A Nov. 11th L.A. Times article for L.A. at Home, which seems to focus on architecture and design for southern California homeowners, carried the cutsy title, “For home-school parents, classroom design is the subject du jour.” The first part of the article does, in fact, focus on parents with a severe yearning to replicate school in their homes, quoting one parent who “…demolished a galley-style kitchen in her home to create a school setting. The house had to be extended into the backyard, with a brand-new kitchen built in.”

Another parent, who the article describes as ‘striving for structure and routine,’ states, “It seems there’s a whole new group of us that I refer to as ‘contemporary home-schoolers…’” The article goes on to explain that she is “so committed to the idea of replicating a traditional school experience for her son that she has given her classroom a name: University School for Children, with uniforms, a logo and school IDs.”

This beginning part of the article almost had me passing it over for mention here, but the second part highlights an entirely different approach, and quotes a longtime friend and author: “Tammy Takahashi takes an ‘unschooling’ approach with her three children, ages 7 to 13. The classroom might be an art table at home, a recycling center or the beach. The inherent appeal of the approach is that the style of teaching can be tweaked to accommodate what works best for the student, said Takahashi, who has also written two books on home schooling.”

There are some good arguments for both structured and non-structured approaches, and lots of food for thought and discussion.

From The Louisiana Weekly article Homeschooling Numbers Rise in Minorities’ Households:

“As California’s public schools buckle under the weight of the state’s catastrophic budget problems, more and more parents … are taking education into their own hands. Once considered the domain of white evangelical Christians, who were concerned that their children were not getting enough moral guidance in public schools, home schooling is now gaining currency among ethnic minorities and people of all faiths—or no faith.”

WRITE THESE LAWS ON YOUR CHILDREN: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling By Robert Kunzman

The book was released in August of 2009 and published by Beacon Press of Boston.

A Review by Susan Ryan, Illinois Homeschooler

In one of Robert Kunzman’s interviews with six “strongly conservative” Christian homeschooling families, a California homeschooling mom related her kids “get a lot of life, real life that goes on, that they don’t understand when they are separated for several hours a day.”  She went on to explain that their family of nine children was able to spend valuable time lovingly caring for their grandparents as they reached the end of their lives. Whatever different views, philosophies and lifestyles any homeschooling family has, the incredibly diverse homeschool community can appreciate that, as Mr. Kunzman points out, “homeschooling is…woven into the fabric of everyday family life.”

Indiana University Associate Professor of Education Robert Kunzman’s name – and his quotes – have been floating into general homeschooling news over the last few months.  Many homeschool advocates have been wondering what collective influence he has had, to be sought after so frequently in articles about homeschooling. (It is an odd feeling, as homeschoolers carry on with our busy lives and then discover that some unknown entity is talking about us in an authoritative fashion.)

Often, Mr. Kunzman’s feedback was requested regarding a perceived homeschool growth trend.  The National Center for Education Statistics data is reported on his site with their supposed 74% homeschooling increase since 1999.  He has developed an impressive Indiana University website called: Homeschooling Research and Scholarship. It gave a start to see that on a university link. (The University of Illinois has a homeschooling applicant section in order to study at the University, but not to be studied.)

Kunzman researched and analyzed the families who were located in California, Indiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont. Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) co-founders Michael Smith and Michael Farris, former Generation Joshua leader Ned Ryun, and a Teen Pact college student were also interviewed. The book offered observations and reflections on “four crucial questions that framed [his] homeschooling journeys“: “What do homeschoolers do, and why do they do it? Do children learn to think for themselves?  What do they learn about the relationship between faith and citizenship?  And how, if at all, should homeschooling be regulated?”

I found Mr. Kunzman’s attentive layout of each individual family’s qualities and schedule engaging, although he didn’t ever seem to take his professional evaluator’s hat off when stepping in the door. He asked the parents’ opinions of increased oversight of homeschoolers.  The feedback seemed to be a resounding negative on more governmental authority. One California mom’s adamant rejection of more bureaucracy brought about his acceptance that some homeschoolers “who have learning difficulties would be having at least as much trouble in an institutional setting.”   He maintained that “to assume outright that a parent-teacher is a failure because her child doesn’t meet a fixed standard at a particular age or grade level may be just as unfair as expecting a classroom teacher to have all students excelling in June, regardless of where they started in September.”  That is a worthy concept.

Still, Kunzman proposes homeschoolers be subjected to those standards in his concluding chapter: “General consensus should exist on standards for meeting those interests.”  (“Interests” are included as part of his first proposition that “vital interests of children or society must be at stake.”)

