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.

“Tired of the constraints of the 40-hour workweek, my father, in 1972, quit his job in publishing. My parents were in their early 30s, and they had four children under 7. ‘But we still wanted to explore the world,’ my father recalled recently. They bought six one-way tickets to Europe, leaving only a laughable $3,000 to subsist on. Young and idealistic, they thought they could easily educate us along the way. ‘Life itself would become a portable classroom.’”

Margaret explains how for the next four years they “embarked on an uncharted ‘free-form existence,’ traveling through Spain, England, a Midwestern farm, Mexico, and finally settled in St. Louis. She details how her parents stretched their budget to allow for the far-flung classrooms, and writes of the family adventure, “…my parents were consistently inconsistent. There were a few interludes of standardized education, but for the most part, as my mother would later write in this magazine, ‘during all this time, the children traveled with us and received nothing that remotely resembled formal schooling.’”

“Home Is Where the School Is,” published in the Oct. 19, 1975, issue of The New York Times Magazine, was the first article in a national publication to espouse what was then still a fringe educational choice.

Read Margaret Heidenry’s entire article at the link above.

In a guest post for The New York Times, Mr. Stephens explains his belief that any student at any level, even those in traditional education environments, can take charge of their learning:

“Why did I make trouble? Going along with the program seems pretty sweet. I could have written papers, skipped class and partied until dawn. After four years as a college student, I would have had many friends, a good job and letters after my name. But I left college because I realized I couldn’t rely on a university to give me an education.”

Read the entire article at the link above.

“But wait a second. Why are homeschoolers away from home, in a center taking classes? If you’re like me (and statistics suggest you probably are), then your state-mandated K-12 education happened in a public or private school. But for about 2.4 percent of Maryland’s school-aged kids, education happens somewhere else.”

The article is long, interesting, fair and balanced, and the final paragraph, while startling and unusual for an article about homeschooling, leaves true homeschoolers with a knowing smile. Recommended reading, for sure.

“Christiana died of malnutrition and an untreated broken leg. She was also supposedly home schooled. Vanieri Huttle’s bill would require medical exams and submission of student work portfolios for home-schooled children. It would also prohibit children under the supervision of DYFS from being home-schooled.”

Discussion of this potential leglislation is under discussion at the HEM Networking group, a free forum for homeschoolers prodvided by Home Education Magazine: “This bill is bad. Public school students are not required to undergo medical exams. Furthermore, there has been no evidence that homeschoolers in NJ are not doing a good job and that they suddenly need supervision by the public schools.”

In a contribution to the HEM-Networking group discussion, former HEM News & Commentary editor Valerie Moon shared a link to author Milton Gaither’s review of Timothy B. Waddell’s “Bringing it all Back Home: Establishing a Coherent Constitutional Framework for the Re-Regulation of Homeschooling” in Vanderbilt Law Review. Waddell, a recent graduate from Vanderbilt Law School and now a clerk for the U.S. District Court of Alabama, here presents a constitutional argument for increased regulation of homeschooling and much else besides.

Valerie shared this excerpt from Gaither’s review:

“As my summary indicates, I really liked this piece. It is the last of a long list of legal articles I’ve reviewed over the past few weeks, and it is the best of the lot in my view. John Holt wouldn’t like it because in his view it was always better to have things unclear than clear, for then you could get away with more. But I for one appreciated not only Waddell’s summary of the issues but his proposal as well. I know some of my readers will react strongly against what I’m about to say, but Waddell’s proposal to me does a good job of maintaining the freedom to homeschool while at the same time providing a mechanism for catching children whose parents are being abusive or neglectful. A homeschooling family that is doing its job should have no fear of outside evaluation–should welcome it in fact, as it will demonstrate to the public at large how effective homeschooling can be.”

This underscores a longstanding concern we’ve had with Gaither’s position on homeschooling, as he deliberately frames John Holt’s pioneering work for homeschooling freedoms in an unfavorable light, while dangerously welcoming government oversight of families.

