The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 2)
1. The "Four Pillars" of Home Education
Doris Hohensee
Message 1
Subject:
The "Four Pillars" of Home Education
Date:
Wed, 6 Oct 93 14:54:20 WET
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This series of articles is reprinted with permission from:
Home Education Magazine May/June/1991.
HOMESCHOOLING FREEDOMS AT RISK by Mark and Helen Hegener
*The breaking down of the homeschool community is heralding more
restrictive laws and regulations for all homeschoolers.*
Long established support and political networks have been damaged, and
in many cases replaced with new exclusive groups. Legal actions have
been taken which have resulted in the strengthening of states' rights
over the education of our children. A view of one way to homeschool,
and which ties that one way to an extremely narrow range of social and
political support. A sense of community has been lost and our
homeschooling freedoms are being threatened.
With this special section we hope to demonstrate how this loss of
community affects us all, and to show how some homeschoolers have
begun to respond to the alarming events we are seeing.
For the past three years hundreds of letters, conversations, phone
calls, and other communications have been telling the same stories,
asking the same questions, communicating feelings of confusion and
bewilderment, and alerting us to an increasingly serious problem
within the homeschool community. We have repeatedly attempted to
address the underlying issues, and to alert people to problematic
actions and directions. Now it has become obvious to us that people
need to hear, clearly and unambiguously, what we and many others
perceive as a serious threat to the home schooling community.
That threat is the undermining of individual responsibility, with an
increasing push toward a reliance on experts and professionals, and an
ever-tightening monopoly on the tools and resources that homeschooling
families need.
Centralizing Power and Control
The problem is a small group of individuals, their organizations, and
their associates, whose actions have resulted in dividing the
homeschool community, breaking down networks of support and
communication, and artificially imposing an exclusive hierarchical
order.
Actions initiated by these individuals and their organizations have
increasingly resulted in the control of homeschooling being placed
into the hands of a very few. Our ability to speak for and to
represent ourselves is threatened. Our individual and collective
political strength is greatly weakened. Our homeschooling freedoms are
at risk.
We are talking about the actions taken by Michael Farris, Gregg
Harris, Sue Welch, and Brian Ray, the group which has come to be
referred to as the "four pillars of homeschooling." Whatever their
individual or collective titles, their actions are inflicting hurt,
anguish, pain, and sorrow on thousands of homeschooling families, and
yet we have been lead to believe that their leadership is above
question or comment, not subject to criticism, and beyond reproach.
Individuals who have become increasingly associated with these
activities include Chris Klicka, J. Richard Fugate, Mary Pride, Sharon
Grimes, and several others. In addition, there are dozens of local and
state leaders who directly and indirectly provide support for the
centralization of power and control.
Exclusive Hierarchies
For many years homeschooling families have worked to build local,
state and national networks that have assisted homeschoolers in
maintaining their educational freedoms. The homeschool support group
became an effective and powerful tool in building these networks.
At the same time, this idea of support groups for homeschooling
families has provided a convenient model for those who would misuse
the potential. In his book, The Christian Home School (Wolgemuth &
Hyatt, 1988), Gregg Harris writes that he has used his Home Schooling
Workshop to "successfully kick off the establishment of state
Christian Home Education Associations and metroplitan support groups.
Once established, these groups serve as our annual workshop hosts."
Along with Sue Welch and her Teaching Home magazine, Harris has
actively promoted a climate of exclusivism among homeschoolers, has
supported the splitting of long-established coalitions, and has
encouraged and assisted in the formation of new exclusivist
homeschooling groups.
Many new exclusive groups are being encouraged to "hide" their
exclusivity, with the goal of appearing to have a much broader base of
support. Many members of such groups are not even aware that their
group is exclusive, or that they must sign a statement of faith to
hold office within the group. Most of these groups promote themselves
to education officials, legislators, the media, and others outside of
the homeschool community as open to all homeschoolers, when in fact
their leadership adheres to a very narrow educational or ideological
point of view. Groups are exhorted not to work with, sometimes not
even to talk to, those homeschooling groups which are not "approved."
Sue Welch, using her position as editor of The Teaching Home, has
repeatedly worked to entice state groups to co-publish as an insert in
this national magazine. This co-publishing arrangement weakens the
existing networks in favor of an imposed exclusive hierarchy. The
Teaching Home then uses these groups to lend an air of credibility to
its position atop this exclusive hierarchy.
This relationship has very far reaching implications. Given the
editorial and advertising policies of The Teaching Home magazine, the
true diversity of the homeschool community can never be recognized via
the co-published inserts. Control of this vital link in the
communication process is straining local and state relationships and
further lessening the ability of these groups to work cohesively. This
also, in turn, increases the dependency on outside "expert help" in
the face of adversity.
In states where there was no group whose leaders chose to sign a
statement of faith necessary for co-publication, Sue and others have
designated support groups, sometimes small and very localized support
groups, to be the new state Christian organization. Or they have
simply implanted organizations altogether, often by orchestrating the
takeover of an existing open support group.
In the September/October 1990 issue of Florida's FPEA Almanac, a
letter to the editor asked, "Just when things are beginning to really
get organized and are running well for the F.P.E.A., why is someone
stirring things up by talking about a Christian organization? They
tried this about six years ago. and it fell flat on its face. I am, of
course, referring to the article in Florida at Home in The Teaching
Home, where it stated that 'they' (whoever they are) are 'calling
Christians to action.' I would like to go on record stating that the
Christians are already in action...in F.P.E.A.! I'd also like to know
where Sue Welch gets off suggesting that the 'Christians in Florida
need to come forth and organize.' The Teaching Home is supposed to be
a magazine that ministers to the needs of Christian homeschoolers (and
to many others who subscribe and are not Christian), NOT to be an
instigator of 'exclusively Christian groups,' especially in a state
where it is not needed."
Alabama's The Voice newsletter, Summer, 1990, reported, "It has been
proposed that a doctrinal statement be signed by all AHE Directors and
Officers. The irony of the situation is that the very people in
Alabama wanting to require a signed statement of faith from all
present and future AHE leaders received free 'non-sectarian' brochures
and pamphlets upon request to help them begin homeschooling!"
In a letter to our September/October, 1989 issue Joyce Spurgin wrote,
"Oklahoma Central Home Educators Association sent us and other
'leaders' a leadership agreement that we are required to sign in order
to be 'leaders.' Perhaps we are the only homeschooling family in the
state who refuses to sign statements of faith. However, I can't keep
from thinking that there must be others out there like us, or why
would there be such a big effort to make sure we are excluded."
The proponents of exclusivism are wreaking havoc in state after state
by breaking down lines of communication, circumventing effective
network building, weakening existing networks, imposing artificial
organizational structures, co-opting individual responsibility and
fostering a dependency on outside groups and individuals. There's a
definite pattern, a self-perpetuating cycle that supports exclusive
groups, locking many homeschoolers out of new networks and driving
others from existing networks.
The formation of this exclusive hierarchy brings the complex
underlying issues of religious intolerance and domination into the
homeschool community. Our founding fathers grappled with this issue,
and the world faces this same problem today in country after country.
There can be no freedom of any sort when one group dominates another.
The rationale that urges an exclusive hierarchy is the rationale for
religious domination, which serves to encourage a climate of religious
intolerance within the hierarchy itself. It is often advantageous to
skirt the issue of religious domination, those who draw their
political power from exclusive hierarchies demonstrate that there can
be very tangible rewards in fanning the flames of religious
intolerance. Neither domination nor intolerance will lead in any way
to a greater degree of freedom for any of us. The freedom of each and
every homeschooling family depends on the homeschooling community's
ability to come to grips with this issue.
Shaping Society's Perceptions
The imposition of exclusive hierarchies makes it much harder for the
rest of the homeschooling community to be heard on matters that
directly affect their families and thereby they are often rendered
politically silent. This paves the way for those in leadership
positions within the exclusive hierarchies to represent only their
particular brand of homeschooling to legislators, the national media,
education officials, and others who are interested in homeschooling.
In the process of destroying networks and centralizing control, only
the "right kind of Christian" can be elevated to a position of
leadership. Yet by claiming to represent all homeschoolers, these
selected leaders are fostering society's view that the majority of
homeschooling families are "religious fanatics." This results in a
narrowing of political support for homeschooling, so that instead of
becoming broader and stronger, the movement as a whole is contracting
and weakening. The controversy that surrounded Senate Bill 695 last
year provided a good example of this kind of political damage. In an
article addressing that subject we wrote, "Because this was not
considered a homeschooling issue by Congressional staffers,
homeschoolers have now been labelled as an uninformed, inarticulate
group which merely reacts to phone tree calls to legislative action.
It will take careful rebuilding to undo the harm that has been done to
the homeschool movement." And yet Michael Farris used the entire event
as a grandstanding opportunity to launch his latest project, boldly
announcing, "This episode with S. 695 serves as absolute confirmation
of the immediate need for the National Center for Home Education
(NCHE). We are glad that our plans were well underway so that we have
a plan for the future that can be implemented right away."
It is a sad irony that it can be much more difficult today to find an
accurate portrayal of homeschooling than it was ten years ago. In 1981
it may have taken some serious digging to find information on the
option, but the information was there, and it had broad appeal to
those who were ready for it. In 1991 one certainly doesn't have to
look very far to find newsletters, conferences, books, and much more
on the subject of homeschooling, but those sources are more than
likely to be so one-sided and misleading as to be utterly discouraging.
This pool of one-sided information on homeschooling is gaining new
legitimacy. Brian Ray, as the research arm of the four pillars, has
repeatedly allowed the use of his research results to support the
goals of isolationism, portraying and advancing an extremely narrow
definition of homeschooling. The Christmas, 1990 edition of The Home
School Court Report featured initial results from a nationwide survey
commissioned by NCHE and directed by Brian Ray. The survey's target
population for the study was home education families who are members
of HSLDA. 1,516 families responded to the survey, which was touted by
Michael Farris as "the most extensive of its kind in terms of national
scope, the sujects covered, and the number of homeschooling families
participating." Michael goes on to say, "The public policy
implications of these numbers are obvious."
