I noted
a radio show featuring Prof. Rob Reich, of Stanford University, and
Prof. Mitch Stevens of Hamilton College and sent Dr. Rob an email to
come on over and chat a bit. He both flattered me and humbled me
by responding, and I welcome him here as a guest anytime. We may
disagree on some big issues, but he's a gentleman and a scholar, in the
truest sense, and I'm always happy to hear from him.
Dr. Reich was patient enough to take on all comers on the NHEN Forum
(for 22 pages), but I still have a question for him. His primary
concern about homeschooling is that it makes it possible for parents to
keep their children in a state of "ethical servility," and he argues
that the State should make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm opening this thread up for a general discussion of the concept of
"ethical servility" and the right response to it. Please keep
this thread a shining example of ethical civility, however: I'm going
to delete comments that make homeschoolers look snide or snarky.
(My blog, my rules.)
You've only been blogging a month and already your stirring things up! How are you going to top this. Time will tell.
To Mr. Reich,
You said that you wanted a small balance of power between the state and the parents for the education of children. Where do you get the notion that the education of my child is a shared responsibity with the state? From what authority does the state derive its ability to declare itself an equal to the parent in this task?
Also, in your opinion, who has the compelling interest to resolve a dispute when the state and the parent are at odds witth the direction of their child's education?
Furthermore, how is equality or balance possible in a system where the state takes the money to fund education through taxes and has the legislative ability to regulate and punish for failure to meet those taxes or regulations. However, the parent has no apparent remedy when the state abuses their authority or fails in the education of the child.
After reading the entire thread with Dr. Reich, I am somewhat overwhelmed but definitly enriched! I haven't heard that argument before. And maybe my feeble mind can't comprehend it, but I firmly believe our children are supposed to be serving with us, as we serve the Lord, and not serving themselves or the institutional ideology. I know that is just the tip of the iceberg.....but with all due respect to everyone's opinions, I probably should have just played it safe and commented on your OTHER enty and said "Scott, we will be praying with you." That makes a whole lot more sense to me, and probably is worth more in the long run.
Blessings!
Nancy
First...let me get my definition straight: Being 'ethically serviles means that not only have I adopted my parents ethics, but I were raised to be incapable of any other possibility." Well, that's a very, very interesting arguement. I must say that it is, of course, dead wrong (and no, my mom didn't tell me to write that).
I'm a 15-year-old homeschool student, as well as a journalist for www.virtuemag.org, and a beginning debater (hopefully) for the NCFCA.
I have been brought up with the Bible--that is what I hold to for truth. Everything that my parents say are compared with what the Bible says--it is my ultimate truth. Not my parents ethics. Have I accepted my parents ethics? For the most part I would say yes (can't think of any places I haven't.) But for me, I have delved into apologetics--proving to myself that what I believe is true.
I've honestly asked myself "Is this right? Is this true? Why?" And I've answered it (www.agenttimonline.com). I think that as a blogger and journalist I have been exposed to other beliefs more than some homeschoolers. But are these kids being indoctrinated to the point where they can't think for themselves? No.
I mean, if these kids couldn't think for themselves, they'd always do as they're told and be walking robots. They're not. Even if they have only met other Christians or whatever. In today's society, how can you not be exposed to someone elses beliefs?
Rob, I AM glad for the chance to continue our mutual illumination. It's good to "see" you here, and thank you for coming.
And thanks for bringing up non sequiturs. I hear one too, between valuing A as desirable and ethical, and saying A should be regulated by law. What in your work on ethical servility demostrates that legal regulation of ethical ends is, um, always ethical itself? Are there ethical ends for which regulation would not be ethical and if so, how does one determine the difference?
Then, is this particular regulatory response justified and ethical? Would your work be able to answer that question?
In other words, aren't we in reality suggesting we value B as UNethical, and in order to penalize the (theoretically rare) occurrence of B, we would regulate all the voluntarily ethical A throughout the entire homeschooling population? Have you demonstrated -- in philosophical-logical terms -- that this isn't what it looks like to me, which is compounding ethical servility and spreading it around to many more families, and thus hard to justify with this argument as I understand it . . . JJ
AgentTim wrote:
"I mean, if these kids couldn't think for themselves, they'd always do as they're told and be walking robots."
Just thought I'd throw in the (fascinating!) ethical considerations of teaching actual robots. And the Artificial Intelligence lab rats know it matters; they seek out theological counsel to get it right, even though it isn't regulated and the robots have no consitutional protections that I know of.
