeschooling
organization in Wisconsin, which obviously did not follow its advice.
Had homeschoolers followed HSLDA's advice, they would have been
complaining to a committee chairperson who since 1984 had treated
homeschoolers fairly by insisting that evidence of problems with
homeschooling be presented before homeschooling bills were introduced.
Letters would also have given visibility and quite probably media attention
to a dead bill whose only sponsor was retiring from the legislature. Also, by
this time homeschoolers in Wisconsin were facing a much larger problem in
the proposed Legislative Council study of homeschooling. HSLDA/NCHE's
advice would have focused homeschoolers' energy on the wrong people and in
the wrong direction.
This shows the disadvantages and limitations
of relying on outside experts. It does not help to know only that a bill about
homeschooling has been introduced and what it says. It is essential to have
information concerning how much support the bill has, who is opposing it and
how strongly, how likely it is to move from committee to the floor of the
legislature, how soon the legislature will be adjourning, and many other such
details. It takes the grassroots efforts of many homeschoolers working with
their legislators and with informal networks within the state to gather and
assess this information. It must be done by homeschoolers who live within
the state and cannot be done effectively by outside experts.
In
another example, HSLDA strongly contradicted a strategy that was clearly
working well for Wisconsin homeschoolers. HSLDA's advice could have had
disastrous results if WPA had not acted quickly to warn homeschoolers
against following it. During its Nov. 29th meeting, the Legislative Council's
Special Committee was clearly moving away from the idea of stronger
regulations for homeschoolers. WPA members were continuing their
strategy (presented in newsletters published in June and September) of
downplaying the committee and refusing to give it credibility or attention.
Instead homeschoolers were collecting signatures on petitions in support of
homeschooling and working with individual legislators across the state to
show both the legislators and the committee that there was significant
public support for homeschooling and no need to change a homeschooling law
that was working well.
However, a letter from the president of
Wisconsin Christian Home Education Association (WCHEA), a new
organization supported by the "four pillars," dated December 4, 1990, called
on homeschoolers to attend the December 20th meeting of the Special
Committee to "present a solid unified front." It also said, "At the time of
this printing, we are expecting Chris Klicka [an HSLDA attorney] to appear
before the committee to present a testimony on behalf of all homeschoolers."
and..."LET'S HAVE A STANDING-ROOM ONLY SITUATION."
Many
Wisconsin homeschoolers were offended by the idea that Klicka presumed to
speak (or the President of WCHEA presumed he would speak) for all
homeschoolers. Homeschoolers were also upset because bringing in an
outside "expert" violated the commitment of WPA members to grassroots
action and their resolution on unity. In addition, the strategy presented was
very unsound. A large crowd could have increased the pressure committee
members felt to do something to increase regulation of homeschooling. It
could also have given the committee credibility and drawn media attention
to its decisions.
WPA responded by including information in its
December newsletter about the direction the committee was moving and why
a large crowd at the meeting would probably increase chances that the
committee would vote to recommend increased regulation of homeschooling.
WPA asked that homeschoolers not attend the meeting. Fewer than 10
homeschoolers came, and the committee voted down most regulatory
proposals by votes of 8 to 7. Once again, the strategy of Wisconsin
homeschoolers worked, but only after they had countered advice from
someone within the "four pillars" group. It is very difficult for
homeschoolers to have people from outside taking actions that will cause
serious problems for them and will undo things that they are doing that are
working well.
(To finish this chapter of the story: It turned out that
Wisconsin homeschoolers' strategy played an important role in the
Committee's decision to adjourn without recommending new legislation.
Over 2,000 homeschoolers gathered on February 6, 1991, at the state capitol
in Madison to demonstrate their commitment to homeschooling and to
reasonable homeschooling laws and to emphasize the significance of the
Special Committee's decision.)
Another example is the "testimony"
Klicka prepared for the Special Committee. It included the following
paragraph (as reported in a memo to "Home School Leaders" from NCHE dated
January 31, 1991; the memo referred to Klicka's "testimony" although the
document itself is titled "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME-BASED PRIVATE
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS [Summary Analysis by Attorney Christopher J.
Klicka, 12/20/90])":
Third, the present home school law is
enforceable. Any truant officers or law enforcement officials who gather
evidence from witnesses, etc. that the family is not educating their children
at home, do [sic] not have books to cover the required topics, or are [sic]
operating their program in order "to circumvent the compulsory attendance
law," can bring truancy charges [?118.15(5)] or educational neglect charges
against these fraudulent families. [Klicka's emphasis]
This
testimony could cause serious trouble for Wisconsin homeschoolers because
it provides a basis by which officials could demand more of homeschoolers
than the law allows. First, the Wisconsin law requires attendance, not the
education to which Klicka refers. This distinction is crucial. The law can
and does require that children attend an educational program, but it cannot
and does not prescribe the outcome of that program. It would be difficult if
not impossible to enforce a law requiring "education," and an attempt to do
this would be disastrous for the idea of free education in a free society.