Can he be serious in suggesting that there are public policy
implications in a survey purchased by NCHE and targeting only members
of HSLDA? Given the small percentage of the total homeschool
population that HSLDA represents, shouldn't the narrow scope of such a
survey be obvious to anyone? Apparently not. The population for this
survey was limited to a very narrow segment of the homeschool
community: those few homeschoolers who currently support the idea that
the best legal protection is a central agency, and who fit HSLDA's
membership criteria. And yet, is an article for Education Week,
February 13, 1991, reporter Mark Walsh wrote favorable of this "new
national study" of homeschooled students, conducted by The National
Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). In an article for the
March, 1991 issue of US Air, writer Greg Monfils also relies on
statistics from this research. The perceptions fostered by this
"national" research project, done under the auspices of a "national"
research institute, and funded by a "national" center, are misleading.
The narrow scope of this research project, coupled with the overriding
legitimacy its use is giving it, is a betrayal of the entire
homeschooling community.
Our Wanna-be Spokesman
Michael Farris has repeatedly tried to position himself as the
pre-eminent spokesperson for the homeschool community. In an article
announcing the establishment of the National Center for Home Education
in The Teaching Home, April/May, 1990, Farris wrote, "The National
Center will seek to provide an active presence in Washington, D.C.,
representing homeschooling interests." In the same article Farris
talked about promoting "aggressive media relations and placement of
public service announcements as required for national issues," and
stated that "HSLDA is already involved in many of these activities. We
are strategically located in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area
and have already established many contacts to assist us in the
function of a 'watch dog' for homeschooling in our nation's capital,
but we see a need to expand these services."
In a letter to California Congressman William E. Dannemeyer, dated
October 26, 1990, Farris wrote, "Home School Legal Defense Association
officially represents 18,500 families from all fifty states who are
homeschooling their children; this figure represents approxomately
50,000 children. Nearly 5,000 of our members live in California.
Through our subsidiary, The National Center for Home Education, we
also work cooperatively with state homeschooling organizations in
every state who represent the bulk of all homeschooling families."
(Although sometimes referred to as a subsidiary or division, Michael
Farris has told us that there is no difference between the two
organizations, NCHE is a dba - doing business as - of HSLDA.)
This type of brazen misrepresentation has prompted homeschoolers in
state after state to protest the actions of HSLDA/NCHE. In our
Nov/Dec, 1990 issue a homeschooling mother wrote, "I joined HSLDA for
legal protection only. I did not ask to join NCHE. I do not want to be
part of a discriminatory organization and I do not want them to claim
they represent my views." And in our May/June, 1990 issue we published
an Open Letter to The National Center for Home Education from two
homeschooling leaders in Pensylvania, Diana Baseman and Claire
Whitmire, in which they questioned "the presumed representation of all
homeschoolers." They told HSLDA and NCHE that "Because you have failed
to distinguish or define your constituency, you have wrongly presumed
the interest and support of us all and denied individuals the freedom
not to be a part of your organization."
The most blatant slap in the face of our freedoms appeared in an
article that was first published in HSLDA's Home School Court Report
and later reprinted in The Teaching Home. Farris wrote, "Who gets to
speak for the homeschooling movement? The majority speaks for the
movement. Why should it rattle anyone's cage for the majority of
homeschoolers to define the position of the movement? I would hope
that non-Christian homeschoolers would endorse the rights of Christian
homeschoolers - including the right to vote our convictions and the
right to majority rule."
This seemingly clever argument conceals a couple of important points.
It would be extremely presumptuous of anyone to represent all the
convictions of every Christian. And it would be even more foolish to
argue for majority rule. Given the attitude toward homeschooling in
America today, the right to majority rule would result in all of our
children being put back into public schools. To maintain our freedoms,
each and every one of us has to be able to define our own positions,
assume our own responsibilities, and make our own decisions based on
our personal beliefs. We can accept no less.
HSLDA: Legal and Legislative Experts?
Since 1983, Home School Legal Defense Association has worked hard to
position itself atop the exclusive hierarchy as the preeminent legal
and legislative organization for all homeschoolers. Their impact on
our freedoms has become one of our primary concerns.
As presumed legal and legislative experts, they impose themselves on
state networks and assume the individuals' responsibility. When this
happens, people on the state and local level are no longer building
long-term relationships they can use, they are building relationships
for HSLDA. When out-of-state attorneys fly in and start pulling tricks
out of their hats they effectively circumvent the kind of networking
and coalition building that can best serve the real needs of
homeschooling families.
In addition, when HSLDA acts as the outside expert, they give
themselves the highest level of visibility and assume primary
decision-making roles. Too often, state homeschool leaders have been
razzle-dazzled by HSLDA's legalistic maneuverings, which makes
homeschoolers more likely to turn to HSLDA for help with problems in
the future, rather than trying to work things out on their own. This
dependency inevitably leads to compromising the interests of those who
either don't see a need for HSLDA protection, don't meet the
membership requirements, or who would just rather asssume their own
responsibilities.
Further, HSLDA's trend towards over-reliance on constitutional attacks
to defend homeschooling has not been successful. In a 62 page report
issued by the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, dated November 21,
1990 and based on reported case law (cases appealed at the state
level) throughout the U.S., the evidence showed that since 1980 the
constitutionality of state laws regulating home schools has not been
upheld in the courts. According to an article in Phi Delta Kappan,
January, 1991, "The only constitutional strategy that has sometimes
yielded success in the courts for home-instruction advocates has been
to allege that statutory provisions for home instruction are
constitutionally vague." While some of these authors, or the
institutions that they work for, may or may not be entirely friendly
toward homeschooling interests, they often have access to information
that homeschoolers can examine and assess for themselves.
The legacy of these constitutional challenges has been volumes of
unnecessary verbiage about how to home educate. After years of
litigation homeschoolers are now living under laws and regulations
that have increasingly emulated conventional schools: state mandated
standardized testing, curriculum review, parental qualifications, and
more. Interestingly enough, these are the kinds of services that NCHE
is now moving to provide. In his letter announcing the National
Center, dated February 13, 1990, Farris states, "The need for legal
defense has never been a strong sales point for homeschooling. NCHE
will be able to accentuate the positive side of homeschooling."
HSLDA/NCHE not only actively fosters a dependency on their services,
which undermines individual action and responsibility, but they also
promote a clear perception that there is an 'approved homeschool
method,' defined in part by their membership application. This
application requests information very similar to what we have come to
expect from hostile school official: test results, curriculum,
academic background of the parent, notification of previous contact
with officials. With its new NCHE services, HSLDA is, in effect,
providing an administrative service for the school officials. When a
family sends their $100 HSLDA membership they are actually supporting
and strengthening this service, and the perception that there is "one
approved method" of homeschooling, at the expense of all others.
For ease of legal defense, HSLDA carefully selects along the lines of
conventional school criteria, rather than administering to the needs
of individuals or breaking new ground for freedom. Pat Montgomery, in
an article entitled, "Must I Buy Homeschool Insurance? in The Learning
Edge (March, 1991), brings up some interesting statistics regarding
home schooling and legal defense. She states, "Of the thousands of
families Clonlara has served, relatively few - twenty-eight, to be
exact - have ever had contact from local officials that could not be
handled by a simple phone call or letter." Of those twenty-eight,
eighteen Clonlara families were actually summoned to court between
1984 and 1990. Seventeen of them won, and sixteen of those did not
hire a lawyer! Six families joined Clonlara between 1980 and 1990
while they were already involved in a court process, but only five of
those were in court on home school issues. All five won their cases,
and not one of them hired an attorney! As Pat sums up the issue, "The
record shows that families who home educate, by and large, have little
to fear from officials."
Attorney John Eidsmoe, speaking on the nationally televised Moore
Teleconference on Homeschooling last April, stated, "Even in restricted
states, the percentage of parents who actually get prosecuted is only
a little higher than the percentage who get struck by lightning.
They're very selective about who they prosecute, and the vast majority
of parents, even in these states, get left alone."
This is not to say that local school districts and superintendents
don't harrass homeschoolers on a regular basis - they do. And special
interest groups continually prompt the legislature to regulate
homeschooling. But these kinds of contacts can be resolved without
buying into the care and feeding of a national organization.
Using The Home School Court Report, from which information is
reprinted widely, HSLDA has repeatedly portrayed situations in state
after state to appear much more hostile than necessary. As just one
example, in the Summer, 1990 issue of The Court Report a three-column
heading announces "South Dakota Restricts Home Schooling With New
Regulations," and the article goes on to paint a potentially grim
picture of possible complications under the new regulations. However,
the August, 1990 newsletter of the South Dakota Home School
Association discussed the new regulations and reported that "Our
relationship with the state department of education appears to be the
best it has ever been," and goes on to explain that the president of
SDHSA and other homeschooling leaders "met with the department earlier
in the summer. We were received in a spirit of cooperation as they
believe that most homeschoolers are doing a good job."
This misinformation also comes directly out of their home office. We
frequently hear reports of entire support groups being told that they
are in imminent danger, when in fact no such "danger" exists. A common
approach is to tell homeschoolers at conferences and conventions that
there have been more contacts in their state than at any other time,
and that things are only getting worse in their state instead of
better.
One of the most significant questions to consider is the actual
competence of HSLDA's attorneys. In a meeting with Michael Farris and
several others in Spokane, Washington, held in June, 1990, we asked
Michael about a phone call we had placed to HSLDA, inquiring about a
suupposed legal situation in our own state. Feeling that we had been
given blatant misinformation by the attorney we talked with,we asked
Michael about the incident. His reply was that this particular
attorney was "not really a very good lawyer," and that they were not
sure "whether or not he was going to work out." Yet this individual
had been with HSLDA for a year at that time, is still an HSLDA
attorney, and is still advising homeschooling families in several
states.
In New York State, in 1988, in a U.S. District Court decision,
Blackwelder v. Safnauer, the District Court Chief Judge issued a
reprimand to Michael Farris that appears in the Federal Supplement
(volume #689, page 106), "The progress of this case has been hindered
by plaintiffs' failure to adhere to the procedural framework of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules. The
court has been indulgent - perhaps too indulgent - in forgiving a
multitude of procedural errors, because it has not wanted to punish
the individual plaintiffs for the shoddy motion practice of their
attorneys. There comes a point, however, when forbearance of one
party's carelessness unfairly prejudices their adversaries. That point
has been reached in this case." The Judge's comment then goes on to
discuss the problems caused by Farris.
We need to keep in mind that what HSLDA does is lawyer stuff. That is
to say, what they know how to do best is to function within the
judicial system, an institution that has become increasingly
insensitive to the individual and his needs. This rarefied air that
they keep themselves in precludes individual action and intiative.
Legalistic arguments and professional hat tricks will not gain us any
greater degree of homeschooling freedom. We need to rely instead on
the kind of good old fashioned wisdom and sound judgement that we can
gain from our own experience.
Responsibility and Freedom
With their national visibility, HSLDA/NCHE, Christian Life Workshops,
The Teaching Home, and NHERI sit atop a hierarchy that not only
perpetuates itself but which purposefully advances a notion that there
is primarily one "approved" method for homeschooling. This leads us,
as a homeschooling community, back into the same trap of "one size
fits all" education that is the very essence of the educational
insitution. This hierarchy that has grown up within our midst has also
promised us the illusion of easy and convenient protection of our
freedoms, yet their actions have had a tremendously negative impact on
an already effectively functioning homeschool community, and they are
largely responsible for the homeschool community's current state of
disarray.
What can we, as individual homeschoolers, do about this situation? We
have already assumed a responsibility that is directly translated into
freedom, we are homeschooling. The impact of this freedom says we, as
individuals, are capable of exercising sound judgement in the face of
the challenges that shape our lives. This responsibility stands in
direct opposition to any individual or group that would come between
us and our decision making processes.
One of the primary keys is to take steps to bring each homeschooling
family into the homeschool community. Communicaiton is the most
important step. We need unrestricted communication at all levels of
this community. We need communication that doesn't have to be approved
by a hierarchical order but that directly serves the needs of all
homeschooling families. Newsletters, phone trees, support group
meetings, conferences, and conversations between friends and neighbors
can be our most effective tools in working to put our communication
networks - and the homeschooling community - back together.
The issues raised here are not going to disappear overnight. As
homeschoolers we will always face very subtle and complex challenges
to our freedoms, and we must be prepared to face what comes. The best
opportunity we have to defend our freedoms is to assume the
responsibility of maintaining them ourselves, by staying informed and
taking action, and not relying on experts and professionals, whatever
their professed accomplishments, to assume the responsibility for us.
We all need to follow through on the many diverse responsibilities we
assumed when we chose homeschooling for our children.
FREEDOMS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE "FOUR PILLARS" by M. Larry Kaseman
If we as homeschoolers are going to safeguard our freedoms to
homeschool, we must take seriously the responsibilities that we have
for the health, direction, and future of homeschooling. Although it is
often tempting simply to focus on our own family, as homeschoolers we
are inevitably drawn into larger questions concerning homeschooling.
This happens as we decide about curriculums, tests, periodicals,
national organizations and their services, support groups, state
organizations, and laws and regulations. Whether we like it or not,
the daily decisions we make in our own homeschools affect the
direction homeschooling is going, simply because it is a grassroots
movement made up of the sum of the actions of many individuals. We do
not have the luxury of deciding whether we want to work in isolation
or be politically active - our daily decisions and actions or
inactions have political consequences both inside and outside the
homeschooling community.
Three aspects of this responsibility will be discussed in this
article. First, it will present ideas and strategies that could be
followed by homeschoolers who are acting responsibly to protect their
freedoms. Second, recent developments in Wisconsin will be described
to show the ways in which the actions of the "four pillars" have
failed to support and have threatened to interfere with the actions of
responsible homeschoolers. Third, it will explore actions that
homeschoolers are taking to reclaim their responsibility for
homeschooling and to counter the negative effects of the "four
pillars."
I. Freedoms & Responsibilities
For us as homeschoolers to assume responsibility means several things.
Among them are:
- We should inform ourselves about what opponents of homeschooling
(such as large educational bureaucracies and teachers unions) are
doing or may be likely to do, and about what is happening within the
homeschooling community. We can get this information by reading
periodicals, talking with other homeschoolers, and attending local
support group meetings and state-wide conferences.
- We need to be realistic about the difficulties we face. When only
25% of the adult population has school-aged children and less than 1%
of these children are homeschooling, we are clearly a very small
minority. We also face strong opposition from the educational
establishment, teachers unions, and people involved in the huge
educational industry that spends $1 billion each day - talk about
vested economic interests!
- We should have a clear understanding of what our goals and
priorities are concerning homeschooling and our involvement in the
homeschooling community.
Homeschooling rights and freedoms are being challenged both by
opponents of homeschooling and by the general trend in our society to
take away individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. Therefore, in
order to maximize our strength, we must work for unity (but not
uniformity) among homeschoolers. To be the most effective we can be in
protecting our freedoms, we must focus on the one thing that
homeschoolers agree about: the freedom of a parent to choose an
education for his child consistent with his principles and beliefs. If
we agree that each family should make its own decisions about approach
to education, religion, and lifestyle, we can all work together
without compromising our own personal principles, beliefs, and
commitments.
One of our primary goals as homeschoolers should be to unite in
inclusive grassroots organizations to fight political battles to
ensure our freedoms to decide about our approaches to education,
religion, and lifestyle. We would seriously weaken our ability to
protect our freedoms if, instead, we divided into smaller groups of
homeschoolers who all agree about education or religion or lifestyle.
We would have to spend some of our limited resources of time, energy,
and money in efforts that duplicate or compete with the efforts of
others. Division among hmeschoolers would give opponents of
homeschooling a powerful weapon to use against us and a golden
opportunity to increase the regulation of homeschools. We would not be
in as strong a position to protect our freedom, and we might end up
losing it and then having no real choice in these important areas.
In a way this seems backwards. It seems like we are giving first
priority to political and legal concerns which in the long run are
less important than decisions we must make about education, religion,
and lifestyle. But it is only by putting these secondary political
questions first in time, by setting aside personal differences and
working together with other homeschoolers, that we can ensure that we
will have the freedom we need to be able to make choices in the most
important areas, such as education, religion, and lifestyle.
Working for political freedom with homeschoolers whose approaches to
education, religion, or lifestyle differ from ours does not diminish
us as individuals nor does it mean that we must adopt other people's
beliefs. Instead, working together to protect our freedoms makes us
more than we would be otherwise, because we have a much better chance
of safeguarding our freedoms and thereby ensuring that we can make our
own decisions about education, religion, and lifstyle.
- We must work on the grassroots level, everyone doing his share,
and not rely on outside experts, regarless of their approach to
education, religion, or lifestyle. Use of such experts is
inappropriate, unwise, and possibly very harmful for several reasons,
including the following:
(1) Outside experts decrease the commitment and energy that members
feel they need to put into the work of a grassroots organization. This
weakens the organization.
(2) Homeschoolers (or anybody else) who turn their battles over to
an outside expert lose a very important opportunity and often their
freedoms. The challenges homeschoolers face from opponents gives us a
chance to develop a deeper understanding of our freedoms and how to
protect them. Fighting our own battles may also enable us to avoid the
seemingly inevitable compromises that are often made by an outside
expert trying to do, as an individual, the work that really should be
done by hundreds of people working on the grassroots level.
(3) No outsider can do what residents of a state can do for
themselves in terms of understanding the specifics and complexity of
their unique situation and forming and maintaining personal contacts
and relationships.
(4) An outside expert cannot care as much about the outcome as the
people who live in a given state - the expert goes home and the
residents have to live with the results.
(5) Legislators view outside experts differently than they view
constituents. Once an outside expert becomes involved in a legislative
debate, legislators have to start judging the conflicting claims of
competing experts. It is more helpful for homeschoolers to have
legislators focused on meeting the needs and requirements of their
constituents than to have them concentrating on statements made by
experts.
If we as homeschoolers are going to protect our rights and freedoms,
we need to be prepared to act responsibly by working with other
homeschoolers through grassroots organizations and not relying on
outside experts.
II. Freedom and the "Four Pillars"
It would help us fairly accurately assess what the four pillars are
doing if we examine the specifics of what has happened in one state.
This article will discuss events in Wisconsin. This requires examining
some potentially confusing details which amplify and support general
points, but it is important to understand the subtle and often
confusing ways in which the "four pillars" sometimes act.
Two pieces of background information are necessary at this point.
First, the "four pillars" have been identified as Michael Farris of
Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) for legal and
legislative matters; Gregg Harris of Christian Life Workshops for
workshops, seminars, and conferences; Brian Ray of the National Home
Education Research Institute (funded in large part by HSLDA) for
research; and Sue Welch of The Teaching Home for communications. Gregg
Harris has been said to have identified himself with the others by use
of the term "four pillars." Rather, it is important to understand what
these "four pillars" do and how that impacts on the ability of
homeschoolers to secure and maintain their freedoms.
The second piece of background information concerns the homeschooling
situation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has had a very reasonable
homeschooling law since 1984. Numerous challenges to this law by
opponents of homeschooling have been successfully countered by
homeschoolers working on the grassroots level primarily through
Wisconsin Parents Association (WPA), a state-wide inclusive
organization which was formed in 1984 to help shape the homeschooling
law and now has a membership of over a thousand families with diverse
backgrounds.
The most serious challenge to Wisconsin's hmeschooling law was
formalized in June, 1990, when the leadership of the Legislative
Council used power politics to force a questionable vote that
authorized the formation of a Special Commitee to study homeschooling.
Wisconsin homeschoolers realized action was required since all but
three of the Legislative Council studies done in the last 20 years had
ended in new legislation, which then had a much greater chance of
passing than legislation introduced in other ways. Working on a
grassroots level through WPA, homeschoolers refused to focus their
efforts on the Committee and thus give it credibility. Instead they
met with legislators throuughout the state, building on work
previously done, and collected over 5,000 signatures on a petition
that opposed further regulation of homeschooling.
Actions by the "four pillars" have failed to support work being done
by responsible homeschoolers and have threatened to interfere with it.
Among recent examples are the following:
- HSLDA and others associated with the "four pillars" have
consistently recommended action to Wisconsin homeschooler that could
have caused them great difficulty, and we cannot think of an example
of advice from HSLDA which has proven valuable. For example, in March,
1990, one legislator introduced a bill to require that homeschoolers
take standardized tests. WPA found that there was very little support
for the bill (it had no co-sponsors), that the chairperson of the
Assembly Education Committee did not plan to hold hearings on the
bill, and that it would be best not to give this bill any further
visibility. However, in May, after the legislative floor session had
in fact ended and the bill had died, HSLDA sent a memo to Wisconsin
homeschooling leaders from its newly formed National Center for Home
Education. The memo recommended that Wisconsin homeschoolers write to
the Assembly Education Committee to protest this bill. The memo went
only to WPA, then the only state-wide homeschooling organization in
Wisconsin, which obviously did not follow its advice.
Had homeschoolers followed HSLDA's advice, they would have been
complaining to a committee chairperson who since 1984 had treated
homeschoolers fairly by insisting that evidence of problems with
homeschooling be presented before homeschooling bills were introduced.
Letters would also have given visibility and quite probable media
attention to a dead bill whose only sponsor was retiring from the
legislature. Also, by this time homeschoolers in Wisconsin were facing
a much larger problem in the proposed Legislative Council study of
homeschooling. HSLDA/NCHE's advice would have focused homeschoolers'
energy on the wrong people and in the wrong direction.
This shows the disadvantages and limitations of relying on outside
experts. It does not help to know only that a bill about
homeschooling has been introduced and what it says. It is essential to
have information concerning how much support the bill has, who is
opposing it and how strongly, how likely it is to move from committee
to the floor of the legislature, how soon the legislators will be
adjourning, and many other such details. It takes the grassroots
efforts of many homeschoolers working with their legislators and with
informal networks within the state to gather and assess this
information. It must be done by homeschoolers who live within the
state and cannnot be done effectively by outside experts.
In another example, HSLDA strongly contradicted a strategy that was
clearly working well for Wisconsin homeschoolers. HSLDA's advice could
have had disastrous results if WPA had not acted quickly to warn
homeschoolers against following it. During its Nov. 29th meeting, the
Legislative Council's Special Committee was clearly moving away from
the idea of stronger regulations for homeschoolers. WPA members were
continuing their strategy (presented in newsletters published in June
and September) of downplaying the committee and refusing to give it
credibility or attention. Instead homeschoolers were collecting
signatures on petitions in support of homeschooling and working with
individual legislators across the state to show both the legislators
and the committee that there was significant public support for
homeschooling and no need to change a homeschooling law that was
working well.
However, a letter from the president of Wisconsin Christian Home
Education Association (WCHEA), a new organization supported by the
"four pillars," dated December 4, 1990, called on homeschoolers to
attend the December 20th meeting of the Special Committee to "present
a solid unified front." It also said, "At the time of this printing,
we are expecting Chris Klicka (an HSLDA attorney) to appear before the
committee to present a tertimony on behalf of all homeschoolers." and
..."LET'S HAVE A STANDING-ROOM ONLY SITUATION."
Many Wisconsin homeschoolers were offended by the idea that Klicka
presumed to speak (or the President of WCHEA presumed he would speak)
for all homeschoolers. Homeschoolers were also upset because bringing
in an outside "expert" violated the commitment of WPA members to
grassroots action and their resolution on unity. In addition, the
strategy presented was very unsound. A large crowd could have
increased the pressure committee members felt to do something to
increase regulation of homeschooling. It could also have given the
committee credibility and drawn media attention to its decisions.
WPA responded by including information in its December newsletter
about the direction the committee was moving and why a large crowd at
the meeting would probably increase chances that the committee would
vote to recommend increased regulation of homeschooling. WPA asked
that homeschoolers not attend the meeting. Fewer than 10 homeschoolers
came, and the committee voted down most regulatory proposals by votes
of 8 to 7. Once again, the strategy of Wisconsin homeschoolers worked,
but only after they had countered advice from someone within the "four
pillars" group. It is very difficult for homeschoolers to have people
from outside taking actions that will cause serious problems for them
and will undo things that they are doing that are working well.
(To finish this chapter of the story: It turned out that Wisconsin
homeschoolers' strategy played an important role in the Committee's
decision to adjourn without recommending new legislation. Over 2,000
homeschoolers gathered on February 6, 1991, at the state capitol in
Madison to demonstrate their commitment to homeschooling and to
reasonable homeschooling laws and to emphasize the significance of the
Special Committee's decision.)
Another example is the "testimony" Klicka prepared for the Special
Committee. It included the following paragraph (as reported in a memo
to "Home School Leaders" from NCHE dated January 31, 1991; the memo
referred to Klicka's "testimony" although the document itself is
titled "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME-BASED PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
[Summary Analysis by Attorney Christopher J. Klicka, 12/20/90])":
*Third, the present home school law is enforceable. Any truant
officers or law enforcement officials who gather evidence from
witnesses, etc. that the family is not educating their children at
home, do [sic] not have books to cover the required topics, or are
[sic] operating their program in order "to circumvent the compulsory
attendance law," can bring truancy charges [#118.15(5)] or educational
neglect charges against these fraudulent families.* [Klicka's
emphasis]
This testimony could cause serious trouble for Wisconsin homeschoolers
because it provides a basis by which officials could demand more of
homeschoolers than the law allows. First, the Wisconsin law requires
attendance, not the education to which Klicka refers. This distinction
is crucial. The law can and does require that children attend an
educational program, but it cannot and does not prescribe the outcome
of that program. It would be difficult if not impossible to enforce a
law requiring "education," and an attempt to do this would be
disastrous for the idea of free education in a free society. Second,
Wisconsin law requires a sequentially progressive curriculum in basic
subjects but does not require the "books to cover" that Klicka
mentions. A curriculum is an educational plan, a course of study, It
is much broader than a collection of books. Homeschoolers have much
more freedom under a law that requires a curriculum which they choose
than under one which requires specific "books."
Third, "educational neglect" is a vague term which does not appear in
Wisconsin statutes covering truancy or compulsory school attendance or
homeschooling. In December, 1989, Wisconsin homeschoolers successfully
argued against inclusion of this term in proposed legislation. It
would allow the state to confuse compulsory attendance laws and
truancy laws with child abuse and neglect laws, a frightening prospect
for homeshoolers. It is appalling to have this term introduced, much
less offered as a basis for prosecution, by someone who appears to be
working with and for homeschoolers.
Fourth, Klicka's referring to people who may be charged with truancy
as "fraudulent families" prejudges them, violate the principle of
"innocent until proven guilty," and disregards the idea commonly
accepted among Wisconsin homeschoolers that homeschoolers do not judge
each other's educational programs.
-- HSLDA has used tactics that worked against what the majority of
homeschoolers were trying to do in Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin
has never required homeschoolers to take standardized tests, and HSLDA
has stated that state-mandated standardized testing should not be
required in Wisconsin. However, the information HSLDA presented
through a homeschooler to the Legislative Council's Special Committee
relied heavily on standardized test scores. This said, in effect, that
standardized tests are a valid way to evluate homeschoolers. It kept
the issue of standardized testing open and alive before the committee.
It was an inappropriate tactic to use in a state in which
homeschoolers were fighting hard against proposals by the chairperson
of the Special Committee and by the Department of Public Instruction
that standardized testing be required.
-- HSLDA has presented highly inaccurate and misleading information
on what has happened in Wisconsin in both a memo to home school
leaders from NCHE dated January 31, 1991, and in The Home School Court
Report, Volume 7, No. 1, January-February, 1991, pp. 10-11.
(1) HSLDA claimed that, "The 'grassroots' efforts of home schoolers
throughout Wisconsin have finally paid off...HSLDA also mobilized a
grassroots campaign of letters directed especially to the legislators
on the committee in order to let them know that the public did not see
any need for additional legislation pertaining to home schooling...The
chairman stated that he and many of the members of the Committee had
received hundreds of letters." However, a Senior Staff Attorney for
the Legislative Council checked the official Special Committee files
and reported to me that throughout the study, the committee received
"about 20 letters in total from homeschoolers." She said that it was
the practice of the chairperson and other legislators to make copies
of such letters available to the general committee and interested
parties through th committee staff. In addition, the chairperson told
me in a phone conversation on April 6, 1991, that he did not receive
hundreds of letters and in fact was surprised at how few letters from
homeschoolers he had received.
(2) At the same time HSLDA did not mention the real grassroots
efforts made by Wisconsin homeschoolers. Many of them met individually
or in groups with their legislators. (One meeting in rural
northwestern Wisconsin was attended by 160 homeschoolers.)
Homeschoolers also collected over 5,000 signatures on petitions asking
the legislature "not to legislate further regulation of private
education, including home schooling." HSLDA also did not point out
that these meetings with legislators and petitions were consistent
with Wisconsin homeschoolers' strategy of not focusing on, supporting,
working with, or giving credibility to the Special Committee but
instead working with the whole legislature to educate legislaors about
homeschooling and to demonstrate support for homeschooling.
(3) The Court Report also stated, "Meanwhile, Chris Klicka was
requested to testify at the Committee and tentatively scheduled for
the December meeting." The committee chairperson told me on April 6,
1991, that both Klicka and a member of the Special Committee pressured
him to invite Klicka to testify but that he, the chairperson, did not
invite him. Also, a Senior Staff Attorney for the Legislative Council
told me that Klicka was not invited by the staff attorneys responsible
for invitations. Therefore, there is no evidence of any request for
Klicka to testify that came through official channels. It was also
misleading for HSLDA to say, "Due to the Chairman's change in plans,
Klicka was not able to testify," since he had never officially been
invited.
-- On top of everything else, many homeschoolers felt that HSLDA
should not have become involved in the political situation in
Wisconsin at all. HSLDA developed what they refer to as a "strategy"
for dealing with the Special Committee despite the fact that many
Wisconsin homeschoolers had made it clear that they did not want
"outside experts" of any kind involved in this or other political
activities. Wisconsin already had a strong inclusive grassroots
organization (WPA). At a WPA membership meeting on April 28, 1990,
members passed a resolution which stated in part, "...WPA is a
grassroots organization which relies on the strength of its own local
members rather than 'expert,' especially out-of-state experts who
become involved in state legislative matters;" and "WPA opposes any
state or national efforts that would split home schoolers into
factions and thus weaken the ability of home schoolers to ensure
reasonable home schooling laws." It was published in the June, 1990,
WPA newsletter. Also in June, 1990, the executive director of WPA
informed Klicka of WPA's position and said to him in a public meeting,
"We don't want your help."
-- The "four pillars" have initiated or supported the formation of
an exclusive, divisive organization in Wisconsin. Among the ways they
have done this are:
* Gregg Harris' Home School Workshops in April, 1987 and November,
1990, provided a platform and base in the state for HSLDA and The
Teaching Home to become inappropriately involved in the political
battles of Wisconsin homeschoolers and for The Teaching Home to help
establish an exclusive and divisive organization.
* The Teaching Home publishes the WCHEA newsletter, advertises its
conferences, promotes the speakers who speak at these conferences and
workshops, and remains silent as to the real story of what recently
happened in Wisconsin. The Teaching Home also serves as a resource to
exclusivist organizations and has a "State Organization
Representative's Office" (headed by Sharon Grimes of Syracuse, NY)
which makes special requests for new state leaders and organizations
and helps them get organized. (Such a request was made in an
attachment to a memo from Sharon Grimes dated March 27, 1990, for the
following states: Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusette, New
Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin.)
* According to a letter from the president of WCHEA to WPA, The
Teaching Home listed WCHEA as the Wisconsin contact without a final
agreement from WCHEA's president to do this.
Our purpose here is not to raise questions like, "Do the "four
pillars" have a right to become involved in a state in this way? Does
WPA have a right to keep them out?" We do not want to get into a long,
legalistic debate. We merely want to report the way in which the "four
pillars," especially HSLDA, have acted in Wisconsin, so readers will
be in a better position to decide whether to support them or counter
them. Readers have to decide whether the "four pillars" are acting in
a responsible manner, in a way that encourages cooperation among
homeschoolers, etc.
Actions by the "four pillars" in Wisconsin are dangerous to the
freedom of homeschoolers and to their attempts to maintain their
homeschooling laws for several reasons. Among these reasons:
(1) For the first time since 1983, Wisconsin homeschoolers have
followed two different strategies in dealing with the legislature. The
fact that these strategies contradict and undermine each other means
that the existence of two of them seriously weakens the ability of
homeschoolers to fight their opponents.
(2) Homeschoolers' ability to counter opponents is seriously weakened
when they have to spend time, energy, and some of their very limited
resources countering the inappropriate strategies of other
homeschoolers who are following the advice of "outside experts."
(3) The Court Report's misleading and exaggerated claims about
HSLDA's action in Wisconsin could cause individual homeschoolers to
question whether their own grassroots work was really necessary or
important. It also gives status and power to people who do not deserve
it. This causes division which threatens homeschoolers' freedoms.
(4) Klicka's testimony provides an opportunity for opponents of
homeschooling to argue their case for regulation using the language of
a "homeschooling expert" against homeschoolers.
III. How Homeschoolers Are Countering the Actions of the "Four Pillars"
The activities of the "four pillars" are possible because of the
actions of homeschoolers which, intentionally or unintentioinally,
support the "four pillars." Without this support from homeschoolers,
the "four pillars" could not continue. Homeschoolers who want to
reclaim their responsibility for homeschooling and to counter the
"four pillars" are doing a number of things. Among them are:
First and most basically, homeschoolers who make their own decisions
about how they will homeschool, who decide based on what is best for
their families and do not blindly follow the advice of the "four
pillars" simply because they are "experts," are countering the "four
pillars," intentionally or unintentionally. Homeschoolers who forge
their own definitions of homeschooling , who select their own approach
to learning, are countering the "four pillars." Even homeschoolers who
end up selecting an approach very close to what the "four pillars"
would recommend, are countering the "four pillars" because they are
making their own independent decisions and not blindly following the
"four pillars." Homeschoolers who rely on their own work as
individuals and as members of inclusive grassroots organizations to
prevent and solve problems, rather than relying on "outside experts,"
are countering the "four pillars." The action of many individual
homeschoolers, each educating their children according to their
principles and beliefs, is essential to protecting homeschoolers'
freedoms. As long as homeschoolers insist on exercising their right to
speak for themselves, the "four pillars" cannot "speak for all
homeschoolers."
Homeschoolers are sharing, with other homeschoolers, information such
as that contained in this article, and their concerns about it. It is
being discussed in support groups and at other homeschooling
gatherings.
It is important to keep the action of the "four pillars" in
perspective. They are more uniform than any other segment within the
homeschooling community, they have used their abundant financial
resources to make a big splash, they have made extravagant claims, so
they appear much larger than they really are. The number of
homeschoolers actually supporting the actions of the "four pillars" is
a small percentage of the total of homeschoolers. An as current
supporters receive more accurate information about the "four pillars"
and their actions, these homeschoolers are reconsidering their
support.
Homeschoolers have formed strong inclusive grassroots organizations
that enable all homeschoolers to work together to gain and maintain
reasonable homeschooling laws in their state.
Local support groups have been organized to encourage homeschoolers to
get together frequently with others who share their approach to
education, their religious beliefs, and/or their lifestyle; share
their experiences, joys, and concerns; and become acquainted in a
meaningful way so they can support each other. Such groups can meet
the needs that exclusive state-wide organizations claim to meet, but
without causing division among homeschoolers who are also members of
state-wide inclusive grassroots organizations.
Homeschoolers have learned how to act so as to minimize the chances of
getting into difficulty with school officials. They also know how to
effectively handle contacts with officials that do occur and how to be
continually alert so small infringements on their freedoms can be
challenged and resolved before they grow.
Many contacts from school officials can be handled well by a
homeschooler who has a clear understanding of what his state's
homeschooling law requires and what his rights and freedoms are. It is
generally a good idea for the homeschooler to discuss the official's
charge or request with other homeschoolers, some of whom may have had
similar encounters with officials. Then he can often resolve the
situation by simply explaining that he understands what the law
requires and that he is complying with it. Officials are not
accustomed to dealing with people who have a clear idea of what is
required of them and what their rights are. Simply realizing how
capable the homeschooler actually is may be enough to convince the
official that he has more important things to do than harassing
homeschoolers. It is generally more effective when homeschoolers
resolve their own problems instead of calling in attorneys or outside
experts to do it. It impresses on the school official the abilities
and strengths of homeschoolers and makes them much less likely to
challenge homeschoolers again soon. It also allows conflicts to be
resolved on a person-to-person basis within a local community.
Homeschoolers are making careful decisions about how they spend their
homeschooling dollars, about what homeschooling materials and services
they purchase, which workshops and conferences they attend, etc. so
that their money goes to parts of the homeschooling community that
they want to support and that will ensure their freedoms rather than
put them at risk.
Homeschoolers are refusing to lend stature or expand the influence of
the "four pillars" by not lending their names or that of their
organizations to the "four pillars." This includes not being listed as
a state contact by NCHE, not inviting the "four pillars" or their
associates to speak, and not rallying to their calls for legislative
action.
Homeschoolers are networking with people in other states, while being
careful not to call in any ouitside experts in the process. Contacts
are made through national homeschooling organizations not associated
with the "four pillars," homeschooling publications, state
conferences, etc.
Let us realize and be grateful for all the potential that
homeschoolers have, individually and as a community. Let us recognize
and appreciate all the positive thisng that are happening within
homeschooling,in the homes of individual families and throughout the
homeschooling community. And let us act responsibly so that the
questionable activites of a few are not allowed to spoil homeschooling
for the rest of us.
CALIFORNIA
Dear Mark and Helen,
Even though I am personally a Christian who prays daily, attends my
church regularly - sometimes more than once a week, and attends at
least one Bible study a week; I do not consider that a prerequisite
for homeschooling or belonging to a homeschool organization. Perhaps
the primary cause of my resentment towards the "Christian Homeschool
Mentality" is because I have watched "Christian" homeschool support
groups become separatist - to the point of excluding those of us who
welcomed all people into our homeschool support group from further
activities.
