Government bureaucrats make themselves at home with homeschoolers
Marnie Ko - June 14, 2004
Anita Kosovic pulled her son Nathaniel, now 10, out of school at the end of June 2002 because he was unhappy with his peers, most of whom, she says, were kids with behavioural problems. So, at the start of the new school year in September, Nathaniel began learning at home, through the U-Connect Program offered by the Langley, B.C., school district. Kosovic thought she was joining the ranks of the estimated 60-80,000 Canadian parents who homeschool their kids. U-Connect had even billed itself as "a school for homeschoolers." In a way, it was the best of both worlds. Every week, her son spent an hour-and-a-half at a nearby public school for extracurricular activities, her family received about $600 to help pay for supplies and books, and she could give her son the attention he needed and determine the appropriate curriculum for him.
Only she couldn't. Because in January, sixteen months after starting the UConnect program, Kosovic discovered that, in the eyes of the B.C. government, Nathaniel is actually a ward of the public system, even though the majority of his learning occurs at home with his mother. Under U-Connect, Kosovic is merely a "facilitator," according to the B.C. Ministry of Education, not his primary teacher. Now, Kosovic says the Langley school district misled her, along with some of the nearly 130 other families who signed on with U-Connect. And Langley isn't the only district where the phrase "homeschooling" is being co-opted by public boards. About 146 families with Abbotsford Electronic School (AES)--a distance education program which, according to the school district's website, "links Home Schoolers with Ministry of Education courses"--are also technically under the control of the public board. The upshot is that parents who believed they would be able to fully direct their children's education are now being told what they can and cannot teach. Specifically, says Kosovic, she has been ordered not to use faith-based teaching materials as part of the curriculum. "They can't tell me what to teach in my own home," she says.
In B.C., homeschoolers who want to independently control their children's education--religious content included or not--can. All they need to do is register--inform a school board that they will be educating their children autonomously in accordance with sections 12 and 13 of the B.C. School Act--and be willing to settle for far less in terms of funding. On the other hand, if children are "enrolled," they are known as "home-based" students. They are required to follow the B.C. provincial curriculum, and receive a provincial diploma upon graduation. The pupil also brings almost $5,500 worth of provincial funding to the enrolling school, while a district receives only $250 per homeschooled child. When a cap on distance learning enrollment levels was lifted in September 2002, school districts were inundated with applicants for Internet-enabled education programs. And with the funding that followed, the boards were more than eager to oblige--perhaps a little too eager. Kosovic says she only signed up after being assured she would be considered her child's primary teacher.
Home educators in the U.S. say that Canadian parents are finding out what they've known for years: that affiliating kids in any way with public schools enables government officials to dictate what parents teach. And experience shows that the more public money parents take, the further state authorities will encroach into the home-based classroom.
The often confusing distinction between homeschoolers and kids who are educated at home has been tripping up parents in the U.S. for the last 10 years, says Ann Lahrson Fisher, the Washington State-based news and commentary editor for Home Education Magazine . "Every year, there are angry parents who did not realize they were giving up their child's homeschool status."
B.C. programs, such as U-Connect and AES, attract parents because they qualify for more funding--a lot more. About $600 per child, versus the $125 to $200 received by traditional, parent-directed homeschoolers in that province. They also, in effect, make "the home an extension of the public school classroom," explains Corinna Filion, B.C. Education Ministry spokesman. While this is not a new policy, it came as news to B.C. parents recently. An April 22 Vancouver Sun headline squawked, "Religious materials banned for B.C. home schooling." The story went on to say that "homeschooling parents were fuming" after they were ordered by the B.C. Education Ministry to stop using faith-based materials and "unofficial" resources at home. In reality, it wasn't homeschooling parents being affected at all, but, rather, parents like Kosovic, whose children, learning through distance education at home, are considered enrolled in the public system. The latest draft of the proposed revised Alberta home education regulation, due to be enacted later this year, makes a distinction between children doing public school work at home, and home education delivered by parents, with the former requiring higher levels of accountability and reporting by parents.
In the end, parents need to realize the state is required to hold accountable anyone who receives taxpayer dollars, points out the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) in a newsletter to parents. "The flip side of the 'free benefits' coin is not Lady Liberty--it's a door to increased 'accountability checks': certified teacher oversight, curriculum approval, mandatory testing, and sometimes, even home inspections," notes the Virginia-based organization, which has a branch in Medicine Hat, Alta. It adds that such scrutiny essentially squelches what they consider one of the main benefits of home education--the flexibility to accommodate each child's learning style and interests. In the U.S., about 30 states already prohibit public schools and public school-funded programs from using any materials not secular in nature.
Some parents think the ban on religious materials is extreme, even with regard to home-based schoolers being monitored by public boards. Paul Jeffrey, a Calgary oil and gas lawyer, and father of four homeschooled children, says that even though home-based learners fall within the public system's authority, it's unnecessary to ban religious lessons. Historically, he notes, governments have disallowed faith in the classroom for fear that it would impose one set of beliefs on children over another. "In the B.C. U-Connect program, any pupils receiving faith-based instruction are receiving it in their homes, not in any group context that might alarm other parents," says Jeffrey, who serves on the Board of Directors of the Alberta Home Education Association. But banning religious materials outright, even when there is no potential risk of offending or influencing anyone outside the family, suggests that, as Jeffrey puts it, the "B.C. government is opposed to children receiving any faith instruction."