In Homeschool regulations ahead? Karen Francisco in The Journal Gazette writes:

Indiana State Superintendent Tony Bennett released new non-waiver graduation rates today with a news release that suggests Indiana high schools might be “counseling students out” of public schools and into homeschool. Last week, I blogged about a New York Times article on private schools “counseling out” struggling students and I cited some examples of northeast Indiana parochial school students who transferred to public schools at the parochial schools’ request.

The Department of Education news release raises suspicions about the legitimacy of transfers from Indiana public high schools to a homeschool: “While we believe the vast majority of Indiana’s schools are doing the right thing, we fear some schools may be issuing waivers for students that aren’t quite ready to graduate and even counseling students out of traditional public schools and into ‘homeschool’ where the students then become untraceable,” Bennett said. “We are doing these students no favors and must reexamine this process. Homeschool is an excellent choice for some students, and such a decision should be made with each individual student’s needs in mind. However, if a student is reported as having transferred to a home school program, that student should, in fact, be participating in a legitimate program.”

And therein lies the problem – what’s a “legitimate” home school program? For better or worse, Indiana is among the states with no regulation of homeschool instruction.

Continue reading at the link above.

In the NY Times’s Room for Debate, Susan Neuman, professor in educational studies and assistant secretary of education in the George W. Bush administration had an interesting point of view.  She started out with the notion that ‘conservatives’ are trying to destroy public education with homeschool tax credits.

I’d say that ‘conservatives’ like Chester Finn are trying to destroy homeschooling with his love of standardized tests.  His thumbs up for homeschool tax credits came with the notion that “if they don’t pass those tests, either the subsidy vanishes or the kids must enroll in some sort of school with a decent academic track record.”  As if those tests are a good synopsis of what children learn.  As if enrolling kids who don’t do well on tests is reason to be in a school.  We could turn that around to say that some public school students shouldn’t be in school because those tests look very bad for them.  Most good teachers agree that teaching to standardized tests doesn’t help learning, even if their union insists on testing for homeschoolers.   From the edu-industry end, Mr. Finn was invested as a Director of K12, Inc. until July of 2007 and is still a member of the Education Advisory Committee.  Not surprisingly, Finn was promoting the virtual schools heavily in this non-reality based comparison of homeschooling and virtual schools:  “From a policy perspective, however, there’s not much difference between teaching kids at home and enrolling them in any of hundreds of “virtual charter schools” or district- or state-run alternatives”.”    His K12 company is lobbying hard in Illinois for more business than just the Chicago Virtual School.  I wouldn’t want him speaking on behalf of the homeschooling community because dollar signs keep distorting his view.  In The Educated Child, a book he co-authored with William Bennett, they stated that “homeschoolers should not have to do so [homeschool]  because there are no good schools available”.  What they don’t seem to understand is the homeschooling lifestyle enables the family to enjoy each other and their education and isn’t necessarily because of an indictment of schools.  Families homeschool in communities with the best school districts too.

Rob Reich – notorious for his anti-homeschool freedom attitudes – sounds almost excited about federal tax credits.  His piece is similar to Finn’s, except he wants homeschool registration, where Chester Finn likes the testing notion.   I think Reich’s piece was the tamest of any of his previous articles demanding homeschoolers answer to the government. There’s cause for alarm.  Reich senses promise in registering all homeschooled children with the use of tax credits.

Want a tax credit to home school? Accept a requirement to register your child as being home schooled and that the child take the same state tests as other public school students. Federal dollars come with strings attached, and these particular strings are in the best interests of children, anyway.

Luis Huerta of Columbia University had a piece with many similar points to a Daily Beast article.

The current efforts consist of a two-prong approach that involve resurrecting recently proposed legislation: First, the Family Education Freedom Act of 2009, sponsored and repeatedly introduced by Representative Ron Paul of Texas has proposed a tax credit of up to $5,000 for private school tuition and home schooling expenses. Second, the Parental Rights Amendment of 2009 sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and written by Michael Farris, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, would protect “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children” as a fundamental right.

But I think his point below shows the HSLDA sponsored contradiction in promoting a Parental Rights Amendment, while chancing federal regulations of homeschooling with tax credits.  I also don’t like the Parental Rights Amendment because we don’t need our rights enumerated.  We already have them.

Dana Goldstein from The Beast says in her article How the Tea Party Will Destroy Education Reform that:

The organization [HSLDA] has powerful supporters—both veteran legislators and newcomers. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the caucus’ vice-chairwoman, support homeschool tax credits. John Kline, the incoming House Education Committee chairman, was the keynote speaker at last spring’s Home School Legal Defense Association conference, where he said he would work to “charge up Capitol Hill with the message of homeschool freedom.”

I’m all about a message of homeschool freedom, but we generally keep it to ourselves, unless ironically enough, legislators or school authorities start getting in our way.

Here’s some more “new Republican” names laid out from the Beast that want to ‘help’.

“Rubio and Paul ran for Senate supporting tax credits for homeschoolers, though they also describe themselves as deficit hawks committed to balancing the federal budget. Paul has been an especially vocal advocate for homeschooling, often speaking publicly about the prominent role homeschooling volunteers played in his Kentucky campaign. He spoke on June 25 to the Christian Homeschool Educators of Kentucky, whose mission is to “protect children from mental, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by secular humanists in a socialist society or governmental system.” On his campaign website, Paul’s staff regularly promoted homeschooling as an alternative to failing public schools, citing high academic achievement scores among homeschooled children (who also tend to come from more affluent families than their public school counterparts.)”

Cato Institute‘s Neil McCluskey seems to get it in his article: Unconstitutional Intrusion

The sentiment is right: Home schooling parents shouldn’t have to pay for schools they don’t use then pay again for education they do. But good intentions neither make a law constitutional, nor necessarily sound. Proof of home schooling could be defined as passing federally prescribed tests – just the sort of mandate many home schoolers despise. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution gives the federal government specific powers, and the feds may do nothing beyond them. Included among them is nothing about education, so Washington may make no education policy. And no, the taxing power does not allow Washington to do whatever it wants as long as it is connected to taxes. Taxation may only be used in service of the enumerated powers.

McCluskey finishes with this thought:

Home schoolers deserve some breaks. At the national level, that means adhering to the Constitution and getting the federal government out of education, which would benefit not just home schoolers, but all taxpayers.

I don’t think most homeschoolers consider themselves deserving of a break.  Except when legislators or public school authorities interfere with well or ill intentioned motivations.  Rule number one for homeschoolers should be to not make any rules or laws or regulations for homeschooling families.  If we’ve already determined it’s worth it to go against the societal mainstream of public schools, then we’re also pretty determined to create the best learning opportunities for each of our children in the coziness of our homes.  In other words, no worries about us, as public schools already have plenty to do on their own.

Neumann concludes with a question.

This latest proposal is designed for the heart not the head. Home-schooling families are too smart and too savvy to buy into this half-baked plan. They know that tax credits are good for nothing but greater federal intrusion. Is this what the Tea Party had in mind?

If you’ve ever heard the story about The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp, then you’ll understand homeschoolers don’t want to end up in the educational market’s pen.  Many have walked away from the carrot.

NHELD’s Deborah Stevenson has an excellent piece about this tax credit issue.

Spunky has a piece, along with good comments on the issue.

Update – My thoughts, concerns,  a bit of research and a lot of other good folks’ articles regarding the IL Education Tax Credit and its repercussions are posted here.

Submitted by Susan Ryan, who is happily and independently homeschooling in Illinois

Boring, unathletic, antisocial, fashion-challenged, politically retrograde, culturally backward, religiously extreme…the list of homeschooler stereotypes is seemingly endless and almost entirely negative. Despite the growing popularity of the homeschooling movement in the United States and around the world, homeschooling and its graduates continue to be viewed with suspicion, and not a little condescension, by the mainstream. But as our list of the world’s 15 most extraordinary homeschoolers shows, the homeschooling population is extraordinarily diverse, defying every attempt to shoehorn them into a single mold. The homeschoolers on this list are geniuses and jocks, conservatives and progressives, fundamentalists and hippies, scientists and artists….

Continue reading at the link above.