I'm betting homeschool families on balance, give ethics more serious thought without being made to, than any other demographic with children. I can't prove it -- but should I have to? :)
I would really like to hear the response to Spunky's post because those are some of the very arguments that I would make. On a more personal level, I would also ask why Prof. Reich thinks we only offer our children a narrow view of life? What makes him think we do not engage our children with views different from our own? Where does this idea come from and why does he think this way with regards to homeschooling families?
Within the homeschooling movement (and I would have a fair idea of what is going on in the movement as I am on staff for the international homeschooling magazine, The Old Schoolhouse Magazine) we have seen explosive growth with much of it in the Classical methodology. This method teaches a wide range of ideas, ancient through modern history and religions, as well as worldview over the course of time. This method also includes instruction on fallacies and the importance of learning how to think critically. However, learning how to think is not limited to the Classical method of teaching, but is widely held to be one of the greatest reasons for homeschooling at all!
I would have to ask Professor Reich, what makes you think the public school system will do any better for the homeschool students they may try to regulate than they are currently doing for the poor souls underneath their instruction now? Since when did the public schools succeed at providing a rounded education that gave the world great individual thinkers? That is what we are seeing in homeschooling homes – children who are taught to think, reason, understand, and move the world. It has been a long time since that has happened in the public schools. No thank you, by God’s grace I wish to be in charge of my children’s lives. The government has no place here.
I have a somewhat different perspective (perhaps) on this topic.
I am a politically unallied (read independent, in every sense) homeschooling mom, and part of why I homeschool my kids is because of the importance I place on independence. I am opposed to state regulation of homeschooling, not because of religious beliefs that a deity entrusts me with the education of my children (I'm an atheist -- independent thataway, too), but because I place great value on my ability, and that of other families, to provide my kids with an educational experience that is independent of rather recently-established definitions of what education IS in the first place.
If homeschooling is regulated, even only insofar as to establish basic "subjects" and hours of instruction, then non-institutional education becomes institutionalized. Learning in our family is not defined by "subjects," and it is not restricted to certain hours, and I should not have to "translate" what we do into institutional "educationese" in order to be able to continue providing my kids with what I believe is a demonstrably superior (for these children and this family) learning environment to that offered by the dominant educational institutions.
Even if that translation effort were not a burden (and I would argue that it is, not just in terms of time and effort, but in the damage that it does in insinuating institutional educational paradigms into our independent learning process and the model that it perpetuates of individual educational freedoms being subject to state oversight and authority), the worrisome fact remains that regulation is toothless without enforcement. If my efforts to comply with even minimal regulations result in an unsatisfactory description of "subjects" addressed in our family's learning, for example, my freedom (and my children's freedom) to continue learning independently is threatened by enforcement action.
Any regulation that forces families to adhere to certain models of education in order to comply violates the freedom of parents to raise their children and does irreparable damage to our independence.
Posted by A freethinker raising freethinkers at 8:30 AM, Sep. 14, 2005
I've heard this argument before -- in essence that the state should ensure that homeschooled children have a state-determined "well-rounded" view of the world. Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. I completed my public school education thinking that anyone who believed in creationism must be narrow-minded until I encountered a creationist in college and realized I was the one narrow-minded based on my public school education.
The issue of ethical servility seems to assume that a child/student is an unquestioning blank slate and the battle seems to be who gets to be the author. This is a frightening proposition. Ultimately, it seems like we want free thinkers, so long as they think in some 'state-approved' way.
Who is to decide what our children should think? Why are we assuming that our children will think in the way they are taught?
Why are the Amish allowed to keep their children away from state intrusion but other homeschoolers may not? I was taught in law school that its because the court liked the Amish, as opposed to another group that also sought (and failed to get) freedom from state intrusion. My apologies that my education is so limited that I cannot recall the case name.
This slope is so slippery, it seems more of a free fall than a slope. The idea of sending homeschooled children to some camp for a couple of weeks to ensure proper socialization is as disgusting to me as forcing public schooled children to attend a Bible camp to ensure they learn morals or virtues.
Couldn't our time and energies be better spent on improving the public school system?
Avoiding ethical servility is, in and of itself, an ethical value. Who determines that this is a good value? If it is the state, then what of states (there have certainly been many) that want to create ethical servility to themselves? Are they justified in doing this, and punishing parents who try to expose their children to other views? If "avoiding ethical servility" is a higher ethical value than the state, then how can the state be the best guardian of it?
