Intellectual Exorcize

[BDS]

A quick glance through Brian Ray’s article (The Harms of Homeschooling: What are the Premises) suffices to scare me. The article is replete with silly arguments and worthless rationalizations. Ray “guesses” what West’s answers to eight questions are. Here’s question #1:

1. Who will decide the right (i.e., correct, proper) curriculum for children and youth in private home education? The state.

Every other question (except the last) starts with “who”, and the answer is “the state”. Since when is the state a “who” and not a “what”? Does Ray want to imply that the State is a “who” – a sort of Orwellian “Big Brother” – rather than simply the representative of “the public”? Ray’s questions (despite their bizarre wordings) are reasonable. As to question #1, I’d suggest that, yes, it is a good thing if the public gets together and decides what is properly learned by school children. After all, if each parent decides for him or herself, we’d get some kids learning that the world is flat, and 5000 years old, and that the moon is made up of green cheese.

The last question in this section (the only one that doesn’t suggest that The Horrid State is a Who rather than a What) is:

8. Should it be assumed that private educators (in this case, the parents) are not providing a proper education to their children unless they prove, according to state standards, that they are doing so? In other words, are these parents assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes.

This is ridiculous. If the state has a mandate to educate all of its children, it is responsible to investigate whether they ARE being educated. This has nothing to do with assuming parents are guilty until proven innocent – instead it is merely a fulfillment of an obligation.

Ray supports a position based on parental authority:

2. Parental Authority: It is self-evident that the “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God …” and the history of the citizens’ culture and practice in the United States give parents the responsibility and authority to raise their children as they deem fit or right. In order to protect this concept and its fulfillment, the people of any state (i.e., civil government jurisdiction) should explicitly affirm the proposition that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and no state should violate this right without showing that a governmental interest of the highest order is not served in some other way.[18]

Until the 30 or 40 years ago, educating children was assumed to be “a governmental interest of (a reasonably high) order.” Due to the lobbying of the Religious Right, this has changed, and in many states, homeschooling now goes unregulated. I’d suggest that although parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children in some ways, the government OF THE PEOPLE has a profound interest in seeing that those “people” are educated. I remember in 8th grade we had to pass a test on the Constitution (or something like that). It was a state requirement – and a reasonable one. We want kids to learn how our government works – and that means that we want them to learn that the State is not a “Who”, but a “What” (among other things).

One more point: Ray offers an array of statistics that fail miserably to make his argument. Here’s an example, from my home state of Oregon:

“Consistently, year after year, the home-educated students scored, on average, well above the national average (e.g., median scores of the 71st to 80th percentiles, 21 to 30 percentile points above the national average).”

I don’t doubt that homeschooling is often more effective at educating children than public schools. But average scores are irrelevant to the State’s interest in regulating homeschooling. The State is not testing kids to discover which ones are scoring in the 80th percentile instead of in the 90th. Instead, they are testing to discover whether SOME homeschooled kids are being neglected and inadequately educated. The fact that, on average, homeschooling is very effective does not mitigate the State’s responsibility to each individual child (if we assume the State has such a responsibility).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by BDS

Every other question (except the last) starts with “who”, and the answer is “the state”. Since when is the state a “who” and not a “what”? Does Ray want to imply that the State is a “who” – a sort of Orwellian “Big Brother” – rather than simply the representative of “the public”? Ray’s questions (despite their bizarre wordings) are reasonable.

I counter that the government, being a collection of people, is a who not a what. The government isn't a building or a computer or a bowl of fruit.

As to question #1, I’d suggest that, yes, it is a good thing if the public gets together and decides what is properly learned by school children.

The public gets together? When was the last time you, as a member of the public, had anything to do with curriculum decisions? I never have been asked my ideas on the subject by my government, have you? Anyone you know?

After all, if each parent decides for him or herself, we’d get some kids learning that the world is flat, and 5000 years old, and that the moon is made up of green cheese.