There is a societal disquiet across our communities concerning much of public school education and its standards.  Naomi Wolf laments in a Washington Post article [‘Hey, Young Americans, Here's a Text for You’] that the federal No Child Left Behind Act mandates tests which “assess chiefly math and reading comprehension,” while civics and history education has gone astray. However, Kunzman calls for “basic skills testing” (reading and math) of homeschoolers, along with his third homeschool oversight recommendation that “an effective way to measure whether standards are met” be fulfilled.

Professor Kunzman also expressed ambivalence about the Home School Legal Defense Association’s teen civic education program called Generation Joshua.  Kunzman observed that Generation Joshua has “genuine civic engagement.” While noting a 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress civics assessment is distressing, in that “only 27% of high school seniors [were] scoring at or above proficient.”

Kunzman’s 2007 interview with former George Bush speech writer and founding Generation Joshua Director Ned Ryun occurred before Ryun unhappily exited from the HSLDA fold.  The reason for that departure is one example that the conservative Christian homeschooling community is not in lockstep with HSLDA. Many draw the line when homeschooling rights are risked.

There was another case in point concerning the interviewed Tennessee homeschooling family who did not follow HSLDA advice.  They were the only family in the book that had to deal with state social workers (“four or five different times”).  The family determined they had “nothing to hide” and allowed the social worker into their home to chat.  When asked if there was any follow-up to the visit, the reply was a negative, with the father’s comment that: “As a matter of fact, the last visit, the man opened up to me quite a bit about how he raises his children.  He told me he smacks his children!”

The mother observed that was a touchy issue.  This family had a “thin black rod about eight inches long” that rested on the table.  They were also former neighbors of Michael Pearl, whose book “To Train Up A Child” is a deep source of dismay for many homeschoolers.  Conversely, the Tennessee homeschooling father was inspired by the book:”I have never read anything more encouraging, more uplifting, more knowledgeable in homeschooling.”

When Kunzman returned home from Tennessee, he looked up Pearl’s book on Amazon and discovered there were nearly 700 [currently 859] reviews of the book.  Many of the negative reviews were from dismayed homeschoolers not supportive of this type of discipline, and very active in the Stop the Rod movement.

Most homeschool advocates counsel to not let social workers or truant officers in the home without a court order.  We recognize and agree with the author that “some public school officials and social workers do have a decidedly jaded view of homeschooling.” Abuse is unwanted in the homeschool community.  That would include governmental bullying of law abiding families because they choose to homeschool.

That prudence should be understandable when homeschoolers’ educational base is located in the family’s private living space.  The call for regulation by Mr. Kunzman and others thrashes the very opposition that these six families have to governmental interference. Ironic, isn’t it?

There seemed to be a definite agenda in this book that wasn’t favorable to homeschooling self-sufficiency. The last chapter is oddly named: Becoming A Public. The premise of Kunzman’s homeschooling concerns, framed in the first chapter’s last question regarding “Homeschool Regulation,” seemed to lead to this book’s foregone conclusion.

I’m also bewildered by Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews’ thought process in his recent Education column, 3 Smart Rules for Regulation of Homeschoolers, which focused on Kunzman’s book. Mathews’ position seems to be that unfavorable political winds could increase regulation and that we should do something about that by using the “sensible answer” of universal regulation as offered in “Write These Laws On Your Children.” Mathews also states, “Kunzman knows that many parents have chosen to homeschool for non-religious reasons, but focuses on serious Christians because they are the ones that public school professionals are most worried about.”

The concern about “serious Christians” is the theme throughout this book. Kunzman requested each of the six families fill out a General Social Survey to confirm their social, political and religious conservatism.  There must be a survey or study sought out for almost every curiosity, while most homeschoolers seem to be holding out as the last bastion.  Robert Kunzman reported that nearly a fourth of our homeschooled population don’t need to notify or verify educating their children.  He asked HSLDA’s Michael Smith if their ultimate goal was to be a “place like Illinois where parents don’t have to report, register, anything.”

Kunzman’s propositions suggested that free homeschooling states (such as Illinois) “runs the greatest risk of neglecting the interests of children and the state.” His unease seems to be baseless and cynical, as he didn’t provide proof of such neglect. An imagined problem, that school bureaucrats need to oversee already established parental accountability, will kill what we live – and what we love about homeschooling.  The former Social Studies and English high school teacher, coach and administrator describes a “triad of interests” (children, parents, society) as a concern of “advocates of regulation.”  (‘Anti-homeschoolers’ is the term I use for homeschooling regulation advocates.)  Even after hundreds of hours observing homeschoolers, Robert Kunzman either doesn’t understand the homeschooling way of life, or worse yet, he does.

Who are and where are homeschoolers? Who should care?

New homeschoolers would likely want to find a support network, along with encouragement from other homeschoolers. Families looking at homeschooling as a way out of the public or private school building would also be looking for state and local resources. Homeschoolers tend to know the states’ homeschool regulations (or lack thereof) better than many school authorities. We have to know them, to protect our family.