I am curious to find out what harms might exist. Is this concern about ethical servility theoretical? How many children are in fact being raised to be ethically servile? If the number is miniscule, is avoiding this danger worth the trade-off in surrendering the freedom of conscience from government control which has always, in our country, been considered the best guardian of ethical diversity?
Is there a viable alternative? This is where criticisms of the public schools come in. It will do no good to take public steps to avoid ethical servility if in practice they only create more extensive ethical servility. Surely it is worth considering the possibility that greater freedom is the best way to support ethical diversity.
Here's my take on the "viable alternatives" question - if we assume universal agreement with Professor Reich that it's right for all homeschooled children to learn to think and reason morally for themselves, are there effective alternative means to this end, besides his proffer of regulation?
How else might we reason through and resolve this postulated ethical dilemma?
One thought I had was that if we can reason ethically about this ourselves, as homeschooling parents, we might demonstrate to our own satisfaction (even if not to universal agreement <g>) that as a community homeschoolers are in fact both sufficiently qualified and temperamentally inclined to value, use, respect and teach ethical reasoning. That alone might do the trick! If not, it would be take us in the right direction, surely, and point the way to better answers than the widely troublesome "regulation" as proposed.
And as the diverse community we truly are as homeschooling families, we'd no doubt benefit from more ethical reasoning and less "shooting from the lip" as we confront other demands and dilemmas too. JJ
One practical outline for ethical reasoning is explained at:
The three principles outlined here are drawn from the traditions of moral philosophy. Of the many theories that have been propounded for ethical decision making, these represent three that are particularly useful in helping us think through right-versus-right issues.
Each gives us a way
to test the twin rights of a dilemma. Each has a long and noble tradition behind it. Each, as we shall see in later chapters, has powerful arguments in its support—and significant refutations lodged against it.
<big snip>
The point, here, is not to perform three tests and then vote to score a three-to nothing or two-to-one victory.
The point is to reason.
The usefulness of these principles is not that they will deliver
an airtight answer to your dilemma. They are not part of a magic answer kit that produces infallible solutions: If they were, ethics would be infinitely easier than it is, and the moral problems of the world would have been satisfactorily sorted out centuries ago.
No, the principles are useful because they give us a way to exercise your moral rationality. They provide different lenses through which to see our dilemmas, different screens to use in assessing them. . . .
I'm going to limit my replies to a few quick thoughts. I've written about these matters in greater detail elsewhere, including the NHEN site that Scott links to above. (If anyone wishes to read the full statement of my views, including all manner of criticism about public schools as well as homeschools, take a look at my book, Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education. If you'd rather just read a fuller statement of my criticism of unregulated homeschooling, send me an email (reich at stanford.edu) and I'll reply with a pdf for you.)
On regulation and the role of state authority over children
JJ thinks it is a non sequitur to value A as desirable and ethical, and say that A should be regulated by law. All regulations should be subject to various tests and checks, but that statement doesn't qualify as a non sequitur. Think about regulations on obtaining a driver's licese and for operating an automobile. We seek to prevent incompetent people from driving (in part because they can harm themselves, in part because they can harm others), so we set up regulations that will not guarantee success but that manage to address at least some of the concern.
Regulations that intrude into the family? We have them already, and I would wager that everyone who has commented so far agrees that they should exist. Should parents have such total authority that they can abuse and neglect their children? Does a state have no role, ever, in intervening? Of course it does. An appeal to pure parental authority simply won't work. The answer has to be where to strike the balance between parents and the state.
On public schools.
Kate Kessler writes, "I would have to ask Professor Reich, what makes you think the public school system will do any better for the homeschool students they may try to regulate than they are currently doing for the poor souls underneath their instruction now? Since when did the public schools succeed at providing a rounded education that gave the world great individual thinkers?"
Well, there's actually a surplus of data about the performance of students in public schools, so at the very least, it's possible to attempt an answer to Kate's question. In homeschools, we have no reliable data. (Don't point me to the Rudner study, which even Rudner himself claimed was not representative or indicative of homeschooling performance in general.)
Perhaps we can agree with Bertrand Russell's observation: "The question of home versus school is difficult to argue in the abstract. If ideal homes are contrasted with actual schools, the balance tips one way; if ideal schools are contrasted with actual homes, the balance tips the other way. I have no doubt in my mind that the ideal school is better than the ideal home, at any rate the ideal urban home, because it allows more light and air, more freedom of movement, and more companionship of contemporaries. But it by no means follows that the actual school will be better than the actual home" (Education and the Social Order (London: Unwin Books, 1967), p. 41).
