A STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOME SCHOOLS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION

There was a significant amount of press coverage given to the issue of home schools in 1984 as the Tennessee legislature struggled with a bill that would allow parents to educate their children at home.  As could be expected, it caused concern on the part of public school educators.  The bill had many facets.  For example, it specified level of formal education required of parents to teach their children at different stages of their education.  It was this requirement, rather than whether parents should be able to teach their own children, that caused the concern of the legislators who voted against the bill.  Some of the senators wondered how many people would have the desire to start home schooling or how many were doing so in violation of the existing laws in Tennessee as well as the rest of the United States.
            The number of parents choosing home schooling has increased steadily each year.  There is no way to know for sure the number of home-schooled students because many families are doing it and school authorities are not aware of their existence.  This problem must be dealt with by the public schools because it does not seem to be going away as many “fads” in education have in the past.
            It was apparent that it was time for us to look at these parents and the reasons why they are selecting such “unauthorized” programs of education for their children.  Lines (1982) found that some of those who chose home schooling often see public schools as being too traditional or too conservative.  Some parents feel that public schools are too liberal or do not provide the moral or religious instruction that they feel is essential to the children’s education.
            In spite of the diverse reasons that draw parents to home schooling, they share a profound belief that the public schools are not providing a healthy environment for their children (Divoky, 1983).  They also share a need to have some control over their children’s learning and development.
            If public education is to be responsive to the needs of children, it must be responsive to the needs of all of the children.  It is for this reason that officials must research the causes for the discontent.
                                                            Statement of the Problem
 
            Public school educators are concerned that the increase in the establishment of home schools will eventually lead to a decrease in the control by public school officials over school attendance and thereby to a decrease in the effectiveness of the entire public school system.
 
 
                                                               Purpose of the Study
 
            This study was to develop a profile of existing home schools in an attempt to find some common characteristics of them and their operators.  The study was also designed to identify some of the concerns parents have about public schools by examining their reasons for choosing home schooling as an alternative.
 
 
                                                          Review of Related Literature
 
            The term “home schooling” is often used (Holt, 1981) to describe the process by which children grow and learn in the world, without going to schools.  The home is used as a base for children’s growth in the world and is not really a school at all.  It is not an artificial place, set up to make learning happen and in which nothing except learning ever happens.
            For the purpose of this study, the literature which was reviewed included that which specifically refers to schooling in the home with the parent or parents as the primary instructors.  This is in keeping with the accepted meaning of the term.
 
Historical Foundations
 
            In the days of the Roman Empire, the education was gained solely in the home.  The formal education, mostly for the boys, was done by slave tutors.  Later, groups of parents hired a teacher to come to the community and set up a school, but the home was still important in the educational process.
            For 150 years there has been an increasing tendency for schools to take over functions once reserved for the informal interaction of the family, the church, and the community (Debenham et al., 1978).  Colonial children learned the values, attitudes, and beliefs of their culture, as well as most of it’s ways of earning a living, through daily home and family life.  Children learned adult roles by observation of parents, older siblings, relatives, masters, or neighbors.
            A study of colonial educational patterns (Woytanowitz, 1979) could be the key which opens the door to a better comprehension of suitable and limited goals for today’s schools as well as to a renewed appreciation of the family as an educational agent.  The reason for the resurgence of the home schooling idea might be a positive attitude toward the family as an educational agent.
            Several educational innovations are rooted in the home school setting.  Among them are apprenticeship training and private schools.  Apprenticeship training began first in the home schooling setting (Good, 1956), as did other segments of educational development.  The father trained his sons in the family craft skills.  Increasingly complex societies demanded more variety of skills than could be learned at home.
            The private school (Good, 1956) idea seems to have emerged in the homes of the wealthy landowners.  They hired tutors to come into their homes and educate their children.  Such education took place within the home environment.  Since the tutors carried out their education under the direction and for the purposes of the parents, in the physical facility of the home, some of the teaching of parental values was maintained.
            The working class could not afford the luxury of private schools and opted for a type of “community school” in which a teacher would come in and give the children the basic training necessary to meet the community standards.  The rapid growth of the country and the development of factories caused a rapid change in the attitudes of citizens about education.  It was felt that most parents did not have the time nor the ability to properly educate the children and this responsibility should be left solely to professional educators without any parental interference.
            The growing rift between public schools and home traditions widened still further after the Civil War (Good, 1956).  Educators initiated a growing attack on the home as a center of indifference toward education.  Their premise was that ignorance and lack of home interest prevented the full realization of the goal of universal education.  The answer was compulsory school attendance.  This placed the responsibility of education and its guidance on the professional educators, a move away from the home and family.
            Statutes requiring compulsory education of children (Reutter & Hamilton, 1970) within certain ages have long formed the background of the American educational system.  The courts have found that the enactment of these compulsory attendance laws is a valid exercise of the police power of the state.
 
