Table 2. Church attendance, religious commitment, orthodoxy, and organizational affiliation.

It is important to note that by no means do these data suggest that all home school parents are oriented to home schooling due to their religious beliefs. However, there is a large segment of the home school population who do teach their children at home for religious reasons, and religious orientations and beliefs are an extremely important factor in the lives of this group. Religious conviction appeared to be the source of these families’ home school decision. Home schooling allowed some of them to “teach religious truth by having them at home” and to “develop character qualities with a Biblical base.” Others felt they were “inspired by the Lord to home school” and stated that “parents [are] listed in scripture as primarily responsible for education.”  Clearly, home schooling is deeply rooted in their religious world view. The religious home school family perceives public education as corrupted by secular influences and they are motivated to ensure that their religious beliefs are realized in the education of their children. As one mother commented, “If you do not educate primarily with religious and moral values, then you have an educated devil.”

Political Characteristics
Although the religious orientation of home school parents has received some attention by previous researchers, most studies have failed to examine the political characteristics of this group. Mayberry (1991b) has suggested that home school parents engage in political action by circumventing institutional forms of education and that it is imperative that our understanding of this group take into account the political context of their decision. Thus, indicators of the political orientation and viewpoints of this group have been incorporated into this study. For instance, 30% of the respondents in this study identified themselves as “strong Republican,” 17% as “not very strong Republican,” and 26% as “Independent close to Republican.” Thus, almost three-quarters of the sample had an identification with the Republican party and its platform. On the other hand, only 7% of the respondents indicated they had any affinity with the Democratic party. Moreover, when asked about their “political viewpoint,” 68% labeled themselves as “conservative” or “extremely conservative,” while only 5% placed themselves in the liberal camp.
The conservative nature of this group is further illustrated in the types of political activities they have been involved in over the last two years (see Table 3). While over three-quarters of these parents voted in the last election (a percentage much higher than seen in the national population), many were also involved in other types of political actions. For instance, 27% had attended a political caucus or convention, nearly one-quarter donated money to a specific candidate, and 18% had donated money to a Political Action Committee.
The respondents’ written comments gave us more information about the nature of these activities. For instance, much of their political involvement focused on writing letters, circulating petitions, distributing literature, and door-to-door campaigning. Given the conservative orientation of this group, it is likely these activities supported conservative candidates and causes. When the specific political orientations of the activities were addressed, they reflected conservative positions such as pro-life demonstrations and financial support of conservative causes.

–This table is missing in this web page presentation; you may find the PDF format elsewhere on this web site with the table included—

Table 3. Political affiliation and viewpoint.

The conservative orientation of this group was also demonstrated by their lack of confidence in public education, organized labor, and the press-institutions commonly thought of as controlled by liberal elements in society (see Table 4). In each instance, a solid majority of home school parents expressed “hardly any” confidence in these institutions and only a very small percentage felt “a great deal” of confidence. It is interesting to note, however, that institutions commonly thought of as having a conservative orientation were also suspect among this group. The U.S. Supreme court, executive branch of the government, organized religion, major companies, and banks and financial institutions, were among those institutions that the majority of these home school parents expressed “only some” confidence about. In each case, only a small percentage of the parents maintained a “great deal” of confidence in these institutions. Given the political conservatism of home school parents, greater, rather than less, confidence than what was demonstrated was expected. It appears that social institutions, regardless of their political orientation, have little support within the home school group. Moreover, the degree of confidence they do have in these various institutions appears to be significantly less than that of the general public (see Mayberry, 1988).

–This table is missing in this web page presentation; you may find the PDF format elsewhere on this web site with the table included—

Table 4. Degree of confidence in social institutions (in percentages).

Finally, the attitude of home school parents toward government spending for social problems was addressed (see Table 5). The majority of parents felt that “too much” money was being spent on both foreign aid and welfare. However, social problems that had a more direct community impact received more support. For instance, 48% of these parents felt “too little” money was being spent on “halting the rising crime rate,” while a large majority of parents felt government spending in the areas of environmental protection, national health, solving problems in big cities, and dealing with drug addiction, was either “too little” or “about right.”
It is not clear from these findings whether or not the “conservative” political label home school parents applied to themselves actually

–This table is missing in this web page presentation; you may find the PDF format elsewhere on this web site with the table included—

Table 5. Government spending for social problems.

translates into conservative political stances when levels of government spending are at issue. These parents did not support a reduction in social spending in areas that are typically under attack by conservative politicians.
As we have seen, home school parents had little confidence in a wide spectrum of social institutions (both liberal and conservative) but did not have a unified position when it comes to government spending on social problems. It may be that while home school parents “reject” the institutionalized structure of many organizations, they are better able to accept spending for specific programs they feel have an immediate impact on their daily lives. This would be congruent with the suggestion made by Mayberry (1988, 1991b) that the decision to home school may be an incidence of “life-style politics”–that is, an attempt to reinforce, protect, or revitalize sets of beliefs and values that sustain particular “ways of life.”

          Discussion and Policy Implications

This paper has illuminated the religious and political characteristics and orientations of home school parents. In doing so, a number of issues have been raised. First, the religious orientation of many home school parents suggests that the secular framework of public school systems is under attack. These parents’ religious convictions “fit” with the concept of home schooling. Home education appears to be a vehicle for some parents to protect certain religious beliefs and “ways of life” by allowing them to regain control over the primary arena of socialization–the education of children. A unique feature about the religious nature of these parents is their affinity to peripheral, non-mainstream religious organizations. Mainstream institutions have little credibility to a large proportion of these parents.
The significance of the relationship of parent educators to peripheral religious organizations becomes somewhat clearer when we examine their political orientation. As we have discussed, the home school parents in this study, while labeling themselves as politically conservative, tend to have little confidence in mainstream social institutions, even those traditionally thought of as conservative. It appears that home school parents maintain a marginalized position to the larger dominant society–not just in their decision to circumvent public schools, but in other areas of their lives as well. It is likely that the peripheral relationship these parents have to mainstream society is an important element existing before the decision to teach their children at home was made. That is, it may well be that for many the decision to circumvent public schools was a decision congruent with other aspects of their lives.
By examining the sociological research focused on the oppositional tendencies and countermovements that accompany modernization and secularization (see Hammond, 1985), the relationship between the decision to home school and wider social trends gains clearer focus. These studies suggest that as society becomes increasingly rationalized and technologized, there has been a collapse of consensus about the basic functions of social institutions and the values that guide them. New social movements emerge in response to the vanishing consensus, as people attempt to reinforce, protect, or revitalize alternative sets of beliefs and values–that is, systems of meaning through which a stable world view can be sustained.
Heinz (1983) builds upon these ideas and suggests that the family is the key symbol through which meaning systems are constructed, maintained, and reproduced. The disorientation of people in modern society, he contends, is often shaped into challenges against modern culture and emerges as a contest over who is to control the family–the fundamental symbolic sphere of modern culture. The activity of home schooling may well represent a symbolic response to an increasingly differentiated, rationalized, and secularized social system.
Thinking this way about the decision that an increasing number of families are making to teach their children at home sheds new light on policy considerations. Much recent policy has been oriented toward increasingly standardizing and rationalizing educational programs and environments so that disruptions and conflicts in the public education arena can be reduced. If we understand home schooling as well as other forms of privatized schooling as educational alternatives for a segment of the population that does not embrace mainstream (e.g., bureaucratized and rationalized) social institutions, we may find that attempts at standardization and rationalization only exacerbate the problem.
Educational policy makers need to understand the importance home school parents attach to family value systems and “ways of life” in conjunction with acknowledging their resistance toward institutions that organize themselves in an increasingly rationalized manner that marginalizes their participation. Only with such understanding can viable policy that best serves the interests of parents, children, and the state be formulated.
Policy makers are beginning to sense the importance of these issues as they move toward school-based management and parent-partnership programs. We encourage parents and educational administrators to continue in their attempts to establish common ground. Partnerships between communities and school districts, home and schools, and teachers, parents, and learners could potentially be the most beneficial arrangement for constructing cooperative relationships that bridge the gap between public educational institutions and some private interests. In an increasingly rationalized social order where the voice of family interests tend to be obscured, educational programs aimed at incorporating the familial and cultural values of their communities may well address the needs of a growing segment of the population that feel marginalized by the contemporary organization of public education.