When homeschoolers ‘left the system’, why is ‘the system’ hunting down homeschoolers to study them? My Kid is Not Named Data, after all.

Counting seems to be irresistible to the eduwonks, along with the media.

Profound shift in kind of families who are home schooling their children USA TODAY 5/28/09
By Greg Toppo

Parents who home-school children increasingly are white, wealthy and well-educated — and their numbers have nearly doubled in a decade, a new federal government report says.

No one was counting my kids, or most other homeschooled kids in Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, or other states, where homeschoolers do not report to the state school authorities. Some others might also disagree with those reported ‘statistics‘.

From Mothering.com:

Homeschooling for Black Families
By Jennifer James
Issue 140, January/February 2007

The black homeschooling movement is just beginning to take shape. Fifty years ago, little did we suspect that black families would today be exiting the public schools in growing numbers to embrace other means of education. While we all acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifices made by those who worked in the Civil Rights Movement, we also recognize that now is a new time in America’s educational landscape. While homeschooling may be picking up steam in our community, the great majority of black children ?are still educated in the public schools. Though we don’t believe that public education is wrong for all black children, we know from our own experience, and from the experiences of other black families, that there are other ways of learning. Many black families across the nation are finding this to be true, and I’m sure others will as well. Now, as our daughters grow and learn every day, Michael and I are even more convinced that ?we have made the right choice for our family and for our daughters’ educational futures. We have equipped them with a true and unwavering love for learning that has been made possible by homeschooling.

Personally, I like being mysterious. But if anyone wants to join the homeschool party, the mystery will be resolved. Each family is a unique and autonomous body. All different and all impossible to analyze, except by those who really count.

Does Homeschooling Research Help Homeschooling
Who benefits from homeschool research? by Larry and Susan Kaseman
Originally published January-February 1991 issue Home Education Magazine

Given all the problems and pitfalls, why would anyone do research on homeschooling? Who benefits? Obviously, researchers and the universities and other institutions with which they work or who support and use their work benefit directly in terms of money received and increased status and privilege. Homeschooling research may be particularly in vogue now, making it easier to get grants and other support for homeschooling research than for other seemingly less timely topics. When more than 100,000 “scholarly” articles are published each year (as reported in Phi Delta Kappan, Vol, 71, No. 3, Nov., 1989, page 226), there must be intense pressure on graduate students, instructors, and professors alike to find an original topic. Do homeschoolers have an obligation to serve as fodder for this arm of the educational establishment?

Conclusion

There are two major reasons why homeschoolers should not participate in research: First, research poses a serious threat to homeschooling because it increases the opportunities for increased control and regulation of homeschooling. Second, even if research did not have serious risks, it still would not be the most effective way to communicate information about homeschooling to others. It is much better for homeschoolers to share their personal experiences, to show how well homeschooling works for their families, and how important it is that homeschooling exist as an alternative that is not controlled by conventional schools or the government.

If homeschooling is to survive as an alternative approach to education and as a stronghold of parents’ and children’s rights and responsibilities, homeschoolers must be prepared to stand up and say, “We have chosen an alternative that works better for us.” One important area in which homeschoolers have to be prepared to do this is research. They need to say, “We don’t want our families poked and prodded and invaded. We don’t want our position weakened and our strengths lessened by research which cannot give a full and accurate picture of homeschooling anyway. We object to what research does to people and to alternative movements and the way in which it promotes the values and practices of conventional schooling. Therefore, we oppose homeschooling research.”

Move to Ojai results in net gain for Pecor Ventura County Star  April 22, 2009
By Rhiannon Potkey

Along with improving his tennis, Pecor wanted to be challenged academically when he arrived in Ojai.

He decided to skip the eighth grade and enroll at Nordhoff High as a freshman.

The honor student goes to class in the mornings and trains at Weil in the afternoons.

Pecor could have taken the home school route that has become all the rage in junior tennis, but his parents believe Nordhoff was a better option.

“It’s been something we have thought about, but we like the social atmosphere of the public school,” Bill Pecor said. “I am sure he will probably take a class or two down the road, but he really enjoys the high school environment.”

Pecor will be missing classes this week while trying to win his first Ojai title in three attempts.

Whether Billy Pecor is in public school or not, it doesn’t appear that he has a typical student’s life.   Best wishes for Billy Pecor.

Court Ruling: California statutes permit homeschooling!

CHN would like to thank Jerry Salcido and his team of attorneys at Baker & McKenzie LLP for the outstanding job they performed in representing the members of California Homeschool Network. They worked for months with the attorneys from HSC and CHEA, to defend our right to continue to homeschool legally in California.
August 8 update from CHN’s attorney, Jerry Salcido: The Cailfornia Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three issued its ruling in the In re Rachel L. case.

