Homeschooling and Child Abuse: A Response to Recent Media Reports In recent months, homeschooling has received a double whammy in major media outlets. CBS Evening News presented a two-part segment titled "The Dark Side of Homeschooling" (Oct. 13 and 14, 2003). The New York Times published an editorial headlined "Make Homeschooling Safe for Children" (Nov. 15, 2003). Articles and reports are appearing in smaller and less influential media venues, as well.
The CBS report presented cases of child abuse in homeschooling families, focusing on the murder-suicide of three children in North Carolina. The Times editorial highlighted the near starvation of adopted foster children in New Jersey. Both CBS and The Times called for greater regulation of homeschooling to protect children from potential abuse.
The media reports concluded that the abuse in these cases was connected to homeschooling, even though they offered no studies or data to show that homeschooled children are more likely to be abused than children attending school. The reports based their editorializing on the allegation that homeschooling families can hide abuse of children better than families whose children are enrolled in school. However, in both the North Carolina and New Jersey cases, the families were observed and reported on by community members, and the homes had been visited several times by social service agencies. Therefore, they were not hidden, and the assertion that families use homeschooling to hide abuse is an unproven theory. Since social services had already been notified by sources in the community, and had already observed the conditions in the homes on more than one occasion, it is highly unlikely that increased homeschooling regulation would have protected these children.
After examining the relevant issues and facts, a question remains. Why did reputable news organizations like CBS and The Times, in their editorializing about the issue, choose to exclude well-known and extremely pertinent facts about the cases in New Jersey and North Carolina? Had these relevant facts been included, the sensationalistic leap that these families were "hiding," and the subsequent allegation that all homeschooling children may be in danger, could not have been made. Is the abuse non-issue a ruse to regulate homeschooling for other reasons? Where might this pressure for increased regulation be coming from, and where might it lead? We don't have answers to these questions now, but homeschoolers need to be aware of them, keep abreast of the facts and the issues, and be prepared to respond.
We may encounter friends, neighbors, or family members concerned because of the media reports. At some point, we may face challenges to our homeschooling freedoms, and legislation or suggestions of legislation intended to address the issue of preventing child abusers from using homeschooling as a cover. Here are points to consider regarding what is sure to be an ongoing discussion in the media, our personal lives, and the legal arena.
Don't muddy the issues First and foremost, homeschooling and child abuse are separate issues. Attempts to link the two lack any basis in fact. While there may be homeschooling parents who abuse their children, children are not abused because they are homeschooled. There is no de facto connection between child abuse and homeschooling.
Any regulation specifically focusing on preventing child abuse among homeschoolers would ignore the fact that child abuse occurs in the general population, not just in the homeschooling population. Parents of school children and preschoolers are not singled out for special observation. Background checks, home visits, and other invasions of privacy have been suggested as forms of regulation. Singling out a subset of parents for special observation on the basis of suspicion of abuse would be discriminatory. Mere suspicion does not constitute justification for increasing regulation across the board.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Homeschooling parents should not need to prove they are innocent of abusing their children as a condition for freely exercising their parental rights in education. The right to homeschool is recognized by every state in the country. Child abuse is a criminal act, and laws against it exist. Properly enforced, these laws should be sufficient to prosecute abusers and protect children. It may well be more productive and protective of children to examine the social service systems that failed the children in North Carolina and New Jersey than to increase homeschool regulation.
The highest courts in our nation have repeatedly shown regard for parental rights. Wisconsin v. Yoder declared in 1972 that the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 at 232. Our own Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld parental rights in Care and Protection of Charles & others, 399 Mass. 324 (1987), which stresses that state regulation cannot be excessive in order not to infringe on the liberty interests of the parents, and may only exist to satisfy the state's interest in the education of its citizenry.
The vast majority of parents act in the best interest of their children, an assertion with which the US Supreme Court agrees. In Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584 (1979), the Supreme Court stated, "That some parents 'may at times be acting against the interests of their children' creates a basis for caution, but is hardly a reason to discard wholesale those pages of human experience that teach that parents generally do act in the child's best interests The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." Another Supreme Court case, Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) states: "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602"
Will knee-jerk calls for regulation address the alleged problem? Regulation is not a panacea. It does not always solve the problems it intends to solve, and in this case there is no compelling reason to believe that it would address the concern of homeschoolers abusing their children. In order to be responsible to all taxpayers, cost effectiveness of the regulation would have to be determined before implementation. Excessive homeschooling regulation would inevitably represent a large cost to struggling school districts, without any guarantee of uncovering hidden cases of abuse. School officials mandated to investigate homeschoolers specifically to screen out abuse (as opposed to their current mandate to report suspected abuse of any child in the general population) would likely err on the side of caution, resulting in fruitless investigations of parents legitimately caring for their children, and incurring greater costs for overburdened social service agencies.