Second, Wisconsin law requires a sequentially progressive curriculum in
basic subjects but does not require the "books to cover" them Klicka
mentions. A curriculum is an educational plan, a course of study. It is much
broader than a collection of books. Homeschoolers have much more freedom
under a law that requires a curriculum which they choose than under one
which requires specific "books."
Third, "educational neglect" is a
vague term which does not appear in Wisconsin statutes covering truancy or
compulsory school attendance or homeschooling. In December, 1989,
Wisconsin homeschoolers successfully argued against inclusion of this term
in proposed legislation. It would allow the state to confuse compulsory
attendance laws and truancy laws with child abuse and neglect laws, a
frightening prospect for homeschoolers. It is appalling to have this term
introduced, much less offered as a basis for prosecution, by someone who
appears to be working with and for homeschoolers.
Fourth, Klicka's
referring to people who may be charged with truancy as "fraudulent families"
prejudges them, violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," and
disregards the idea commonly accepted among Wisconsin homeschoolers that
homeschoolers do not judge each other's educational programs.
--HSLDA has used tactics that worked against what the majority of
homeschoolers were trying to do in Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin has
never required homeschoolers to take standardized tests, and HSLDA has
stated that state-mandated standardized testing should not be required in
Wisconsin. However, the information HSLDA presented through a
homeschooler to the Legislative Council's Special Committee relied heavily
on standardized test scores. This said, in effect, that standardized tests are
a valid way to evaluate homeschoolers. It kept the issue of standardized
testing open and alive before the committee. It was an inappropriate tactic
to use in a state in which homeschoolers were fighting hard against
proposals by the chairperson of the Special Committee and by the
Department of Public Instruction that standardized testing be required.
--HSLDA has presented highly inaccurate and misleading information on
what has happened in Wisconsin in both a memo to home school leaders from
NCHE dated January 31, 1991, and in The Home School Court Report, Volume
7, No. 1, January-February, 1991, pp. 10-11.
(1) HSLDA claimed that,
"The 'grassroots' efforts of home schoolers throughout Wisconsin have
finally paid off. . . . HSLDA also mobilized a grassroots campaign of letters
directed especially to the legislators on the committee in order to let them
know that the public did not see any need for additional legislation
pertaining to home schooling. . . The chairman stated that he and many of the
members of the Committee had received hundreds of letters." However, a
Senior Staff Attorney for the Legislative Council checked the official
Special Committee files and reported to me that throughout the study, the
committee received "about 20 letters in total from homeschoolers." She said
that it was the practice of the chairperson and other legislators to make
copies of such letters available to the general committee and interested
parties through the committee staff. In addition, the chairperson told me in
a phone conversation on April 6, 1991, that he did not receive hundreds of
letters and in fact was surprised at how few letters from homeschoolers he
had received.
(2) At the same time HSLDA did not mention the real
grassroots efforts made by Wisconsin homeschoolers. Many of them met
individually or in groups with their legislators. (One meeting in rural
northwestern Wisconsin was attended by 160 homeschoolers.)
Homeschoolers also collected over 5,000 signatures on petitions asking the
legislature "not to legislate further regulation of private education,
including home schooling." HSLDA also did not point out that these meetings
with legislators and petitions were consistent with Wisconsin
homeschoolers' strategy of not focusing on, supporting, working with, or
giving credibility to the Special Committee but instead working with the
whole legislature to educate legislators about homeschooling and to
demonstrate support for homeschooling.
(3) The Court Report also
stated, "Meanwhile, Chris Klicka was requested to testify at the Committee
and tentatively scheduled for the December meeting." The committee
chairperson told me on April 6, 1991, that both Klicka and a member of the
Special Committee pressured him to invite Klicka to testify but that he, the
chairperson, did not invite him. Also, a Senior Staff Attorney for the
Legislative Council told me that Klicka was not invited by the staff
attorneys responsible for invitations. Therefore, there is no evidence of any
request for Klicka to testify that came through official channels. It was
also misleading for HSLDA to say, "Due to the Chairman's change in plans,
Klicka was not able to testify," since he had never officially been
invited.