In the past I have remained relatively quiet about this but now I must
speak up. I have homeschooling friends throughout the United States
who have had similar experiences and this saddens me. How can we
present a united front whenever homeschooling itself is under fire?
A few years ago our family joined HSLDA, until we witnessed a support
group become separatist because they believed HSLDA wanted them to
exclude anyone not signing a document of religious beliefs.
Incidentally, everything in that document coincided with my husband
and my religious beliefs so that was not the problem - the problem was
we felt it was unfair to exclude non-believers from a homeschool
support group - after all we weren't a church, we were supposed to be
a homeschool support group!
My husband and I joined a newly formed support group in Santa Maria
because Lompoc did not have a support group at the time. We
participated in the brand new group's organizational meetings after
several meetings it was announced that everyone had to sign a
"Statement of Faith" because the newly elected officers had been
informed that such a statement was necessary in case of possible court
action (none was threatened then or now).
We objected because we knew several families homeschooling because
they were convinced of educational benefits (as opposed to doing it
for religious reasons). These families wanted to join support groups
in order to share ideas, but these families were put off by strongly
worded religious overtones.
Officers of the group were advised (by whom was never made clear) to
keep the group aloof from people or groups homeschooling for
non-religious reasons as this would negate the "Christian" commitment
should group members be taken to court and it was shown they had
non-Christian contacts in their homeschooling experiences. This
incident caused my husband and I to question our association with
HSLDA and made us wonder if we would be adequately represented by
HSLDA should we run into problems.
We also read and heard other comments along the same line - that HSLDA
is primarily interested in serving families claiming homschooling for
religious reasons only. At that time we wrote to Michael Farris of our
concerns. His reply was that the strongest defense is one which is
rooted in religion. This is not the only defense, but it is the
strongest. He went on to add that HSLDA always uses all available
defenses and if the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment is
not available they use all other defenses available.
Shortly afterwards a group was formed in Lompoc. Within two years a
group of rather exclusive "Christians" decided to split off for a
church oriented group (which has since disbanded because it members
preferred our more welcoming group). Unfortunately we are once again
headed for another "split" along the lines of "Christian" and
"non-Christian." Only this time I fear it will cause division among
friends - it is already happening.
A friend in San Luis Obispo has experienced something similar where
she was one of the founding members of an "open" support group. Only
her experience ended up with a strong "exclusive" group taking over
and nothing left for homeschoolers without religious reasons for
homeschooling. I keep hearing of similar instances and have friends
(in Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, and Santa Barbara to name places
in my immediate vicinity) who no longer try joining a support group
just so they won't become outsiders again even though they want to
belong to a support group.
Seeing what is happening locally, I fear that by next year our support
group will become "exclusivist" as many more people are turning to
homeschooling locally and most of them are doing it under religious
auspices. Because of financial difficulties a local Christian day
school is having to close down in June and we already have many people
inquiring about homeschooling. I put in my two cents worth whenever I
have a chance, but often it is like trying to talk into the wind.
I worry about anything that promotes homeschool legislation when we
don't need it. Once we get a law on the books, we really will have a
battle on our hands and will need even more constant vigilance. First
of all we must put our own house in order - that is become united in
our diversity - before we can effectively defend our rights to
homeschool.
All homeschoolers are leaders (and should realize this) in their
community. Otherwise they would not be homeschooling. Each of us
contributes to the whole homeschooling community in some manner. Have
you ever met a more independent bunch of people? I certainly haven't!
I do not consider myself a homeschool "expert" or "Leader."
I consider myself more as a resource person who enables others to take
charge of their own homeschooling situation. Many of them homeschool
in a manner I would not - but then I do my own thing, too! We get
along fine when we respect each other's differences.
Agnes Leistico, 313 Somerset Place, Lompoc, California 93436
ALABAMA
"A few national organizations and leaders have been creating policies,
involving statements of faith, which have put pressure on Alabama Home
Educators (AHE) and other non-sectarian groups to split into two
separate associations.
"Not everyone realizes that AHE could not sponsor Gregg's Christian
Life Workshop due to the fact that AHE is not 'an exclusively
Christian organization.'...This policy has encouraged the formation of
strictly Christian organizations...
"AHE does not qualify [to publish a state news insert for The Teaching
Home] because The Teaching Home insists that each statewide
organization provide documentation which 'ensures perpetual Christian
leadership.'...This policy has encouraged the formation of strictly
Christian organizations...
"AHE, as a non-sectarian organization, is precluded from membership on
the advisory council of [NCHE]. This national policy has the potential
to encourage the formation of strictly Christian organizations...
"What disturbs me is the insistence, of these very people I care so
much about, that they are serving the needs of all home schoolers
and/or helping to provide assistance and support to state
organizations, when in reality they are dividing these organizations,
discouraging Christian homeschoolers from helping others outside their
faith, and causing disunity among Christ's body. When general policies
encourage the formation of exclusively Christian groups, then the
policymakers should advertise the truth - that they exist to primarily
support Christian associations, even to the point of causing division.
Why be ashamed to admit this stand, if it is an honorable one?
Lee Gonet in The Voice, Alabama, Summer, 1990
COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS
The Prodigy computer bulletin board network includes an active home
schooling network in the Homelife Club, Parenting bulletin board.
Recent bulletins in the home schooling section have included a
discussion of exclusivist groups.
POSTED: 03/01 4:47 pm
...The move toward exclusive home school parent organizations is
coming from the top down. What we have found is that many parents do
not know that the organizations they belong to have by-laws that
restrict who can hold leadership positions. This information tends to
be "hidden" until someone is willing to expose it. I suggest that we
work from the bottom up. Once the "masses" find that most of them
cannot hold leadership positions they tend to be upset. In many states
new homeschooling parent organizations are springing up that are
inclusive. I think the tide is turning, but there is still much work
to be done by the average homschooling parent.
POSTED: 03/07 10:59 am
The exclusive vs inclusive home school organization debate is not
about support groups, but about state home school organizations. Our
state home school organizations are our political arms or voices. One
of the most important functions of our state organizations is
representing home schoolers at the state capitol. A problem arises
when a state organization promotes itself to the general public and
home schoolers as being open to all (inclusive), when in fact the
organization has written and unwritten policies that restrict
leadership politions based on one ideological or theological point of
view. In many cases the members do not even know that the policies
exist or how restrictive the policies are. I know of one such state
organization that claims to be open to all home shcoolers, however the
by-laws restrict leadership positions to people belonging to certain
Protestant denominations. This leads one to question the motives of
the leaders. Who do they represent, serve and work for, all home
schoolers who belong to the organizations or only those who share the
same beliefs. (The members didn't even get to vote on the by-laws,
this was done "behind closed doors" by the leaders.)
Don't misread me. I am not against exclusive home school
organizations. I am against only those that do not openly promote
themselves as such. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. It is
not about having support groups exclusively for home schoolers.
We seem to have quite a few home schoolers from across the nation
here, I would like to know how you all feel about this issue. Is your
state homeschool organization inclusive or exclusive? If it is
exclusive, does it work with other state organizations in an alliance
or coalition? Why, or why not? Many of you may be surprised to find
out that your state organization is in fact exclusive. Do a little
research, read the by-laws. Does you state home school organization
get involved in issues not relating to home schooling or education?
Are members welcome to attend all meetings?
DATE: 03/09/1991
There has been a lot of discussion lately about home school support
groups...I hear rumbling of discontent among those who feel support
groups are splintering along religious lines. I'm hearing (correctly?)
some uncomfortable things about people running around announcing that
they represent me (the home schooler) when they don't. I also
understand there are a certain amount of self-proclaimed leaders
claiming to represent all home schoolers as subscribers to their
viewpoint, causing those who hear them to think we are all of one
mind, when anybody who knows us knows we could probably not agree on
even the weather aside from home schooling. What's happening? What's
the story behind what I am hearing? Is there any truth to it? Where is
it coming from? Who is it coming from? Oh, and for the record: I
represent myself. No individual or group speaks for me. Enough said!
NATIONAL
"In Deschooling Society, Ivan Ilich notes that our society is plagued
by pedagogical hubris - our belief that men can do what God cannot:
namely, manipulate others for their own salvation. As educators, we
need to recognize this pedagogical hubris in ourselves and within the
homeschooling movement as well. We must remind anyone who claims to
know or represent what is best for the education of our children that
there can never be concensus on what is the best way to educate our
children, that is why there are public, private, and home schools
throughout the country. It will be a sore irony if these special
interests create a de facto national board of home teaching standards
by loudly proclaiming the correctness of their teaching practices and
strictly denouncing what they perceive as false edcuational
philosophies. I am not criticising or objecting to people promulgating
their religion through their own organization, and I fully support
religious freedom. These groups should and always do, or nearly always
do, put their religious affiliations up front. What I am objecting to
are national groups claiming, in words, to serve all homeschoolers,
yet by deeds, denegrate and isolate homeschoolers from different
religions and educational philosophies. Surely, after years of school
experts telling us about how our children will suffer if we don't do
it their way, there is no need for us to cannibalize one another with
this same argument."
Patrick Farenga
address at Washington Homeschool
Organization Conference
Tacoma, Washington, June, 1990
NEW YORK
Dear Mark and Helen,
After many years of homeschooling we are coming to understand more
fully the importance of self-reliance among home educators to protect
our educational and family rights. While it is tempting, especially in
the first year or two of homeschooling, to focus exclusively on the
education of our children, it is critical to remain attuned to and
involved in the preservation of our legal right to educate our
children at home and of a positive atmosphere in which to do that. If
homeschoolers don't take responsibility for protecting their rights in
these areas, somebody else surely will. We believe the situation in
New York State is in many ways typical of what has happened and is
happening in many other states.