Some pertinent court decisions provide for an assumption of parental competence in educating their children (eg: Iowa v. Sessions-1978).

But yes, of course, some people are crazy and stupid and teach their kids insane things, even kids who are in school.

[quote]

8. Should it be assumed that private educators (in this case, the parents) are not providing a proper education to their children unless they prove, according to state standards, that they are doing so? In other words, are these parents assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes.

This is ridiculous. If the state has a mandate to educate all of its children, it is responsible to investigate whether they ARE being educated.

Not so ridiculous. Again, pertinent case law indicates legal issues surrounding homeschooling include 1st and 14th Amendment rights, balancing compelling state interest against these rights, least restrictive means tests, and an assumption of competence based on the available data.

It's far from simple.

Also, how is education defined? Who (or what) defines it? What benchmark would investigators use? Why is that the best benchmark? And on and on.

[quote]

2. Parental Authority: It is self-evident that the “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God …” and the history of the citizens’ culture and practice in the United States give parents the responsibility and authority to raise their children as they deem fit or right. In order to protect this concept and its fulfillment, the people of any state (i.e., civil government jurisdiction) should explicitly affirm the proposition that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and no state should violate this right without showing that a governmental interest of the highest order is not served in some other way.[18]

Until the 30 or 40 years ago, educating children was assumed to be “a governmental interest of (a reasonably high) order.” Due to the lobbying of the Religious Right, this has changed, and in many states, homeschooling now goes unregulated. I’d suggest that although parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children in some ways, the government OF THE PEOPLE has a profound interest in seeing that those “people” are educated.

The US public school system is only about 150 years old, parents being responsible the raising and education of their children is as old as human history, so it's not like the assumption you mentioned is all that long term. It wasn't even written into our founding documents.

I remember in 8th grade we had to pass a test on the Constitution (or something like that). It was a state requirement – and a reasonable one. We want kids to learn how our government works – and that means that we want them to learn that the State is not a “Who”, but a “What” (among other things).

And what happened to those kids who didn't pass the test? How many people are you aware of that know fuck all about our government and how it works? How many of them were homeschooled?

Yes, the government has an interest in an educated population, but it hardly follows that the public schools are the only or even best source of that or that the state is the best to determine what is adequate for any individual. Why not assume that one can be educated in a number of ways and have homeschooling simply be one of them?

One more point: Ray offers an array of statistics that fail miserably to make his argument. Here’s an example, from my home state of Oregon:

Okay, if some homeschooled kids are being inadequatley educated and some publicly school kids are being inadequately educated, then what? If a homeschooled kid is failing to learn, does it follow that the state can do a better job? If a publicly schooled kid is failing, does it follow that homeschooling could do a better job?

Does the state have a responsibility to each and every citizen? Sure. But again, does that mean the state needs to get all up in people's business without probable cause or an evidenced reason to do so?

Basically, is the state's interest and responsibility so overwhelming as to supersede rights to privacy and parental responsibility to their kids?

*Important case law and selected quotes for further reading:
Supreme Court PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976)
Stated that the Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and child rearing and education."

Supreme Court WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Stated, "...the history of the western civilization reflects a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."

"A state's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from the balancing
process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of the parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'preparing them for additional obligations.'

Supreme Court PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 531 (1925)
Stated "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those that nurture him and direct his destiny, have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for added obligations."

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 158-178 (1944)
upheld that, "the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923)
Stated "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place."

[BDS]

Yes, the government has an interest in an educated population, but it hardly follows that the public schools are the only or even best source of that or that the state is the best to determine what is adequate for any individual. Why not assume that one can be educated in a number of ways and have homeschooling simply be one of them?

I have nothing against homeschooling. In fact, I DO assume that it is often a very good way to educate a child. However, that doesn't suggest that it should be completely unregulated. If (most of my arguments are predicated on this if, which I think SHOULD be he case, but which is obviously arguable) the state has an obligation to ensure that at least reasonable measures should be taken to educate all children, the state has an obligation to regulate homeschooling.

