WHAT HOME EDUCATORS NEED, WANT, AND USE FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS: RESULTS FROM AND ONGOING STUDY IN FOUR WESTERN STATES 1

Brian D. Ray
Division of Science and Mathematics
Western Baptist College
and National Home Education Research Institute
5000 Deer Park Drive, S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97301

Maralee Mayberry
Department of Sociology
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154

J. Gary Knowles
Department of Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Keywords: Homeschooling, home schooling, home education, needs, institutions.

The recent resurgence of home education in the United States has been accompanied by rapid growth in the number of studies investigating the phenomenon. Various writers have documented the increased popularity of home education (e.g., Allis, 1990; Gordon & Gordon, 1990), while others have estimated there to be nearly one-half million students now taught at home by their parents (Home School Legal Defense Association, 1990; Lines, 1991; Ray, 1989). The corresponding body of research has addressed numerous aspects of home education including law (Harris & Fields, 1982; Klicka, 1990; Lines, 1983; Wendel, Konnert, & Foreman, 1986; Yastrow, 1990), history (Shepherd, 1986; Knowles, Marlow, & Muchmore, 1992), sociology (Bates, 1990; Mayberry, 1988a, 1988b), learning processes (Treat, 1990; Quine & Marek, 1988), policy (Knowles, 1989; Knowles, Mayberry, & Ray, technical report due 1991; Lines, 1986), student achievement (Ray, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Wartes, 1990a, 1990b), and students’ social and emotional adjustment (Delahooke, 1986; Hedin, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Montgomery, 1989; Taylor, 1986). The research is likely to broaden and explore issues in greater depth as home schooling makes a permanent and significant mark on the American education scene in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. As the overall significance of home education is still yet to be realized, it might be wise to ask home school parents what resources they need and want from others (e.g., schools, government, and private enterprise) as they attempt to successfully educate their own children.
In times past, families using schools as one resource among many for the education of their children was not unusual (Gordon & Gordon, 1990). “Domestic education and school attendance were often combined during a child’s education” (Gordon & Gordon, p. 193). Currently, the consideration of parents’ needs for help and resources as they teach their children has lead some to the proposition of cooperation between home educators and public (or private) schools. The subject of cooperation has caught the attention of several writers. John Holt (1983), one of the best known advocates of home education, was one of the earliest to publicly promote some form of partnership between conventional schools and home schools. Holt provided examples of school boards that not only accepted home education families, but invited their children to use the staff and equipment of the schools as part of their learning resources. He pointed out, however, that such examples of cooperation were the exception rather than the rule. As yet there is little evidence to indicate that the situation is much different today. Although Holt suggests that such cooperation can be helpful to the student, he mainly focuses on how the cooperation might benefit the schools and their purposes (e.g., bring enthusiastic and intelligent students to them, bring partial funding to the schools, and serve as a research project to improve schooling).
Similarly, others have recently discussed cooperation between public schools and home schools. Divoky (1983) concluded her work by saying, “…cooperative arrangement between a district and home schoolers — one that allows parents to use district resources, while the district continues to receive state funds for each child–may satisfy the needs of both parties” (p. 398). Knowles (1989) described ideas about cooperation that emerged from a longitudinal ethnographic study of home schools in Utah and explored ideas about how public schools might meet the needs of home education families. He suggested a number of things that might facilitate cooperation, including (a) public tax monies perhaps made available to the families, (b) a funding scheme in which school districts receive tax monies in proportion to the involvement of home school children in district programs, (c) the state assisting in training parents to teach their children, (d) research projects on home education by universities, (e) involving parents in the local parent teacher association, (f) resource centers being made available to home educators, (g) parents attending inservice training along with other teachers, and (h) home education students attending experiential (e.g., music and art) or large group (e.g., team sports and band) activities in the schools. Like Holt (1983), Knowles pointed out that many home-educated students have a high level of motivation and “…may be a distinct advantage for school instructors and other students…” (p. 408). Ray (1989b) made a case for sound state home education statutes and regulations that best lead to the education of children which is demanded by the compelling interest of the state (and no more), and are “…valid, clear, and practical…. Such an approach would enhance cooperation … between home educators and their community neighbors, professional educators, and state education officials. This cooperation would bring each state closer to its goal of an excellent education for all children, wherever that education may occur” (p. 15). Ray (1989a) also explained that advocates of conventional schools should develop constructive responses to home schooling, and that “…various responsible groups should contemplate how to ensure that the educational and familial needs of home schoolers are adequately met” (p. 20).
Mayberry and Knowles (1989) reiterated Knowles’ (1989) policy recommendations. In addition, they considered home education in light of its potential impact on society in general. They stated, “Home school families may indeed provide good examples of one way to preserve the family. Since both parents and schools have a role in education, such partnerships could represent a common effort toward common goals and best serve the interest of society, parents, and children” (p. 223).
The preceding discussion indicates that a number of people have invoked the concept of cooperation between home educators and schools. On the other hand, some professional educators and their representatives (e.g., National Education Association, 1990; National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1989-1990) have asserted that parents without formal training cannot provide an adequate education for children. Other educators have expressed more moderate views (e.g., National Association of State Boards of Education, 1988), or no views at all, about the capabilities of home education parents. It appears that none of these groups have taken the approach of determining the needs or interests of home education families or attempting to serve them.
Setting aside the idea that cooperation between home educators and schools might be beneficial to schools and the teaching of children therein, there is a possibility that such cooperation might be of assistance to home education families themselves. One approach is to assume that families who operate home schools have needs that can be met by institutions such as public and private schools, libraries, the government, and private enterprise. With this assumption in mind, those institutions could determine whether and how they could meet the needs of home educators. The institutions could then make policy based upon their assumptions about home education.
On the other hand, it may be more appropriate to explore whether home educators believe they have needs that might be effectively met by other institutions. This approach allows the primary actors, home educators, to articulate their needs rather than depending on some other institution for which many home educators have displayed little affinity (e.g., public schools as reported in Mayberry, 1988a, 1988b) to articulate their needs for them. Once home educators state their needs, presuming they exist, other institutions could reasonably consider what to do about them.