Compulsory School Attendance Laws
 
            Compulsory attendance laws have a 137-year history in this country, dating back to 1852 when Massachusetts enacted the first one.  It became apparent that it was somewhat naive to require communities to provide education, which it did as early as 1642,  if pupils were not being required to attend.  Other states followed the example of Massachusetts, and by 1918 all of the then existing states had such legislation. On a number of occasions, compulsory attendance laws have been successfully challenged in the courts, and the courts have definitely established that a pupil may not be denied his right to attend a private rather than a public school.
            Acceptable ways of complying with a compulsory education requirement vary widely among the states.  Some states demand certification of teachers and schools; some require only that the schools be approved, and some merely require minimum evidence that schooling actually takes place.
 
Rebirth of the Home Schooling Movement
 
            Many parents see distinct educational benefits to home schooling, thus causing the idea to soar recently in popularity.  They see study plans built on each child’s specific interests and individual rate of learning, freedom for a child to pursue a topic as long as he or she wants, and lack of competition and debilitating peer pressure.
            Not all parents want to teach their children at home for such good reasons (McCoy, 1983).  One person cited the example of a home schooling couple who didn’t want to share their affection with a teacher or classmates.
 
Opposition to Home Schools
 
            Educators who oppose home schools do so not because they hate parents and are against children learning at home, but partly because they don’t believe children schooled out of the regular school program are being treated fairly.  Too often children suffer from their parents’ selfish interests.
            While school authorities are concerned that home schooled children might be missing something, their primary motivation probably comes from the feeling that to allow greater freedom in the establishment of home schools might weaken the confidence or faith parents have in public schools in general.
            Betty Anderson, former assistant executive secretary of the Tennessee Education Association, asked the legislative panel studying home schooling in Tennessee to consider the socialization of the child (TEA News, 1983).  She thinks realistic contact with a society in which the child is expected to function is a factor which cannot be overlooked in a discussion of private and public education.  The issue of socialization becomes particularly significant when home schools enter the picture.
            Postman, author of Teaching as a subversive activity, agrees that schools are far from perfect (cited in Diamond, 1979), but he believes that the classroom can be beneficial in important ways.  This is where children learn the rules of how to function with strangers.  In a sense, the essence of civilized behavior is learning how to react to others who are outside the family.
            Most home-teaching advocates admit that it isn’t suitable for every parent or child, and that parents should first seriously question their own willingness and ability to pursue such a project.  Home instruction is one of the subjects that illustrates the degree to which the education of children is still recognized by the law to be a societal as well as parental concern.  The courts are making decisions that will have far-reaching effects on education in years to come.
            Laws in about half of the states (Ritter, 1979), permit instruction at home by parents, while others permit instruction at home by a certified teacher who may also be the parent. Of course, home instruction is permissible in any state if it meets all the requirements of a private school.  It would not be easy for most homes to meet these requirements.
            The matter of home instruction primarily depends on the interpretations of state statutes.  The courts are giving varying opinions on the cases being tried.  In a precedent setting decision in Massachusetts (Ritter, 1979) in November 1978, a judge for the first time held that the standards and procedures the school board used to deny a home-education plan were unconstitutional.  The Massachusetts statutes exempt from public school a child who is being otherwise instructed.  In Commonwealth v. Roberts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court approved this exemption to include home schooling, given by parents themselves, provided it is given in good faith, and is sufficient in extent.  In the only revision of the compulsory attendance statute since Roberts, the legislature retained the “otherwise instructed” language in the law.
            The West Virginia compulsory education statute (Zirkel & Gluckman, 1983) has an explicit exemption for home instruction, provided the parent(s) giving the instruction satisfy the county board of education wit regard to (1) their qualifications to teach the required subjects, (2) the duration and nature of the instruction, and (3) the progress of the pupils.
            In 1983 the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated the state compulsory attendance law (Pipho, 1984) because of the problems it posed for home study and private schools.  S.B. 504 requires Georgia parents and guardians to enroll all children between the ages of 7 and 16 in public, private, or home study programs or be subject to misdemeanor charges and be fined up to $100 per day or spend 30 days in jail.
            In Virginia, the Supreme Court (Phi Delta Kappan, 1983) ruled that parents can’t evade regulations of home teaching by saying they are running a private school for their children.  In Grigg v. Commonwealth, the court decided that although parents believe that the instruction and training the children received at home is equal to or better than the services provided in the public schools, they cannot teach their children at home without state approval.  The Court called this excuse, though sincere, legally insufficient.
            In Tennessee, after the legislature adjourned in 1984, several truancy charges against home schoolers were dismissed by the courts, which said that the compulsory attendance law is too vague.  The law requires school-age children to attend either a public or private school but fails to define a private school.
            There were eight states in 1984 that had no language in the statutes to allow home schools.  They were Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
            There were a few states which had language in the law that specifically referred to home education.  The Arkansas law said tutoring was not acceptable.  Kansas said home education was not acceptable.  In New Hampshire, only hardship cases were allowed.  Mississippi had no compulsory attendance law.  In North Carolina, the Attorney General ruled the use of tutors in the home was not a home school.  In North Dakota, the home had to be approved as a private school.
            Ten states allow the use of tutors to satisfy the compulsory attendance law, but in Louisiana, the school or tutor must have at least fifty students.  Fifteen states allow home schools, but three of then have exceptions in the language.  In Kentucky, the definition of “school” allows home school even though it is not spelled out in the law.  Maryland allows home schools in rare circumstances.  In Michigan, the parents must be certified to teach.
            Based on this review of home school literature, home schooling appears to be an idea that has gone full circle.  Early education started out this way and the trend, at least for some parents, is going that way again.  It should be noted that most of the reasons for home schooling in the past are not the same reasons for the increase in interest at the present.
            Many people feel that the education of one’s children is an individual matter, and they should be able to provide for it in any way they choose.  The real problem is deciding if all parents are concerned with the educational process of their children, or whether they are simply following some selfish motives in not allowing their children to go to traditional schools.
            It is hoped that this research will shed some light on the practice and give some insight into how widespread the practice really is in this country.
 
