BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOMESCHOOLING: A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?

By Michael Wagner, Ph.D.
Reprinted from REFORMED PERSPECTIVE,
December 2002

Home schooling is booming. Over the last few years more and more parents have been pulling their children out of public (government) schools and teaching them at home. And the vast majority of these families consist of conservative Christians.

This phenomenon is occurring in a number of counties throughout the world. For example, according to Dr. Brian Ray in his "Worldwide Guide to Home Schooling" (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), Canada had somewhere between 50,000 and 95,000 students being home schooled during the 2000-2001 school year, Australia had 35,000 to 55,000 being home schooled, and in the following year, the USA had 1.6 to 2.0 million students being home schooled (pp. 7-8). These figures represent dramatic increases over the previous ten years.

Two standard objections

Naturally, anything new and significant (especially something heavily supported by conservative Christians) will generate opposition. Two salient objections to home schooling were raised early on: it was alleged that home schooled students would be deprived academically because they weren't being instructed by professional educators; and it was alleged that they would be deprived socially since they wouldn't have regular, day-to-day contact with other students of their own age. If true, these objections would provide substantial grounds for rejecting home schooling. However, both of them are unfounded.

Many tests have been conducted on home schooling students, and the picture that emerges from the results is very favourable. Ray summarizes it this way: "Dozens of studies have now been completed, often involving analyses of standardized achievement test scores. On average, home schooled students outscore their public (state) school peers by 15 to 30 percentile points" (p. 48). There is much more that could be said on this point, but all the evidence points in the same direction, namely, home schooling is not an obstacle to academic achievement.

Similarly, fears about the lack of socialization of home schooled students are groundless. This area has been well-studied too. Again, the studies suggest that homeschoolers are doing well, contrary to the skeptics. "In summary, as far as researchers have found, the home-educated are doing well in their social, psychological, and emotional development. Perhaps the fact that most of these children have siblings and are engaged in a variety of social and community activities makes the research findings on socialization not surprising" (p. 60). Hence the concerns about home schooling on the basis of academics and socialization are, generally speaking, easily dismissed.

Is it bad for society?

Another objection to home schooling, one that is more politically based, has also been raised. This is the allegation that home schooling is bad for society.

It is notable that in other contexts this same objection has been raised against private schools as well.

Prof. Chris Lubienski has articulated this view in an article entitled "Whither the Common Good? A Critique of Home Schooling" in the "Peabody Journal of Education" (Vol. 75, No. 1 & 2, 2000). In short, his view is that home schooling "undermines public education's singular potential to serve as a democratic institution promoting the common good" (p. 211). Lubienski rests his argument on a proposition that contains a grain of truth: education, to some degree, is a "public good" in the sense that society has an interest in children being well-educated. A well-educated populace is part of the foundation for a successful economy and a vibrant democracy. A poorly-educated population will not have the skills necessary for a strong economy and democratic participation. So in this sense education has aspects of a "public good."

Home schooling is undemocratic?

According to Lubienski, "if education is a public good, then the public also has an interest in its provision. We all have a right, indeed a responsibility, to demand some say in how any child is educated" (p. 212). We exercise our "say" through democratic processes. That is, we get to vote for school board members and other public officials. Because education is a concern of society, and all members of society should have a voice in education through the election of government officials, it's only right (in his view) that government should control the education of all children. There's no "democracy" involved when only the parents control their children's education. "Democracy in education" means, quite explicitly, government control of education. Whatever is outside the government's control is not "democratic" because society does not get a 'say' in what takes place.

The word "democracy" is one of those words that can be (and has been) used to mean just about anything, but that is another issue. The point here is that the way Lubienski (and other leftists) use "democracy" in this context make it a very dangerous concept. If whatever is outside the control of the government is not democratic (because outside the domain of elected officials), then, of course, our private lives, our family lives, our church activities, etc., can be characterized as "undemocratic." That's fine as far as it goes, except that the words "democracy" and "democratic" are so imbued with deeply positive connotations in our society that to label something as "undemocratic" is virtually to declare it to be illegitimate.

If we accept Lubienski's argument that education must be democratic in this sense (i.e., government controlled) then we've taken a step towards totalitarianism. How we raise our children also has an effect on society; for example, whether they are raised to be law-abiding and hardworking or rebellious and lazy.

So should our parenting also be "democratic" (government controlled)? Lubienski's justification for democratically-controlled education for all children slides easily into justifying government control of just about anything. The thoroughly 'democratic' society, in this sense, is a society where every aspect of life is subject to government control.

Lubienski again makes the same argument against home schooling in his conclusion. "As an extreme form of privatizing the purpose of education, home schooling denies democratic accountability and disenfranchises the community from its legitimate interest in education" (p. 229). The phrase "denies democratic accountability" means that home schooling is not accountable to the public education system. And the phrase "disenfranchises the community" means, of course, that the "community" does not get to vote on the education of home schooled children. In order to achieve democratic accountability and enfranchise the community, home schooled students (and private school students for that matter) must be placed under strict government control, presumably through the public schools. In some contexts like this, concepts associated with "democracy" can be used to justify totalitarianism.

Lubienski justifies his case for a form of totalitarianism in the name of the 'common good.' Home schooling is 'a system in which parents make a decision without considering the common good' (p. 212). Home schooling "nullifies the public good" (p. 215). It "undermines the ability of society to pursue the common good through democratic channels"(p. 217). This assertion immediately raises the questions, what is the 'common good'? And, how do we know what the "common good" is? Well, what someone believes to be the "common good" is determined by his or her religious presuppositions. As conservative Christians, our concept of the "common good" is very different from the concept held by the secular humanists who dominate the public education establishment.

Public schools are at fault

Does home schooling undermine the common good? Far from it. Most home schooled students are being raised in conservative Christian families where they are taught to be law-abiding and to favour beneficial institutions such as the traditional family. Much the same could be said for private school students. This is very good for the wider society. The public education establishment, on the other hand, believes the common good is achieved through students who tolerate, if not wholly favour, abortion, homosexuality, extramarital sex, and other anti-social activities. From a Christian perspective, it is the current public schools that frequently undermine the common good. Perhaps they should be abolished.

The rise of home schooling, and the continued existence of Christian private schools, is a very positive development. With the accelerating collapse of Western civilization, Christian home and private schools provide some basis for optimism. In these educational contexts, Christian students are being taught the principles and practices that will enable them to shine as testimonies for the truth in an increasingly dark world. It would be hard to overestimate the importance of Christian education today.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS