FREE ESSAY ON HOME SCHOOL

HOME SCHOOL

Before the beginning of American public schools in the mid-19th century, home schooling
was the norm. Founding father John Adams encouraged his spouse to educate their children
while he was on diplomatic missions (Clark, 1994). By the 1840's instruction books for
the home were becoming popular in the United States and Britain. The difficulty of
traveling to the system of community schools was provoking detractors. 
At this time, most of the country began moving toward public schools (Clark, 1994). One
of the first things early pioneers did was set aside a plot of land to build a school
house and try to recruit the most educated resident to be the schoolmarm. This led to
recruiting of graduates Eastern Seaboard colleges to further the education oftheir
children beyond what they could do at home (Clark, 1994). 
As the popularity of the public school movement began to rise behind Horace Mann many
states soon passed compulsory-education laws. These were designed primarily to prevent
farmers, miners, and other parents form keeping their kids home to work (Clark, 1994).
Ironically another factor behind public schools was the desire to use them to spread
Christian morality, with its concern for the larger good over individualism (Clark,
1994). Massachusetts enacted the first such laws in 1852 requiring children ages 8-14 to
be at school at least 12 weeks a year unless they were too poor. The laws proved to be
effective, from 1870-1898 the number of children enrolling in the public schools outpaced
the population growth.
Except for certain religious sects and correspondence schools home schooling remained
limited for most of the 20th century. During the 1960's the hippie counterculture
exploded into the scene. This culture led a revolt against the education establishment.
Thousands of young Americans began dropping out of society and going back to the land to
live on communes that generated the modern home schooling movement. 
Twenty years ago, many states did not allow home schooling. Constitutional protection has
always been uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on home
schooling. Although in 1972, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court did restrict compulsory
school requirements in a limited ruling involving the right of Amish students not to
attend high school (Lines, 1996).
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Amish parents claimed that high school attendance was
destructive to their children's religious beliefs and would interfere with their pursuit
of the Amish way of life (Fisher, Schimmel, and Kelley, 1995).
Since this ruling there have been many court cases dealing with the issue of home
schooling. All 50 states allow home schooling ad 34 states have enacted specific home
schooling statutes or regulations (Clark, 1994). 
What drives many home-schoolers are the well-documented social troubles and the declining
test scores in the public schools. In 1991, the total number of children being home
schooled was between 248,500 and 353,500. Many public educators feel that children who
are home schooled are missing out on key learning situations that come from the public
school. For instance the sciene experiments, these would be very costly to duplicate at
home. Also they argue that home school children miss out on the social aspect of school.
Very often they are not around many children their age and socialization does not take
place.
As the home schooling movement has become more widespread, state and local officials have
responded with more vigorous enforcement of their compulsory education laws. As a result
of this there is more litigation and new regulations. As both parents and school
official's evidence increasing inflexibility, the statues play a central role in the
battle over the education of the child. A secondary role is played by the courts which,
in resolving the disputes between parents and the schools, must interpret and test the
statutes (Chiusano 1996).
Parents who are being prosecuted for instructing their children at home are attacking
compulsory school attendance statues on constitutional grounds. Although no case dealing
specifically with home instruction has yet reached the Supreme Court, the increased
activism of the home school movement may produce a ruling in the near future (Lines,
1996). Constitutional challenges have been based on the First or Fourteenth Amendment.
In many of the home instruction cases' parents have removed their children from school
for religious reasons. These parents argue that they have a highly protected First
Amendment freedom to educate their children according to their religious percepts and
values.
The most recent court decisions provide consistent continued confirmation of the Yoder
decision. In Howell v. State (1986), Texas' intermediate appellate court rejected Yoder
protection for parents who argued that their religious conviction was to educate their
children at home (Richardson, Zirkel, 1991). In State v. Schmidt (1987), the Ohio Supreme
Court held that the state's explicit-exceptions statute, which requires that home
education programs be approved by the local superintendent, did not violate the free
exercise clause.