--On top of everything else, many homeschoolers felt that
HSLDA should not have become involved in the political situation in
Wisconsin at all. HSLDA developed what they refer to as a "strategy" for
dealing with the Special Committee despite the fact that many Wisconsin
homeschoolers had made it clear that they did not want "outside experts" of
any kind involved in this or other political activities. Wisconsin already had
a strong inclusive grassroots organization (WPA). At a WPA membership
meeting on April 28, 1990, members passed a resolution which stated in
part, "...WPA is a grassroots organization which relies on the strength of its
own local members rather than 'experts,' especially out-of-state experts
who become involved in state legislative matters;" and "WPA opposes any
state or national efforts that would split home schoolers into factions and
thus weaken the ability of home schoolers to ensure reasonable home
schooling laws." It was published in the June, 1990, WPA newsletter. Also
in June, 1990, the executive director of WPA informed Klicka of WPA's
position and said to him in a public meeting, "We don't want your help."
--The "four pillars" have initiated or supported the formation of an
exclusive, divisive organization in Wisconsin. Among the ways they have
done this are:
* Gregg Harris' Home School Workshops in April, 1987
and November, 1990, provided a platform and base in the state for HSLDA and
The Teaching Home to become inappropriately involved in the political
battles of Wisconsin homeschoolers and for The Teaching Home to help
establish an exclusive and divisive organization.
* The Teaching
Home publishes the WCHEA newsletter, advertises its conferences,
promotes the speakers who speak at these conferences and workshops, and
remains silent as to the real story of what recently happened in Wisconsin.
The Teaching Home also serves as a resource to exclusivist organizations
and has a "State Organization Representative's Office" (headed by Sharon
Grimes of Syracuse, NY) which makes special requests for new state leaders
and organizations and helps them get organized. (Such a request was made in
an attachment to a memo from Sharon Grimes dated March 27, 1990, for the
following states: Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin.)
* According to a letter from
the president of WCHEA to WPA , The Teaching Home listed WCHEA as the
Wisconsin contact without a final agreement from WCHEA's president to do
this.
Our purpose here is not to raise questions like, "Do the "four
pillars" have a right to become involved in a state in this way? Does WPA
have a right to keep them out?" We do not want to get into a long, legalistic
debate. We merely want to report the way in which the "four pillars,"
especially HSLDA, have acted in Wisconsin, so readers will be in a better
position to decide whether to support them or counter them. Readers have to
decide whether the "four pillars" are acting in a responsible manner, in a way
that encourages cooperation among homeschoolers, etc.
Actions by
the "four pillars" in Wisconsin are dangerous to the freedom of
homeschoolers and to their attempts to maintain their homeschooling laws
for several reasons. Among these reasons: (1) For the first time since 1983,
Wisconsin homeschoolers have followed two different strategies in dealing
with the legislature. The fact that these strategies contradict and
undermine each other means that the existence of two of them seriously
weakens the ability of homeschoolers to fight their opponents.
(2)
Homeschoolers' ability to counter opponents is seriously weakened when
they have to spend time, energy, and some of their very limited resources
countering the inappropriate strategies of other homeschoolers who are
following the advice of "outside experts."
(3) The Court Report's
misleading and exaggerated claims about HSLDA's action in Wisconsin could
cause individual homeschoolers to question whether their own grassroots
work was really necessary or important. It also gives status and power to
people who do not deserve it. This causes division which threatens
homeschoolers' freedoms.
(4) Klicka's testimony provides an
opportunity for opponents of homeschooling to argue their case for
regulation using the language of a "homeschooling expert" against
homeschoolers.
III. How Homeschoolers Are Countering the
Actions of the "Four Pillars"
The activities of the "four pillars"
are possible because of the actions of homeschoolers which, intentionally or
unintentionally, support the "four pillars." Without this support from
homeschoolers, the "four pillars" could not continue. Homeschoolers who
want to reclaim their responsibility for homeschooling and to counter the
"four pillars" are doing a number of things. Among them are:
First
and most basically, homeschoolers who make their own decisions about how
they will homeschool, who decide based on what is best for their families
and do not blindly follow the advice of the "four pillars" simply because they
are "experts," are countering the "four pillars," intentionally or
unintentionally. Homeschoolers who forge their own definitions of
homeschooling, who select their own approach to learning, are countering the
"four pillars." Even homeschoolers who end up selecting an approach very
close to what the "four pillars" would recommend, are countering the "four
pillars" because they are making their own independent decisions and not
blindly following the "four pillars." Homeschoolers who rely on their own
work as individuals and as members of inclusive grassroots organizations to
prevent and solve problems, rather than relying on "outside experts," are
countering the "four pillars." The action of many individual homeschoolers,
each educating their children according to their principles and beliefs, is
essential to protecting homeschoolers' freedoms. As long as homeschoolers
insist on exercising their right to speak for themselves, the "four pillars"
cannot "speak for all homeschoolers."