As far as whether the state SHOULD have an obligation to educate all children (or to phrase it differently, as to whether the state has a "compelling interest" to ensure the education of all children), that's another argument. As you quote above from Meyer vs. Nebraska: "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place." I'll go along with that. But why not have some minimal regulation to ensure that minimal education is actually taking place? Indeed, if the "object" is that children shall be educated -- isn't the State obliged to ensure that they are?

[LadyShea]

All of the states with little or no regulation (in the form of evualting the education being received) categorize homeschools as private schools (or otherwise provide for homeschooling), and those states do not regulate private schools for "minimal education". Should private schools be put under the same regulations? Who defines "minimal education" and why should that definition be used?

Why should the Federal government usurp the state's rights to create and enforce educations laws? If you argue that the Feds should do so, by what legal theory could they?

[BDS]

Yes, privates schools should be regulated and who defines "minimal education" is open to discussion. I assume it would be the Seceratary of Education or some such elected or appointed official, with the help of others. I admit that the devil is in the details, and that I haven't given much thought to the details.

[LadyShea]

So, the Federal government, in your opinion, should remove the rights of States to formulate their own education laws and regulations, and take over that role?

On what Constitutional grounds do you think the Federal government could do so?

[BDS]

No, I think the State Departments of Education should regulate homeschooling. (I don't actually know how many states have "Secerataries of Education", but most probably have some equivalent person.)

eta: It could also be the local school districts rsponsibility, with State supervision.

[LadyShea]

Each state already has their own laws and regulations in place. Every state addresses homeschooling on some level, either by categorizing it as private school or church school, or with explicit homeschool statutes. Even the ones in green on the map have very specific statutes and case law (you can view a detailed summary by clicking on the state)

You think those states should change their regulations if you or someone doesn't agree with them?

[BDS]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think those states should change their regulations if you or someone doesn't agree with them?

Obviously, I think states should change their regulations if I don't agree with them. In that respect, my opinon is identical to that of everyone else in the world.

[LadyShea]

touche.

But, back to one of your previous arguments...according to you the public "got together" to formulate those statutes, so they should be a reflection of the people's will or something.

Did you look up your own state by any chance? How do you think they are handling the homeschool regulation issue?

[BDS]

I admit that I don't know how Oregon is handling homeschooling, or how any other state is handling it, beyond what I've read in this thread. The map you linked to shows Oregon as "moderately regulating" homeschooling, which (in principle) is what I'm advocating. I might even advocate what the map describes as "high regulation" (but seems relatively moderate to me). Low and no regulation (low regulation means mere notification, no regulation means notification is unnecessary) seem inadequate to me.

(I don't have the adobe reader required to get the legal details on Oregon, and I don't care enough to download it.)

[LadyShea]

The summary's of the map color codes are merely guides, even the "low and no regulations" have specific statutes and guidelines.

Here's state stautes in non .pdf form Oregon Homeschooling Laws - A to Z Home's Cool

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because improving the product and producing it more efficiently seems to be out of the question these days.

Some business efficiency expert needs to go in to the various Departments of Education and show them how to maximize funds, maybe.

Right, but wouldn't the business need to cut costs, like get rid of those expensive enrichment programs that aren't really necessary? You know the good things at school. Also drop those students that cost more than they bring in so bye-bye to all that special needs bullshit.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

...

Also, Private schools manage to get better results with significantly lower per student spending, so it can be done.

But private schools are educating a different population, which automatically has parent interest. Because at the very worst the parents are concerned with getting what they paid for and I bet on average actually take an interest in their kids education. If this was only true for even a large minority in public schools it would go a long way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, all you really need is a committed teacher, some books, and a student eager to learn, everything else is gravy.

I've highlighted the part that is 90% of a teachers job. It is hard to do in a public school setting. Especially without a lot of parent support and without the funds to actually do a lot of interesting things.

A lot of money does go to teachers and administrators salaries. Don't ask me why we meddle with home schooling though.