When homeschoolers have some data (reliable and valid data) to show that the average actual home is better than the average actual school, I'll happily begin trumpeting the academic superiority of homeschooling.
Finally, on ethical servility.
I'm quite sympathetic to FreeThinkers' post. And I acknowledge that even minimal regulations will indeed be a kind of burden to you. (Just as getting a driver's license and driving on the right hand side of the road is a burden, too.) I would take issue with your final statement, "Any regulation that forces families to adhere to certain models of education in order to comply violates the freedom of parents to raise their children and does irreparable damage to our independence." But the state is charged to protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals, not parents or families. Parents may be entitled to certain rights over the raising of their children, but these rights will derive from the interests of the child (in liberty, safety, love, etc.) rather than from the interests of parents. Freethinker misunderstands liberty, it seems to me.
Nice quote from Bertrand Russell. It gives me a chance to offer an economic observation about the way we fund schools.
All "actual" public schools and homeschools have to be paid for. While we may not have all the empirical data we could want, we can speak with confidence about the way these schools are financed. Homeschools are paid for by parents who control their own finances and invest the amount they believe is optimal. The families who homeschool by choice (rather than by necessity) value education highly enough to give up one parent's income to provide it. In my experience, these families will invest every available penny in the education of their children, because they are "rational utility maximizers" who think education has an INCREDIBLY high long-term rate of return.
All actual public schools are governed by some kind of democratically chosen body, and are financed by some combination of taxes. The decision to tax is not in the hands of the individual who benefits from school spending. The decision to spend is rarely made by the producer of education and is never made by the consumer. The minority of taxpayers who value education very highly tend to move to school districts with excellent schools or pay for private and/or home education, which dilutes the political will to fund education.
It is easy to locate the public schools with the biggest per-student budgets (you can google it in two minutes), and when you do, you'll have a pretty good sample of the best "actual" public schools. Rob, I know you are skeptical of the academic research on homeschool performance, but it tends to show that average homeschool test scores compare favorably with the school district averages in the most affluent public school districts.
I submit that the standardized test score data perfectly fit the economic model. A handful of IDEAL public schools are funded by taxpayers who are willing to pay whatever it takes to get the "best" education. The vast majority of ACTUAL homeschools are funded by parents who are willing to pay whatever it takes (including time) to get the "best" education.
Edited by Somerschool on Sep. 14, 2005 at 11:07 AM
Rob, you neatly dodged my concern about the unbridged gap between valuing A as a society and deciding to regulate A. I care not what you call but I still need you to explain logically how you connect them.
It is not sufficient to satisfy my objection, to say as you do, that we regulate many other things. Those regulations need to prove themselves logically connected as well. And there are many desirable things we do NOT regulate, even in our already over-regulated society. IS there any work to establish regulation as "the" way to achieve A (or catch and punish B, which is what this really is about, rather than advancing A) and/or work that evaluates and dismisses all other conceivable means to influence homeschooling to the same desirable end? JJ
Dr. Reich
In the post above you commented that:
"I'm quite sympathetic to FreeThinkers' post. And I acknowledge that even minimal regulations will indeed be a kind of burden to you. (Just as getting a driver's license and driving on the right hand side of the road is a burden, too.) I would take issue with your final statement, "Any regulation that forces families to adhere to certain models of education in order to comply violates the freedom of parents to raise their children and does irreparable damage to our independence." But the state is charged to protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals, not parents or families. Parents may be entitled to certain rights over the raising of their children, but these rights will derive from the interests of the child (in liberty, safety, love, etc.) rather than from the interests of parents. Freethinker misunderstands liberty, it seems to me. "
I have never personally seen the right to love included in the Consititution. This is not something even promised in any legislation that I am aware of. It (love)is a good thing and should be a part of the life of all children but you cannot even grant it to children as a part of their family life much less can you control wether they get it at public school. It seems to me that the right of Liberty is being grossly over-rated as it is something intangible much like love, and cannot be measured or quantified by any system of which I am aware. We are, however, granted certian freedoms in the bill of rights and the consitiution, and it seems to me that the ones enumerated in the declaration of Independence are as intangible as the ones you mentioned above. I think that you are putting the cart before the horse when you insinuate that the state has any better idea than homeschooling parents in the preservation of the saftey, the loving, and the liberty of our children. There are plenty of instances of abuse by "bad seeds" in the public education system that I am sure you are well aware of and I need not mention them here. As well there are plenty of instances of "bad seeds" in the homeschooling community. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were, in trying to legislate something that, so far has not, in itself, been less effective than the efforts of the state. We cannot legislate that all parents take good care of thier children. We also cannot legislate that every moment of every day children in the public school system are well taken care of....while we can try the sad fact is that to legislate these types of matters (other than the most grevious offenses) will not stop these things(abuse, lack of attention, lack of correct teaching and modeling of proper behaviour) from happening. Until the government gets its act together and figures out how to properly educate all children I think that having alternatives such as home schooling and relying on the concept of "good will" in most dealings with parents, is not only our best bet when it comes to having "critical thinkers" but also may end up to be the saving of our system of governance. As a former homeschooler and a current home schooling parent I can say that my parents did a fantastic job of setting me up to think critically, be honest, and generally have a sense of what good citizenship. And personally, (especially dealing with 3 very strong willed children) I am doing a good job of that as well. I daily encourage my children to think critically and to go about setting their plans in a logical manner. And, as they are growing and maturing I have seen (at times it can be frustrating) very critical thinking happening in their little minds. I have watched my seven year-old think through a problem and try a few ways of doing it until she settles on a very logical and well-thought through solution. This is what not only industry and government needs in a future adult but it is also what I desire for my children. I cannot believe that I am alone in the homeschooling movement on this one.
"I'm quite sympathetic to FreeThinkers' post. And I acknowledge that even minimal regulations will indeed be a kind of burden to you. (Just as getting a driver's license and driving on the right hand side of the road is a burden, too.) I would take issue with your final statement, "Any regulation that forces families to adhere to certain models of education in order to comply violates the freedom of parents to raise their children and does irreparable damage to our independence." But the state is charged to protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals, not parents or families. Parents may be entitled to certain rights over the raising of their children, but these rights will derive from the interests of the child (in liberty, safety, love, etc.) rather than from the interests of parents. Freethinker misunderstands liberty, it seems to me. "
The burdens imposed by getting a driver's license or driving on the right side of the road are a minor tradeoff compared the the demonstrable protections and benefits offered to all citizens in return. We are all far safer on the roads as a result of the laws related to driver licensing and traffic flow. What demonstrable benefit do you expect will derive from further regulation of homeschooling? What documented deficit wil be ameliorated? What is the public interest here that would be served in this tradeoff for the greater freedom of homeschooling families?
On the issue of parental freedom versus the rights of children, I ask you this: with whom should the interests of the child primarily be entrusted -- the parents or the state? The model that seems to be in operation in our society is that parents have both the primary responsibility for and the primary rights over the welfare of children, and that the state only steps in when there is reason to suspect that the child's well-being is in some danger. I'm not sure how I have misunderstood liberty.
I started this comment yesterday, but can't find any evidence that I actually posted it. If I'm repeating myself, it's because I think this one point is worth the risk.
Dr. Reich implies that we regulate what we value. I offer faith, love, and beauty as things we value that we do NOT regulate. We don't regulate them because we don't trust the government with such treasures.
Dr. Reich implies that homeschoolers don't value the ethical freedom of our children as much as he does, because he would regulate education in order to protect it and we would not. He might as well argue that America does not value religion as much as the People's Republic of China does because China insists on "registering" every church and we don't.
Rob and I have also met and talked -- and in fact I have owed him a response on something for months now! -- but for the moment let me just take this bit from his comments in the original post:
>>>As I've said now dozens of times in many different places, I'm not against homeschooling. I'm against unregulated homeschooling.<<<
OK, fair enough. But you have yet to even come close to proving the existence of a social problem. The states that *are* unregulated are some of the most populous in the country -- e.g., Texas, Michigan, New Jersey -- and have been unregulated for decades. I ask, as I have dozens of times in many different places, where's your evidence that a band of ethically servile former home-educatees leading constricted, miserable lives exists anywhere outside your own speculations?
>>>To suggest that a degraded public school environment leads to a demand that homeschools be unregulated is to me a total non sequitor.<<<
Unless, of course, regulation is primarily responsible for the degraded environment, in which case an unregulated environment becomes a moral imperative. Let's remember our Illich.