And what kinds of regulation could or would prevent abuse anyway? Most child abusers abuse only their own children, so a background check would be ineffective. Home visits to check for evidence of abuse would require school officials to act in a capacity for which they do not have the legal authority or training. There are many people with whom homeschoolers come in contact (physicians, nurses, clergy, police, etc.), who are mandated reporters in the state. And while teachers and school administrators are mandated reporters, too, this doesn't stop abuse of school children now, leaving no reason to believe that giving school officials increased oversight would prevent abuse of homeschooled children. If more regulation is meant to be "pro-child," but causes false allegations of child abuse, DSS investigations, and other intrusions into family life, what is the cost to the children in dealing with the emotional stress involved?
The truism that hard cases make bad law applies here. Legislation based on hypothetical and rare abuse situations would be bad law, putting financial and other burdens on states, schools, and social service agencies, and violating the rights and privacy of homeschooling families.
What's really going on? Given that logical, fair, and unbiased reporting could not have concluded that the North Carolina and New Jersey families were hidden, what might be the motivation behind the editorializing on CBS and in The Times? We can only speculate about this question, but doing so is important in trying to understand the larger picture involved in media coverage of calls for regulation. It is also inextricably linked to the important question of who benefits from increased regulation of homeschooling.
Teachers' unions have long opposed homeschooling, claiming that parents are not qualified to teach children, and that homeschoolers would not be properly socialized. Homeschooling has become a well-established, successful, and viable educational option. In the face of satisfactory standardized test scores, the welcoming of homeschooled students by colleges and universities, and the presence of homeschoolers in community organizations of every kind, these arguments fall flat. Since teachers' unions continue to oppose homeschooling, it's logical to imagine that they might seek new ways to criticize a movement that they perceive as a threat to a struggling public education system.
We also know that corporations peddling electronic grade school and high school curricula are creating publicly funded cyber charter schools that are being marketed to homeschoolers. Once enrolled in a program such as this, a homeschooler falls under the same regulatory requirements as a public schooler. Although the representatives of companies who manufacture electronic curricula say they favor decreased regulation as it applies to public schools (so they may have the freedom to market their wares in that arena), increased regulation for homeschoolers could help them sell their product by playing to the public's fear that homeschoolers need more oversight. To the general public unaware of the benefits of independent homeschooling, enrolling in a cyber charter school may appear as a more acceptable option by rendering families superficially more "visible" than families who choose to create their own educational plans. Because cyber charter school users are receiving public monies, they are inevitably and by necessity more regulated than independent homeschoolers. It is possible that e-schools may increasingly be seen as a solution to the perceived problem of homeschool under-regulation, and that homeschoolers themselves may see these programs as a way to appear more "visible" and avoid suspicion. Thus, increased regulation of homeschooling could be a boon to the burgeoning e-school industry. It is prudent to keep this in mind and do what we can to ensure that business and financial interests don't capitalize on or benefit from media sensationalism at the expense of homeschoolers.
In imagining the unfolding of sensationalistic reporting focusing on the dangerous and dark sides of home-schooling, the phenomenon of media hype cannot be ignored. In their zeal to scoop a story and create news that sells, media outlets engage in less than exemplary journalism on a regular basis. The monkey see, monkey do concept plays into this as well, as media outlets often pick up stories from each other. It is possible that CBS simply pounced on what they knew they could twist into a juicy story, and other stations and newspapers followed suit.
What should concerned homeschoolers do about child abuse? Any responsible citizen is naturally concerned about child abuse. Opposing increased homeschool regulation designed to screen for child abusers does not translate into a lack of concern for children. What occurred in North Carolina and New Jersey is tragic, but school officials, had they been involved, would only have reported the families to social services. Since social services had repeated dealings with both families, it seems quite clear that increased regulation would have done nothing to spare the children. Based on all available evidence, increased regulation of homeschoolers would not prevent child abuse. It is inadvisable based on all the reasons cited above.
The issue these media reports raise is a highly-charged one. The thought of children undergoing such heinous treatment understandably riles people. Given the emotional nature of the issue, it is especially vital that any response to the question of whether homeschooling should be regulated to prevent the potential abuse of children be carefully thought out. Knee jerk calls for regulation will do nothing to help children, and will only be detrimental to the homeschooling movement, which has shown itself to be a positive contribution to our society.
As homeschoolers concerned about our rights and about the welfare of children, what can we do? We can keep the distinction between homeschooling and child abuse clear. We can support existing laws designed to protect children. We can be vigilant about outside interests looking to capitalize on homeschooling. We can continue to put forth positive information about homeschooling to counteract the criticisms generated by its opponents. If we have definitive evidence that a family, homeschooling or not, is abusing their children, we can respond as any concerned citizen would. And we can continue to remind people that protecting our right to educate our children at home without excessive government intervention is not at odds with the general welfare of children, and is, in fact, an essential component in maintaining the values of freedom on which our society is based.
© 2004 Advocates for Home Education in Massachusetts · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED · Permission to copy and distribute this article is hereby granted provided it is copied in its entirety, used for informational and non-commercial purposes, and includes the copyright notice and this permission notice on all copies.