 
                                                              Research Methodology
 
            The primary purpose of this research was to develop a profile of existing home schools and the families that operate them.  A questionnaire was used to gain this information.
            Of 301 questionnaires mailed, 199 were returned that were useable.  The return percentage of 66.1 percent was relatively high and suggested that the questionnaire was favorably received.
            The data were useful in presenting a profile of the families that have conducted home schools or are now conducting one.  First, the responses were tabulated, and the frequencies and the percentages were presented in table form.  This allowed examination of the distribution of responses.  Next, five demographic characteristics were used in preparing contingency tables for the chi square statistic.  They were sex, income, education, location of the residents, and the length of time in home schooling.
 
 
                                                            Findings and Conclusions
 
            Some general statements can be made about the findings.  The males responding indicate more of a willingness to challenge the law than females.  The more educated the respondent, the greater the implied concern for the moral health of the children and the less importance was placed on the expense involved in private school education.
            One of the most valuable findings of this study was a profile of the average American Home School (Figure 1).
 
Some of the information indicated was:
            (1) Most of the respondents are married.
            (2) More lived in rural areas and small towns than in urban and suburban areas.
            (3) The average educational background was three years of college.
            (4) The average length of time children spent in home schooling was 4.88 years.
            (5) The number of children being taught in the home school averages 1.95.
            (6) The average number of hours spent in formal teaching was 2.22 hours a day.
            (7) The average number of hours spent studying in addition to the formal teaching was 1.91 hours a day.
            (8) Most of the instructional material used was prepared by the parents themselves.
            (9) Most of the families did not have other children in conventional public or private schools, nor do they ever plan to send them.
            (10) For those who may eventually enter their children in conventional public or private schools, 11-12 years of age was the average best age reported for entry in those schools.
            (11) The evidence clearly supported the existence of a single objective of the group of parents that responded, that is, to give their children the opportunity to receive the kind of education the parents think they should have.
            (12) Religion did not appear to be significant when parents made the decision to teach their children at home.
(13) The income level of the parents was not a factor in the choice of home schooling instead of traditional schools.
                                                                 Recommendations
 
            The following recommendations are drawn from the findings and conclusions:
            (1) Local school officials and parents should be aware of the law as it exists in their state.
            (2) Local school officials and parents should know the guidelines and follow them completely if home schools are ruled to be legal in their state.
            (3) Local school officials should work with home schooling parents if home schools are ruled not to be legal to try to get them back in public schools in order to comply with the law.
            This issue is so important to all of us that we should keep well informed of the changes in the laws and the implications they will have for education in general and public school specifically.  We must not return to the days when parents were allowed to keep their children at home to work and not receive an adequate education.  The primary concern in this country must be the assurance that all children have the opportunity to receive a quality education no matter what the source.
 
 
 
 
                                                                      References
 
Debenham, J., et al.  (1978).  The future of schools and families.  Phi Delta Kappan, March, 443-446.
Diamond, J. E.  (1979).  Parents who teach their children at home.  McCalls, September, 48.
Divoky, D.  (1983).  The new pioneers of home-schooling movement.  Phi Delta Kappan, February, 395-398.
Good, H. G.  (1956).  A History of American Education.  New York: The MacMillan Co..
Holt, J.  (1971).  Teach Your Own.  New York: Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence.
Lines, P. M.  (1982).  State regulation of private education.  Phi Delta Kappan, October, 119-123.
McCoy, E.  (1983).  Is school necessary?  Parents, April.
Staff.  (1983).  Newsnotes.  Phi Delta Kappan, February, 444.
Pipho, C.  (1984).  Compulsory attendance in Georgia.  Phi Delta Kappan, May, 590.
Reutter, E. E., Jr., & Hamilton, R. R.  (1970).  The Law of Public Education.  Mineola, NY; The Foundation Press, Inc..
Ritter, M.  (1979).  Read this before you veto home-education requests.  The American School Board Journal, October, 38-39.
Staff.  (1983, October 15).  TEA NEWS, p. 11.
Woytanowitz, George, M.  (1976, Spring).  Education in colonial America.  Contemporary Education, 47, 125-129.
Zirkel, P. A., & Gluckman, I.  (1983).  Home instruction: When it’s legal.  Principal, January, 37-38.