Dr. Reich, as a die-hard liberal I don't understand your concerns. In basic liberal theory, governments only pass laws which regulate or ban the actions of the people when there is incontrovertible empirical evidence that such actions present a clear and present danger to the health, safety and property of the people. Where is the incontrovertible empirical evidence that homeschooling presents a clear and present danger to the health, safety and property of the people?
Dr Reich,
I would be interested in finding out the path which you have followed in your life to come to your views of politics, government, what constitutes good governance, and ethics. Were you surrounded by a conservative family life that lead you to question their beliefs and then find them to be contrary to your heart and souls reasoning? did you perhaps come from a communist, dictitorial environment where you first began to appreciate freedom because you were denied it? Were you rasied in a family where debate was not just encourage it thrived...where persons could take up the view points of others for the sake of argument, and where the debate was not only a tool for building sound thinking but also an area of enjoyment? These concerns of yours regarding the homeschooled masses being indocrinated by their parents and leading closed-minded lives are thought provoking. By what standard do you feel we should judge closed-mindedness? and, is it ethically servile to accept the beliefs of ones family and other groups close to ones life even after careful thought and experimentation with other ideas? it seems to me that while we are desiring persons in this counrty to be free in their intellectual life and be released from the "box" to attain great heights in technology, democracy, business and society, if that intellectual life comes to a conculsion regarding the "good vs. bad" "truth or fiction" and we hold that belief strongly we are frowned upon as being "closed-minded".
Wouldn't it be a definition of excellence to be able to acertian those activities and pursuits which are simply rubbish time-wasters and those from which true value is dervied?
Thanks to all for the vigorous discussion. The questions about regulation, about freedom, and about the scope of state authority are deep issues. Part and parcel of political philosophy. Debate about political philosophy s hard to conduct on a blog, for the arguments required are detailed rather than simple. Nevertheless, I’ll make a few final attempts to defend my position and respond to criticisms and questions. And then I’ll make one more post, asking others to offer the constructive case for your view, namely that homeschooling should be unregulated.
On the issue of regulations. JJ is right that regulating X doesn’t follow from valuing X. Freethinker accepts regulation of drivers licenses because the social benefits are clear, whereas in education they are not. And Scott says that the state doesn’t regulate faith, love, and beauty, because the state can’t be trusted to regulate these well.
Let me start with Scott’s claim, which, I must confess, I was surprised to hear from him. For starters, it’s the unabashed aspiration of HSLDA to mix church and state, to inject Christianity into American democracy. It seems to me that the official view, at least of the organization for which Scott works, is that the state ought to be regulating faith, that is, regulating it in such a way that Christianity is preferred and spread. Scott, am I wrong?
Leaving that aside, the state absolutely does regulate faith, love and beauty. The state regulates who can legally marry. If that doesn’t count as regulating love, I don’t know what does. The state confers on churches all kinds of tax exemptions and allows parishioners to make tax deductible donations. This too is a form of regulation. The state also restricts what kinds of art it will offer public funds. Faith, love, and beauty are all subject to regulation in current law.
Freethinker doesn’t understand what the social benefit of regulating homeschooling is, for he sees no evidence that there are bad outcomes. But isn’t that the point – in order to know that there are bad outcomes we have to be able, for example, to administer some basic skills tests. I’m sure many, perhaps most, homeschoolers would ace these. But it is precisely those who wouldn’t who are least likely to volunteer themselves in, say, the Rudner-type studies. And there’s some evidence collected in the Akron Beacon Journal series last year to suggest that (contra the comment on the economic model of homeschooling) some inept or malign parents are using homeschooling as a way to shield their abuse and neglect from the state. Don’t these count as bad outcomes, Freethinker? And if the burden on homeschoolers of regulations is minimal, then don’t the benefits of preventing even a few Beacon Journal stories outweigh the inconvenience of the regulations?
As for ethical servility as a bad outcome, there’s no test for this. I’ve already said that I suspect it is not a common thing. But there is reason to worry about it. What makes me think so? I’ll simply point to a few articles: Margaret Talbot’s “A Mighty Fortress” http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=158 , the saga of Jennifer Sengpiehl http://secure.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/13home.h18 , and various accounts of certain forms of education among the Amish.
To answer JJ, I agree that need to regulate X doesn’t follow from the decision to value X. Regulations need to be justified by the good they are likely to achieve (or bad they are likely to prevent) and balanced against a range of other values, such as respect for privacy, liberty, and the cost of regulations. I’d be prepared to defend the view that my proposed regulations would easily pass this test.