Focus

Research to date has not clearly identified the needs of home education families. No research has focused on the needs of these families. Ray (1988b) stated that researchers should “…question home-school parents carefully to find out more precisely what their objectives are for their children. They should then follow the youth over a long term to determine whether home schooling is actually effective in meeting the home schoolers’ goals” (p. 26). Likewise, researchers should ask home educators to articulate their needs from their own (home schooling) perspective. They could also be asked what they need from or would like to be offered from both public and private groups or institutions. If home education parents believe that they have significant needs, then other institutions might do well to consider how to offer assistance to the home educators.
Other institutions, like libraries, science museums, private schools, and public schools should realize that their purpose is to serve all citizens and their families in the local community. A well-served and well-educated citizenry is important to society. In addition, it is a fact that a number of children who are home educated will one day enroll in private or public schools. This is because the family may decide that its objectives for the child’s home education have been met, or circumstances change such that they believe that enrollment in a conventional school is the best option at the time. It is increasingly more common for administrators, faculty, and staff in various private and public institutions to come in contact with the home educated as either temporary clients or full-time students. Therefore, good relationships with home educators and their children make good sense.
The purpose of this study is to ascertain what home educators say they need, want, and use from other institutions, and this is done in order to assist both public and private sectors in policy decisions regarding home education.

Methodology

This study was part of a larger, ongoing, field-initiated, federally funded project (Knowles, Mayberry, & Ray, 1991) that examined home education in four Western states in order to develop implications for conventional schools and to inform policy making. The findings and discussion in this report are based on data from only one of the four states. Further detail on the methodology for this study was provided by (Mayberry, Ray, & Knowles, 1992 [this issue]).