Prior to the 1988-89 school year New York was one of those states
which had a fairly vague homeschooling law ("substantially equivalent"
to public school education) and no state regulations. Many home
educators had a very easy time dealing with their school districts,
and some were treated unfairly. During the 1987-88 school year a loose
group of home educators began to meet on a more-or-less monthly basis
to address a decision by the State Department of Education to require
home educators to take certain tests which were required of public and
private school students at the third and fifth grade levels. These
meetings were open to all and inclusive of many different approaches
to home education. Progress was slow as many individuals and
representatives of different groups tried to reconcile their
differences and to agree on questions of both substance and procedure.
At approximately the same time, three other groups were becoming
increasingly active in New York State homeschooling. One was the New
York State Education Department which temporarily held off requiring
students who were learning at home to take the state tests; the
Department was considering imposing a more uniform statewide system on
home educators (addressing more than simply the testing issue). The
second group was the Home School Legal Defense Association; on behalf
of several families being represented by HSLDA in Family Court
educational neglect proceedings, HSLDA began a sweeping challenge in
Federal Court to the way in which homeschooling was administered in
New York State. The third group was the New York State School Boards
Association (NYSSBA); that group sought increased state regulation of
home education and became involved, on behalf of the school districts,
in the Federal litigation commenced by HSLDA.
After sending representatives to speak with home educators throughout
the state, the State Education Department appeared to ignore much of
what those home educators said to those representatives and proposed
regulations which would require standardized testing every year. Home
educators protested loudly. Soon therafter Mike Farris of HSLDA and a
representative of Loving Education at Home (LEAH - a statewide
fundamentalist Christian homeschooling organization ) met with
representatives of the New York State School Boards Association and
drafted regulations on which the three groups represented at that
meeting (HSLDA, LEAH, and NYSSBA) could agree. Mike then met with a
group of independent home educators and support group leaders to
discuss the alternative regulation he had helpped to draft. In many
respects that draft was preferable to the State Education Department
proposal, and many of the independent homeschoolers decided to go
along with it.
There was a great deal of concern among the independents about their
exclusion from the actual negotiations at the time the alternative
regulation was drafted. That concern grew even deeper when they were
excluded from meetings at which the draft regulation was presented to
the Commissioner of Education and his Counsel. The regulation was
supported by the upper levels of State Education Department staff and
approved by the State Board of Regents.
Within weeks of the adoption of the regulation, a small group of home
educators began meeting with many of the members of the Board of
Regents seeking an amendment to the new regulation which would allow
for alternatives to testing at all grade levels (the new regulation
required standardized testing at the fifth, seventh, and all high
school grade levels). Those individual "lobbying" efforts came very
close to succeeding, but the Regents put off the decision at the last
minute and then proved to be a lot cooler to the idea when it came
back to them.
Part of the reason the Regents cooled to the testing amendment was
that a new deputy commissioner in the Department indicated that he
would work with home educators, on an inclusive basis, to identify the
problems with the new regulations and that he would report to the
Regents on home education issues at the end of that school year. A
series of meetings were held between Education Department staff and
home educators from around the state, and the framework for a more
flexible regulation was negotiated by those participating in the
meetings. Unfortunately, the deputy commissioner was unable to
convince the commissioner to proceed with the regulation.
Here we are now, approximately two years after the framework for
regulatory changes was negotiated, with the HSLDA-NYSSBA regulation
still in effect and home educators throughout the state complaining of
unequal treatment, too much paperwork, inappropriate testing, and an
unduly adversarial dispute-resolution process. Reflecting on the past
three years, we see the following mistakes. The first mistake was in
not opposing strenuously the regulation developed by HSLDA and the
NYSSBA. Sure it was better substantively than what the State Education
Department proposed, but the price we paid was too high. We gave up
our autonomy rather than continuing to build a string coalition of New
York State home eduators. We accepted what was given to us from
outside of the state's homeschooling community rather than working for
what we wanted from within that community. We accepted a short-term
solution, rather than paying attention to more important questions of
process which left us seriously disempowered in the long run.
We compounded our problems by then relying on the State Education
Department to bring us together. While it was not necessarily a
mistake to meet with the Department staff to discuss changes to the
regulation and other issues affecting home educators, it was certainly
a mistake to have no altenative forum for homeschoolers to meet and
discuss issues of importance to them. When the Department staff
members ran into a brick wall in trying to advance the negotiated
framework, we were firmly strapped next to them. Sounds like the same
mistake all over again. Allowing someone else to do our work for us,
we virtually assured it would not be done the way we wanted.
Where are we now? This past fall unaffiliated support groups and
individual home educators from throughout New York State formed the
Home Eduation Network of New York. Our personal resolve in joining
this effort was that homeschoolers should work with other groups and
agencies to ameliorate the situation for home eduators in the state,
but must no longer allow themselves to become dependent on any of
those groups or agencies. Unifying home educators from around the
state has proven to be more difficult than we would ever have
imagined. This is truly diverse and strong-willed group of
individuals. But at some level, we all seem to realize that we have
the capacity to accomplish much more working together than we will
ever accomplish by our sporadic and uncoordinated efforts as
individuals. And we also realize that we are the only ones on whom we
can rely to do this job the way we want it done.
Sincerely, Seth Rockmuller,
Katharine Houk, R.D. 1, Box 172E,
East Chatham, New York 12060
NATIONAL
"Every movement attracts some people who are motivated by a need for
power, and when such people manage to work their way into positions of
leadership they typically confuse their personal needs withthe needs
of the movement. Frequently, the result is that the original goals of
the organization are subverted, and its original reasons for being are
forgotten. We should be suspicious of anybody who claims to be a
homeschooling "expert" - there are none - or who puts him or herself
forward to speak for homeschoolers in general. We need to be as wary of
self-promoting, coercive forces in the homeschooling movement as we
are of experts, professional educators and politicians in general.
Homeschooling organizations shouldn't be allowed to become our shadow
versions, so to speak, of state offices of education.
It's important that homeschooling parents reassert their independence
and let others - in education, government, and the media - know that
they are homeschooling for educational reasons and not in order to help
a few narrowminded empire builders promote their political agendas."
David and Micki Colfax
California, March/April, 1991
NATIONAL
"The National Center for Home Eduation has made it clear that its
political agenda includes much more than homeschooling. It actively
involves itself in politically right-wing issues that are not related
to homeschooling, and we can't in good conscience support an
organization that seeks to identify homeschooling with one particular
political group."
Patrick Farenga
Growing Without Schooling #76
August, 1990
ALABAMA
Dear Mark and Helen,
It is with a great deal of trepidation that I address this letter to
you, dealing with the issue of the formation of various splinter
groups each with a narrow xenophobic view of homeschooling. Since this
has been avery real and personal issue to Lee and I here in Alabama,
and one we have finally laid to rest, I am not terribly eager to
re-open those wounds.
We are in a rather unique position, having one of us on either side of
the Christian/non-Christian demarcation. That being so, we are
nonetheless both on the same side when it comes to the issue of
*unity* among homeschoolers. Because, after all, the issue is
*homeschooling* (or so it would seem),
Wiser men than I have coined the phrase "United we stand, divided we
fall," but it would seem that not all people see the wisdom in these
words. These are the people who are convinced that they do not need
anyone else as long as "God is on our side." The only problem is there
is no unilateral agreement whose God it is. The general assumption is
that it is the Christian God, but then the problem lies with which
brand of Christian you choose to supply the God. Is it the evangelical
'born again' God, the Catholic God, the Mormon God, the Seventh Day
Adventist God, the Jehovah's Witness God, the Presbyterian God,
Methodist, Unitarian, Episcopal... or what? Among any of these groups
the understanding is that they have a lock on the truth when it comes
to any other subject as well. It is therefore their benevolent duty to
lead the other people who would otherwise flounder about in a state of
blindness, like sightless cave fish blundering here and there.
The major problem with this entire scenario is that there will always
be those in the organization who will profit from the willingness of
others to be led by the nose. This may be a financial profit, an
emotional profit, or one of power and prestige. The motivation
remains the same, that of gain for a particular individual, group, or
philosophy, generally at the expense of the central strength of the
homeschooling movement. That strength is the diversity and individual
freedom that it presents to the disparate participants, for
homeschooling is the penultimate source of personal power, second only
to the concept of individual choice and self determination.
Until there is a serious threat to the homeschooling community as a
whole there will continue to be forces arrayed to divide the ranks of
the movement. This is natural, and in fact evident in most all causes.
There is nothing like a "bogey-man" to galvanize a group of people
towards a cohesive union designed for self-preservation. Until such a
specter rears its head, we will continue to fight this same battle,
trying to counter the propaganda and religio-political machinations of
the ones who would take homeschooling and mold it to their own design.
Phil Gonet
Route 3, Box 37-B
Tallasooc, Alabama 36078
Homeschooling Rights and Responsibilities: ARE WE LOSING THEM?
by Becky Olson
Many of us, in our complacency, have come to believe we have the right
to homeschool our children. That is true. We do have that right. Along
with that privilege is the responsibility involved in home education.
And many of us have dealt with that, too. We know we have taken upon
ourselves the privilege and obligation to educate our chidren in the
best possible way. Amen. So simple, right?
Wrong, It isn't that simple. Among homeschoolers, who I have always
believed were the new freedom fighters, a great schism has occurred.
Many people have failed to understand the connection between privilege
and responsibility. They are freedom fighters in name only. Instead of
letting the school superintendent tell them how to educate their
children, they are letting the homeschool leadership of a
neightborhood, city, state, or national assembly tell them how to
educate their children.
I see many people falling into the trap of believing they are
educating their children when, in fact, they have turned over their
liberty to some other authority figurehead. People who have shown
great spirit and have worked through much difficulty to regain custody
of their children from the school system are being convinced to again
allow some other bureaucracy make the decisions concerning the who,
when, and why of their family life and education.