                             References

Bailyn, B. (1960). Education in the forming of American society. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Bates, V. (1987). The fundamentalist home school movement. Unpublished manuscript, Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Cancian, F. (1987). Love in America: Gender and self development. Boston: University of Cambridge Press.
Carper, J. C. (1983). The Christian day school movement. Educational Forum, 47 (2), 135-148.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Vintage Books.
Feinstein, S. (1986, October). Domestic lessons: Shunning the schools, more parents teach their kids at home. Wall Street Journal, pp. 1,24.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.
Hadeed, H. V. (1991). Social movement participation of homeschooling parents: A collection of loyalties. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Irvine, CA.
Hammond, P. E. (Ed.). (1985). The sacred in a secular age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Heinz, D. (1983). The struggle to define America. In R. Liebman & R. Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian right (pp. 133-148). New York: Aldine Press.
Knowles, J. G. (1988). Teaching in the manner in which they were taught: Using biographies to understand the tendency of home school parents to replicate teaching methods they often abhor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association, New Orleans, LA.
Knowles J. G., Mayberry, M. & Ray, B. (1989). An assessment of home schools in Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington: Implications for public education and a vehicle for informed policy decision (U.S. Department of Education Grant #R117E90220).
Linden, N. J. (1983). An investigation of alternative education: Home schooling. (Doctoral Dissertation, East Texas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(12), 3457A.
Lines, P. A. (1987). An overview of home instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (7), 510-517.
Lines, P. A. (1989). Home instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lines, P. A. (1991). Home instruction: Characteristics, size and growth. In J. A. Van Galen & M. A. Pitman (eds.), Home schooling: political, historical, pedagogical perspectives. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Mayberry, M. (1988). Doing it their way: A Study of Oregon’s Home Schoolers. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (12): 3874A.
Mayberry, M. (1989). Home-based education in the United States: demographics, motivations and educational implications. Educational Review, 41 (2), 171-180.
Mayberry, M. (1991a). The home school movement: Doing it their way. Paper presented at the University Forum Series, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.
Mayberry, M. (1991b). Conflict and social determinism: The reprivatization of education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Mayberry, M. (1991c). 1990 report on home schools in Nevada. Nevada State Board of Education Home Schooling Advisory Council, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Mayberry, M. & Knowles, J. G. (1989). Family unity objectives of parents who teach their children: Ideological and Pedagogical orientations to home schooling. The Urban Review, 21 (4), 209-223.
Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Shor, I. (1986). Culture wars. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shupe, A., & Stacey, W. (1983). The moral majority constituency. In R. Liebman & R. Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian right (pp. 103-116). New York: Aldine Press.
Spring, J. (1976). The sorting machine: National educational policy since 1945. New York: Longman.
Spring, J. (1986). The American school: 1962-1985. New York: Longman.
SPSS, Incorporated. (Date unknown). SPSSX. Chicago, IL: Author.
Van Galen, J. (1986). Schooling in private: A study of home education. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina). Dissertation Abstracts International 40 (5), 1683-A.
Wartes, J. (1987). Report from the 1986 homeschool testing and other descriptive information about Washington’s homeschoolers. Woodinville, WA: Washington Homeschool Research Project.

                              Endnotes

1. Funding for this Field Initiated Research Project (Grant No. R117E90220) was received from the United States Department of Education. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education.