Another religious issue has surfaced when parents have challenged the constitutionality
of requirements concerning the qualifications of the home teacher (Richardson, 1991). A
few states including Michigan require all teachers in home school to possess a teaching
certificate. This requirement in Michigan was challenged in 1980, 1986, and 1991. In
Hanson v. Cushman (1980), the federal district court found the statute to be reasonable
because the parents had not proven that any of their fundamental rights had been
violated. In the private school case of Sheridan Road Baptist v. Department of Education
(1986), other Michigan parents challenged the certification requirement as a burden on
the free exercise of religion. This was rejected by the Michigan Supreme Court, regarding
certification as a minimal burden that was outweighed by the State's interest in
providing proper education. In People v. DeJonge parents claimed the right to educate
their children at home, as an exercise in religious freedom. The court upheld the state
law ruling that the state's interest in educated citizens outweigh the rights claimed by
the parents (Fischer, 1995).
In a related Michigan case, People v. Bennett (1983), the State Supreme Court ruling
involving home-school families that had been convicted of violating the compulsory
education statute, was reversed from he lower courts decision. The State Supreme Court
permitted religious home schooling on First Amendment grounds and curbed the power of
education officials to review home schooling policies (Clark, 1994). 
The other constitutional attack on compulsory attendance laws is non religious, primarily
on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds that parents have the right that is, the
liberty, to educate their children as they see fit (Richardson, 1991). This right argued
parents is superior to the state's right to compel attendance and regulate education.
In Scoma v. Chicago Board of Education (1974), Blackwelder v. Safnauer (1988), and Murphy
v. State (1988), the courts specifically rejected the contention that the parents had an
independent, non religious, fundamental right in educating their children. In Scoma, the
parents sought an injunction and declatory judgment to prevent the Chicago Board from
interfering with their decision to educate their children at home. Under the Pierce and
Yoder test the Illinois federal district court said the statute is reasonable and
constitutional (Richardson, 1991).
Now that home schooling s allowed in all 50 states, thenext step for these parents is to
incorporate their children's' home schooling with public school activities. One such
instance is in Iowa that started the Home Instruction Program giving parents several
choices relating to their child. For instance, the curriculum they will follow, the type
of assistance they would like from teachers, and whether their child will attend the
neighborhood school part time (dual enrollment).
This program allows parent to work with public school officials. The public school
teacher meets with the home school family every two weeks (Dahm, 1996).
The most recent issue being dealt with by local school boards and state governments are
the extent to which home schooled students can participate in school sports and other
activities.
The issues in how far public schools can open their doors to home schoolers include
science labs, music classes, and extracurricular activities, but athletics get the most
attention according to the Home School Legal Defense Fund (Brockett, 1995). That is
because competitive sports are the one activity families can not easily duplicate as
their children reach high school age.
The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, after three state judges ruled
against home schoolers being barred from playing on public high school teams, has
initiated a one year open door trial program (Brockett, 1995). 
A Pennsylvania federal court ruled the constitutional rights ofa 14 year old taught at
home were not violated, when the Frazier school district refused to let him play sports
because the district could not verify his grades and attendance. In a related situation
the Governor of Florida vetoed legislation that would have opened extracurricular
activities to home schoolers. He explained that no state law bans them from
participating. This left standing a policy of the Florida High School Athletic Activities
Association banning non students on the theory that they can not represent what they do
not attend (Brockett, 1995).
This negative attitude of High School Athletic Associations has led parents of home
schooled athletes to take their argument to court. For example, in Massachusetts, Melissa
Davis
was allowed to play on Norton High School softball team even though she is home schooled
(Blum, 1996). The state court judge ordered Norton to allow her to play believes she may
have a chance to earn an athletic scholarship to college.
To be eligible to play athletics a home schooled athlete must apply to the association
for a waiver of its initial eligibility rules, submitting documents proving what they
were taught at home meet N.C.A.A. standards. Under these standards a home schooled
athlete who has sufficiently high standardized test scores and proof that they took at
least 13 courses that meet the associations core course standards may be automatically
awarded freshman eligibility 
(Blum, 1996). 
From the recent decisions handed down by the courts, public school teachers and schools
are expected to cooperate with home school educators. The hostility between the two
groups has 
began to disappear and the focus has returned to seeing that the students get the best
education they can. If both sides of the spectrum continue to work together this can be
achieved.