Homeschoolers are sharing,
with other homeschoolers, information such as that contained in this article,
and their concerns about it. It is being discussed in support groups and at
other homeschooling gatherings.
It is important to keep the action of
the "four pillars" in perspective. They are more uniform than any other
segment within the homeschooling community, they have used their abundant
financial resources to make a big splash, they have made extravagant claims,
so they appear much larger than they really are. The number of
homeschoolers actually supporting the actions of the "four pillars" is a small
percentage of the total of homeschoolers. And as current supporters receive
more accurate information about the "four pillars" and their actions, these
homeschoolers are reconsidering their support.
Homeschoolers have
formed strong inclusive grassroots organizations that enable all
homeschoolers to work together to gain and maintain reasonable
homeschooling laws in their state.
Local support groups have been
organized to encourage homeschoolers to get together frequently with others
who share their approach to education, their religious beliefs, and/or their
lifestyle; share their experiences, joys, and concerns; and become acquainted
in a meaningful way so they can support each other. Such groups can meet
the needs that exclusive state-wide organizations claim to meet, but
without causing division among homeschoolers who are also members of
state-wide inclusive grassroots organizations.
Homeschoolers have
learned how to act so as to minimize the chances of getting into difficulty
with school officials. They also know how to effectively handle contacts
with officials that do occur and how to be continually alert so small
infringements on their freedoms can be challenged and resolved before they
grow.
Many contacts from school officials can be handled well by a
homeschooler who has a clear understanding of what his state's
homeschooling law requires and what his rights and freedoms are. It is
generally a good idea for the homeschooler to discuss the official's charge or
request with other homeschoolers, some of whom may have had similar
encounters with officials. Then he can often resolve the situation by simply
explaining that he understands what the law requires and that he is
complying with it. Officials are not accustomed to dealing with people who
have a clear idea of what is required of them and what their rights are.
Simply realizing how capable the homeschooler actually is may be enough to
convince the official that he has more important things to do than harassing
homeschoolers. It is generally more effective when homeschoolers resolve
their own problems instead of calling in attorneys or outside experts to do
it. It impresses on the school officials the abilities and strengths of
homeschoolers and makes them much less likely to challenge homeschoolers
again soon. It also allows conflicts be be resolved on a person-to-person
basis within a local community.
Homeschoolers are making careful
decisions about how they spend their homeschooling dollars, about what
homeschooling materials and services they purchase, which workshops and
conferences they attend, etc. so that their money goes to parts of the
homeschooling community that they want to support and that will ensure
their freedoms rather than put them at risk.
Homeschoolers are
refusing to lend stature or expand the influence of the "four pillars" by not
lending their names or that of their organizations to the "four pillars." This
includes not being listed as a state contact by NCHE, not inviting the "four
pillars" or their associates to speak, and not rallying to their calls for
legislative action.
Homeschoolers are networking with people in
other states, while being careful not to call in any outside experts in the
process. Contacts are made through national homeschooling organizations
not associated with the "four pillars," homeschooling publications, state
conferences, etc.
Let us realize and be grateful for all the potential
that homeschoolers have, individually and as a community. Let us recognize
and appreciate all the positive things that are happening within
homeschooling, in the homes of individual families and throughout the
homeschooling community. And let us act responsibly so that the
questionable activities of a few are not allowed to spoil homeschooling for
the rest of us.
Copyright 1991, Wisconsin Parents Association,
Inc.
M. Larry Kaseman has been homeschooling with his family since
1979. He has also worked with Wisconsin Parents Association, an inclusive
grassroots homeschool organization, since it was founded in 1984, and is
currently its Executive Director.
This is Homeschooling Freedoms At Risk
Part 2 - Please Continue
HSFAR Part 1
| HSFAR Part 3 | HSFAR Part 4
Editors Note Electronic Edition - Homeschooling
Freedoms At Risk: The original collection was put together to be read as a
whole, and in fairness to all involved this electronic version should be no
different. Because of its length, Homeschooling Freedoms At Risk has been
uploaded in four parts labelled Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. Please read
this file in its entirety.
Copyright 1991, Home Education
Magazine
Electronic Version Copyright 1996, Home Education
Magazine
....(HEM's Information Library Index | Foundations Of Freedom Index)....
|