Many of these organizations are encouraging people to turn over their
own personal power. They are encouraging their constituency to let
the alliance make decisions, let the group design the system of
education best suited for their children. Membership is encouraged to
"trust" the leadership to "know" what is best for the collective
associates. Member input and options are kept to a minimum. The
leadership makes all decisions and passes these decisions down to the
membership.
I see two different bands: those that wish to maintain control over
the decisions that affect their families, and those opting to give
that control to their local, state, or national homeschooling
association. The people, the individual, has the power, the right, the
responsibility to make decisions for themselves. No matter how hard an
association tries to convince the individual s/he doesn't have that
freedom, or the information to make a choice, the individual does have
the power, In our complacency, we have allowed the government, in its
many forms, to convince us we are not capable of making certain
decisions.
We have been happy to give up the opportunity to make some choices
because we hon't want the responsibility that goes along with it. "If
I send may child to school, and the child doesn't learn, I am not
responsible for his/her illiteracy. It is the school's fault s/he
hasn't learned." The parent gives up the power, the particulars of the
child's education and also the responsibility for the education. It's
a nice safe package. "They" can be blamed - and given the credit - for
the child's education. The parent is absolved of the responsibility.
Or so the bureaucracy would have us believe. That's not the truth.
Deep down inside, each of us knows this. The parent is always
ultimately responsible for the child. An the parent knows what is best
for his or her own child.
We have worked hard in many states to keep from answering to a state
bureaucracy about the curriculum we use, or don't use. Many have
worked to have testing abolished or at least minimized. All of these
efforts were done to expand the parameters of the homeschooling
family's personal options. Again, so many individuals are giving up
those hard fought for freedoms by turning over those same personal
choices to an organized grouip. They are allowing an association to
decide which curriculums, which books, which tests, which suppport
networks have their approval, and can be used. Without questioning
this, families are accepting these arbitrary decisions. Without
meeting any of the members of this or that support network the state
or national group's endoesement tells me if I do or don't want to
meet these individuals.
Homeschoolers are leaders, not followers. Homeschoolers have chosen to
take the responsibility for their own lives. They do not defy
authority, they question it. We must recognize that these privileges
we have worked so hard to establish concerning education are
individual and personal. These liberties are part of the freedoms
included in the framework of our founding fathers (and mothers)
declaration of independence. Freedoms so important that thousands
have, and continue to, risk their lives to establish and preserve
them. When any sect sets itself up to define these rights, sets itself
up to choose these rights, sets itself up to take the responsibility
of the outcome of the enactment of those rights for us, we have lost
everything we have struggled so long and hard for.
Homeschoolers! Recognize the "organization" of homeschooling for what
it is - an attempt to control and manipulate our choices for the
greater glory of the organization's leadership. The power of these
groups is not drawn from the combined freedom of the membership. It
is created by diminishing the individual members' autonomy. All that
is accomplished by these highly organized contigents is not done to
provide independence for the membership, it is done to bring tighter
control over the membership, to diminish even further the freedoms of
the members, and to ultimately escalate the power of the leadership.
Accept the responsibility for your freedom. Examine what is given to
you. Question decisions made for you. Take the leap of faith - trust
your own instincts. Only you can make the best decisions for yourself
and your family. Stand up and be counted as an individual supporting
your own and others' privileges and responsibilities. History has
shown us repeatedly that when we allow the autonomy of any society to
be diminished, more and more is taken from that group. When we
contribute to the schism of the national homeschooling community, we
contribute to the erosion of the independence of the homeschooling
community at large. If the highly structured organizations allow the
freedoms of the unstructured coalitions to be taken away, soon the
freedoms of the structured alliance will be attacked.
The time has come for homeschoolers to stop arguing among themselves
and join together to protect the freedom of all people. We must
protect the opportunity to choose public eduation, private education,
structured homeschooling, unstructured homeschooling, religiously
based homeschooling and secular based homeschooling. If we allow
anyone's choices to be diminished, we allow our own choices to be
compromised.
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was
a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left
to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemoller
Bitter Pill-ars To Swallow
An Essay About Service, Ethics, and Personal Empowerment
by Linda Winkelried-Dobson
You'd like Doc Preston, too. Short in stature, a giant in heart, he's
a pediatrician par excellence. No white jackets here; his casual
sweater and shoes remind you he's a person first and foremost, yet
still as professional as the next guy.
Welfare kids and the sons and daughters of rich businessmen - black,
white, yellow and brown - are greeted with the same smile, respect,
and sense of awe all children deserve.
When first he became my new pediatricain when I was thirteen, I
thought him an old coot, asking all those personal questions instead
of just taking my blood pressure and temperature. I'm still amazed at
how much he learned between then and the birth of my first child
twelve years later. Though many years and many more miles separate us,
Doc Preston shines as a beacon by which I measure the light of the
heart and soul of all professionals. Today it takes just one visit to
discover whether a practice is Hippocratical - or hypocritical. Men
and women as selfless and dedicated as he in homeschooling are the
first I'd bestow the title of "pillar" on. Funny, isn't it though, but
folks like Doc Preston would shun the title, anyway.
And what of self-appointed pillars? It's a title that feeds the ego;
Doc Preston's ego faded long ago. It's a title that begs respect; Doc
Preston earns his. It's a title that serves its bearer as a shield;
Doc Preston has nothing to hide.
What bothers me most about hiding behind words like pill-ar and
Christian is not the terms, but that which I discover is being hid -
lies, fraud, slander, and a divide-and-conquer methodology reminiscent
of the most evil, hostile takeovers in recent history.
Normally, I' say any group who needs to stoop to such duplicity to
gain power doesn't warrant attention - they usually die by their own
hand. But this group preys on the most powerful emotions and
vulnerabilities of humanity; ignorance (that of the new homeschooler
seeking service), greed (I want my child to have/be the best), and
most viciously, fear (don't mingle with the heathens!).
Think about it. You're a new homeschooler and you hear of a workshop
within travelling distance. You gladly dig into your pocket and plop
down money to hear what the "expert" has to say. He says you must
spend thousands of dollars for a proper home education. You believe
him. And he just happens to have thousands of dollare worth of
material to sell you.
Or how about the attorney, well-versed in state regulation, who has
raised fear mongering to an art form? He tells you your state
regulations are fine today, but "we've got trouble brewing right here
in River City." He just happens to sell insurance to "protect" you.
Do you buy?
I've got nothing against people making a buck. But any pill-ar forced
down my throat is a bitter pill-ar, indeed. Particularly at a time
when humankind's very survival depends heavily on unity, cooperation,
and our ability to raise ethics and service above profit. Those of us
who oppose separatism and exclusivism must speak out to protect the
service, ethics, and personal empowerment in which we place our
trust.
It seems the moment we put our faith in experts in any profession, the
fees increases in direct proportion. Personal energy, and thus,
ability, dissipate. Our own energy mingles with theirs, and theirs
grows beyond energy to explode in power. Are not the queer politics of
power merely representative of the price for relieving ourselves of
the obligation, responsibility, and constant vigilance personal power
requires?
Perhaps the most bitter pill-ar to swallow is the justification
offered by taking scripture passages out of contex, further distorting
the beautiful truths Christ taught 2000 years ago. My patience wears
thin with folks who don't know me or my family, who don't comprehend
me or my homeschooling purpose, and who don't care to do either, yet
they profess to validate my political beliefs through absurd public
statements, create regulations that have me contemplating moving out
of my state, and hold on their shoulders the weight of a burden I long
ago chose to bear myself. I don't want justification - I want truth.
When a publication refuses to consider my writing because I will not
sign a statement of faith, I choke on that pill-ar. There is nothing
Christ-like about closed minds, closed doors, closed policies, or
closed hearts. Indeed, these states are anti-Christ and go against the
very fiber of His message of understanding, compassion, acceptance,
and love. Bitter pill-ars gag, separating us from the life-sustaining
joy of free thought, feelings, and deeds accomplished in love.
I see quacks prescribing miracle "pill-ars" for every homeschool
growing pain, searching for a way to capitalize on any suffering it may
be causing, getting so lost in the opportunities for power they
represent that, at best, the good of the movement is lost in both mind
and heart. At worst, the good of the movement as a whole is never even
considered.
For if it were, what would be their Christ-like response? Would it
not embody truth instead of lies, guidance instead of dictatorship,
giving instead of receiving, unity instead of divisiveness?
I remember Doc Preston getting us through 3 cases of chicken pox, 10
bouts of the flu, and at least a dozen ear infections via Ma Bell,
because he share his wisdom via the 6:30-7:30 AM call-in hour, saving
patients countless time and expense if an office visit wasn't really
necessary. He taught me how to mix a batch of home-made cough syrup
which worked just as well as store bought, yet was healthier and safer
to administer. When I called him not long after we moved away because
the kids were sick and I had yet to find competent medical care, he
spent half an hour reminding and assuring me that I, too, possess the
knowledge and love necessary to see them through.
This, my friends, is the kind of person the homeschooling movement
needs, and in fact, already has. I, along with folks all across the
country, field innumerable phone calls every day, sharing information
and a warm, loving approach with anyone who asks. Just yesterday a
woman returned a stack of books and magazines I loaned her because she
intends to begn homeschooling her oldest in the fall. Just in time,
too, because a teacher's college student in Rochester is scheduled to
call this evening for information he needs for a paper he's preparing
on the subject. Is there fame? Profit? A title? No, there's a greater
reward - the joy of Christ-like service, not in name, but in deed.
Thanks, pill-ars, but you're too hard to swallow. I'll continue
seeking out the Doc Prestons of the world. And we'll continue building
the solid foundation that makes pillars not only unnecessary, but
tastelessly ostentatious. Personal empowerment - sharing what we have
and know freely with others, and turning to true friends who do the
same in our time of need - is working just dandy. Maybe you should try
it.