Ask Rockridge: Can a Progressive Support Homeschooling?

This sure is timely as an appellate court in California recently ruled that homeschoolers must be taught by someone with a teaching certificate. This has fired up a lot of people.

A quick note before I start. In answering this question, I will do a slightly different format than usual. I will answer the question and I will also ask some others. The new questions will help start the Weekly Workgroup at Rockridge Nation, entitled Protecting Homeschoolers, Respecting Parents, which will examine the issues raised by the new ruling in California.

Homeschooling certainly is a controversial issue, because it goes to the core of one's world view — the relationship between one's personal family and the nation as family. The New York Times wrote in a March 26, 2008 article about Muslims who are homeschooling their children:

"No matter what the faith, parents who make the choice [to homeschool] are often inspired by a belief that public schools are havens for social ills like drugs and that they can do better with their children at home."

These views about public education clearly complicate the government's role of protecting and empowering children by requiring schooling.

In what might be described as an act of protection, a California state appellate court ruled at the end of February that homeschooled children must be taught by someone with a teaching credential. (The court has decided to reconsider this ruling.) Not everyone would agree with that characterization. Governor Schwarzenegger responded to the ruling by saying:

"Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children. ... Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

Similarly, James Dobson of the conservative advocacy group, Focus on the Family, was outraged.

Thinking about these reactions to homeschooling brought some questions to mind:

• What is the purpose of public education?
• What difference is there between allowing an alternative education and supporting it?
• How does government protection fit with the parental duty to raise their children?

Understanding the role and purpose of public education within the progressive mode of thought begins with progressive morality — the morality of empathy and responsibility, for oneself and others. Others, because life is interdependent; "no man is an island." We thrive together when we help each other to prosper.

Empathy and responsibility lead to the community actions of protection and empowerment, which we implement through government. Public education is a fundamental part of empowerment. It's part of the public infrastructure built through government investment and management — everything from roads to banking regulations to satellites for communication to the court system to libraries and so on — that allow us to collectively and individually grow and prosper.

Public education is a central part of that infrastructure. Without public education, many Americans would not be able to afford to send their children to school. Public education helps them pull themselves out of poverty. They, and all of us, are better off.

Society has determined that to deprive children of basic education is a form of neglect. Mandatory school attendance — public, private, or at home — fits with progressive responsibility.

Unfortunately, the reality of public schools has not always matched their promise. Some are terrible places to be students. They are dangerous. No real learning takes place. They solidify mistrust, negative stereotypes, and conflict between students. In addition, some parents strongly disagree with public schools' teachings. For example, they may not want their child exposed to evolution or sex education.

In the progressive world view, then, can these views be accommodated? Is there a difference between allowing an alternative education, such as homeschooling, and supporting it? I think the answer to both questions is yes. And, it is based on the relationship progressives see between accountability and the government roles of protection and empowerment.

The key is that this accountability encompasses both personal and societal responsibility. We all have a responsibility to provide every child with a level and quality of education so that they are likely to develop into healthy and competent adults.

In the progressive mode of thought, this means that there is two-way accountability. Primarily, there is societal accountability — has the community, usually through the government, provided the infrastructure and policies described above?

So, how does this relate to homeschooling? We can allow parents to choose a different educational path than the local public school. This can include private schools. This can also include homeschooling. It is not necessary that society support these alternative educational methods, unless the public schools cannot meet the learning needs of a student. This happens most often for children with severe learning and emotional issues.

Through our obligation to protect children, we must require that homeschooling meet minimum requirements so that it is reasonably likely that the child will develop properly. But that protection will be ineffective if we do not first and foremost provide the infrastructure and policies that parents and children need to succeed.

So, yes progressives can support homeschooling.

The next questions, which will start the Weekly Workgroup discussions on Rockridge Nation, are:

• How far, should homeschooling accommodations go?
• When is homeschooling not an appropriate education?
• Did the California court go too far when it required homeschoolers to have credentialed instructors?

See you at the Weekly Workgroup.

Eric Haas
The Rockridge Institute