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.
This piece is part of the series
Homeschooling Freedoms at Risk
May-June 1991 • Home Education Magazine
Index – Homeschooling Freedoms At Risk
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.
© 1991, Wisconsin Parents Association, Inc.
This piece is part of the series Homeschooling Freedoms at Risk Originally published
in the May-June 1991 issue of Home Education Magazine (Top)
Freedoms At Risk – Twenty Years Later
Homeschooling Freedoms At Risk
Freedoms Responsibilities And The “Four Pillars”
Homeschooling Rights and Responsibilities
Bitter Pill-ars to Swallow
From Across the Nation