A final post. I’ve tried to defend my view that homeschooling should be regulated. Might I now ask for the collective wisdom of this group to offer me the positive case for your position, namely that homeschooling should be unregulated. What entitles parents to sole and unchecked authority over the education of their children, even if this education is not in the interest of their child, even if this education will fail to cultivate civic capacities?
Of course, the reasons I’m looking for shouldn’t invoke religion, for I want a justification that could be compelling, or at least appealing, to secularists and people of different faiths.
When did liberals start having to prove positive effects of non-regulation?
Dr. Reich, you're not playing by the liberal playbook. In standard liberal political theory, the beneficial effects of allowing people to do as they please is a given. It is the negative effects of allowing people to do as they please in a specific instance, in this case homeschooling, which must be proven. I ask again: where is the incontrovertible empirical evidence that homeschooling presents a clear and present danger to the health, safety and property of the people?
I don't think there is no evidence of "bad outcomes" in homeschooling. There are "bad outcomes" in all kinds of educational approaches. I think there is a lack of evidence that homeschooling is a deficient educational approach compared to the other approaches authorized and/or (in the case of public school) funded by the state. There are plenty of "bad outcomes" in the state educational system, and testing hasn't done a whole lot to solve that problem. What will we do with the kids who fail those tests?
Regulating homeschooling just in case there are bad outcomes is like giving a patient medicine just in case they're sick -- if the illness is deadly, a vaccine might be in order, for the protection of public health as well as for the individual. But with no evidence of illness, or in the case of an illness is rare, or mild, or when medicine really can't do any good (as for the common cold) then the cure may just make the patient ill. Is regulating homeschooling really the right medicine for the problem? Is there really a noted problem caused by homeschooling in the first place? Should the entire populace be checked for and medicated for a disease that might or might not be present, just because a few people are ill? If the newspaper makes a big sensation out of the illness of a few patients and causes a widespread panic, is that a medical emergency or bad journalism?
What I understand is that the freedom of families to live their lives as they see fit, without being under the watchful eye of the state, is of great value. I don't think we should have to trade that freedom in to *prove* that homeschooling isn't harming kids. What I understand is that the default ought to be on the side of liberty, not on the side of state control. The state doesn't need to go looking for problems to remedy via regulation, using regulation as the search tool.
My cynical side wonders if this whole exchange will be boiled down to, "When asked, homeschoolers could list no positive benefits to not regulating them." Talk about misrepresentation.
for me (living in one of the few states where homeschooling has very little regulation)i revel in the fact that i can not only homeschool my children but un-school them as well...i would be hard pressed in a more regulation tilted state to be able to quantify the "learning" and "subjects" that my kiddos "study" on a daily basis. The issue is this (and you can ask any public school teacher this question as well....) where there is paperwork there is attention being taken from the "educating" and being placed into mindless work that is for the benefit of no one...does it harm the state to have it..certianly not...but does it do it any Good? Let's boil it down to this ...all teachers be they parents of homeschoolers or in any other arena LOATHE the paper work...and as a parent who has the most "at stake" when taking on the responsibility of the education of my children i see no need to report my days to any one other than my "principal" (my husband). after all these kids are gonna be the ones paying for the nursing home right? :) here's to a great education so they can afford a good one :)....all joking aside the reporting that teachers do to their superiors is one of accountability ultimately to the parents and tax payers...as the sole funders and parents of the children we are teaching why should such an accounting be required?
for what it's worth that's my reasoning.
I can't recall whether Rob has put his suggestion for two week diversity training programs into print or not. He meant it as a serious suggestion, not a non-negotiable demand. I can ask him about it, if you want--he'll know where he wrote it, if he did. Maybe he'll retract the suggestion if I ask him nicely!
I would be grateful if you would ask him. It seems at odds with his remark at the NHEN board about not wishing to prescribe policy solutions but only offer theory.
Not that I find that reassuring; the mere assertion that the state has some role in protecting a child's putative right to be exposed to worldviews other than his parent's (which in itself is so vague and nebulous that it frightens me to think what any government, federal, state, or local, could define as a "worldview") is abhorrent. It's making the state the guarantor of the metaphysical, which is never a good idea, entanglement issues aside. Whether it's a 2-week mandatory vacation or anything else, this is an area where the state has no competence.