In Feburary 2008 this same court issued an opinion that held that California parents can homeschool their children only if they hold a valid teaching credential. The court vacated its February 2008 decision by agreeing to rehear the case. In addition to hearing from the parties on rehearing, the court also invited numerous friends-of-the-court, known as “amicus curiae” to provide legal argument. The court heard argument from the parties and the amicus curiae on June 2, 2008 for more than 2 hours.

Today’s court ruling held that (1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared a dependent.

Homeschooling, therefore, remains a legal educational option in California.

Links at site to other articles and opinions.

Page 5:

In this dependency case, we consider the legality of, and restraints upon, home schooling in California.1 We will conclude that: (1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent.   [underlining added]

Fyi, “dependency” in this context, means that a child has been the subject of an abuse case and was found to be in need of supervision, protection, or care other than that given by the parent.   For the purposes of this ruling, the reference to a child who has been declared ”dependent” does not mean merely a minor child. 

Stay tuned for commentary.

Case that led to Calif. home school ban dismissed, 12 July 2008, San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, California

I can’t quote the article because it’s from the Associated Press, and they’re very fussy (and therefore, no fair use = no link).  I guess that the A.P. didn’t know that there was no outright ban in the first place, and that the decision was vacated in the second place?

In any case, the judge in the family court in which the abuse case of the Long family was heard, has terminated the jurisdiction because of delays of the regular six-month reviews of the situation.  No word yet on how this termination will affect the appeal. 

Tammy, a Californian, has these comments:

California Juvenile Court Drops Out of Homeschooling Case, 11 July 2008, Just Enough, and Nothing More

Right now, the three state-wide homeschooling groups are remaining quiet. In an unofficial email sent out to one of the groups, it was made clear that the reason that they are quiet, is because they cannot be certain what this means for the case, despite Mike Farris’ confidence. Just as with everything that has happened thus far, there are many possible outcomes.

For now, don’t pop open the champagne. On the surface, this looks like a positive development for the homeschooling angle of the case. But we still can’t be sure.

Search at Thomas, if interested.  At this point, any information about these resolutions seems to be of the order of “fyi.”  NewsComm is a day late and a dollar short in reporting this, but the NewsComm staff (me, 2 cats and the granddog) just didn’t catch it at the time.  Hat tip to Mary, whose staff is Mary and the spirit of her late-beloved pooch Reba.

House Resolution 1076 was introduced 3 April 2008 by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-California).  The resolution has 56 co-sponsors.  The actions have been:

• 4/3/2008: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
• 6/3/2008: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Senate Resolution 572 was introduced May 21, 2008 by Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), and co-sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma).  So far, the resolution is still in committee:  “Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.”

Both resolutions have near-identical language, with the only difference that I saw being that the Senate version calls specifically upon the Court of Appeal in California’s Second District, while the House version “calls upon the courts.”

The Senate version follows:

Title: A resolution calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

RESOLUTION Calling upon the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Whereas the modern homeschool movement in the United States demonstrates that homeschooled children are a vital component of the United States education system;

Whereas homeschool graduates act responsibly as parents and as students in colleges and universities, are valuable in the workplace, and are productive citizens in society at large;

Whereas many studies confirm that children who are educated at home score considerably above the national average on nationally-normed achievement tests, and above the average on both the SAT and ACT college entrance exams;

Whereas homeschooled children, such as 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, are receiving national recognition for their victories in national competitions, such as national spelling bees and geography bees, and are being highly sought after by nationally-recognized colleges and universities;

Whereas homeschooling families contribute significantly to the cultural diversity important to a healthy society;

Whereas notable individuals such as Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, Ansel Adams, Charles Dickens, and General Douglas MacArthur all received a high-quality education at home;

Whereas over 2,100,000 children are being homeschooled nationwide;

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, in the cases of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);

Whereas on February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, issued an opinion in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), that homeschool parents who did not hold a teaching credential could not legally homeschool their children;

Whereas the initial decision by the Court of Appeal in that case would have had an adverse impact on approximately 166,000 children in California who are receiving a quality education at home; and

Whereas on March 25, 2008, the Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case, with respect to the decision that required parents to hold a teaching credential in order to legally homeschool their children: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate–

(1) commends the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles, California, for allowing a rehearing in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); and

(2) calls upon the court to uphold the Supreme Court’s opinion that parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Home-schooling in court, 23 June 2008, San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, California

The 2nd District Court of Appeal will hear arguments in a legal fight over whether parents who home-school their children must have teaching credentials. The same appeals court earlier this year sent shock waves through the nation’s home-schooling movement, finding that parents who lack teaching credentials are violating California’s compulsory-education laws if they home-school their children.

…

The appeals court has 90 days to rule, which would result in a decision sometime around the start of the next school year. The California Supreme Court may still have the last word in the case.