Population and Sample
The target population of this study was all home education families in one (Washington) of the four western states which are a part of the larger study previously described. Home education leaders in the state were consulted to determine the best strategy for contacting the most representative sampling of all families in the state. It was decided to use the mailing lists of two statewide organizations and of one private service organization. A third organization, of a statewide nature and with a sizeable mailing list, decided to not participate. The state leaders with whom the researcher discussed matters believed, however, that the lists which were already obtained would include the large majority of addresses on the list of the non-participating group.
We did not have any particular reason to hypothesize that the findings from this one state will significantly differ from what will be found with all four states.

Survey Instrument
We formulated survey items that would elicit responses relevant to the objectives of the larger ongoing study and the objectives specific to the present report. A questionnaire comprised of 56 items (or 290 variables for analysis) was constructed.
Steps were taken to maximize the validity of the survey. A list of relevant concepts was developed and a variety of ways to measure them were sought. Studies dealing with similar concepts were reviewed, and questions measuring these concepts were identified. Approximately one-third of the items were drawn from a survey of Oregon home schools (Mayberry, 1988b).
Other sources of questions came from polling agencies such as the National Opinion Research Company, the Gallup Foundation, and the United States Census Bureau. The questions chosen from these sources were then studied and a judgment made about their ability to elicit information germane to the concept.
In addition, both closed- and open-ended questions were used to measure similar concepts, and the responses to these multiple indicators could be compared to see if each had produced similar results.
The validity of the survey was further enhanced by a pilot study. The survey was pilot tested with a group of home education parents. They were specifically asked to point out questions they felt were not adequately addressing their attitudes or beliefs about specific topics, and their input helped to refine the survey. The responses and suggestions emanating from the pilot study provided input for the final construction of the survey.

Data Collection and Analysis
A person, who was neither one of the researchers nor a representative of anyone who provided mailing lists, went through the lists in order to eliminate redundancy. This third-party person mailed surveys (with self-addressed stamped envelopes for their return) to 4,500 of the resultant 4,600 addresses. Due to the timing of the acquisition of the lists and other unforeseen limitations, the list of the second statewide organization and the remaining 100 addresses from the first list were later merged with redundancy eliminated. This second merging resulted in a list of 1,245 addresses. Linear systematic sampling was used to select a representative sample of 472 of these addresses, and surveys were sent to them. Subjects received a survey and a self-addressed stamped envelope for return of the survey.
The responses of 582 families were usable in this study. It is difficult to establish the response rate from the preceding figures. Problems associated with whether the mailing lists were up-to-date and the degree to which all addresses actually represented active or once-active home education families interfere with an accurate inference about the response rate. If all the 4,972 families mailed to were active in home education, then the response rate was 12%. If only 80% were active (and this may still be a high estimate), then the response rate was about 15%. The researchers were encouraged to note that the returns included respondents from the general demographic and motivational categories of home school parents in previous research (Mayberry, 1988b; Van Galen, 1986).
Quantitative data were entered and stored in one data base. The SPSS (SPSS, Incorporated) statistical program was used for computation of descriptive statistics. Inferential statistical analyses were not performed. Qualitative responses to open-ended survey items are not incorporated in this report.

Results

Several items on the survey addressed the needs and wants of home educators. They are presented in this section in varying detail.
Home education parents were asked about what public school facilities or services are made available to them as home schools and used by them. Table 1 shows that the facility/services available and used most frequently were “certain classes” (12% of respondents), “achievement testing” (10%), and “libraries” (10%). The least used facility/services were “psychological services” (2%) and “counseling” (2%). Table 1 also reveals that large percentages (25% to 63% for the various categories) of parents did not know whether certain services and facilities were available.
Parents were asked which public school facilities or services they would use if they were made available. Table 2 shows that parents are most interested in using certain classes (55% would use them), school sports programs (43%), and libraries (39%). They were least interested in psychological services (4%), counseling (8%), and special education classes (12%).