Written evidence submitted by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA)

 

 

House of Commons Education Committee

Response to

Call for Evidence

 

 

Comment in Support of Home Education

__________________________________________________

 

 

Michael P. Donnelly, J.D., LL.M.

Submitted October 28, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Contents

Table of Authorities

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

ARGUMENT

I.              The right to home education is protected by international human rights instruments as a right possessed by both children and their parents.

A.              The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a parental right to educational decision-making, including home education.

B.              Binding human rights instruments and international norms protect home education.

1.              The ICCPR protects a parental right to educational decision-making.

2.              Not protecting home education would violate the ICESCR, which protects the right to education through a means selected by parents, including through home education.

3.              The UN CRC protects a child’s right to alternative forms of education including the right to home education.

C.              Numerous international jurisdictions recognize the right to home education freely.  England should too.

1.              The United States protects home education at both the federal and state levels

II.              Homeschooling Produces Well-Developed and Socialized Adults

A.              Homeschooling has become a mainstream movement in the United States

B.              Homeschooling produces well socialized adults

C.              Homeschooled Students Are Academically Successful

Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

APPENDIX I

JURISDICTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGULATING

HOME EDUCATION AS A RECOGNIZED FORM OF PRIVATE SCHOOLING

APPENDIX II

INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTIONS RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO

HOME EDUCATION BY STATUTE, CONSTITUTION, OR COMMITTEE RULING

APPENDIX III

German Constitutional Committee Decision

In Re Konrad


Table of Authorities

Cases

Care and Protection of Charles, 399 Mass. 324 , 337-340 (1987).              17

Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. 372 (1893).              17

People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574 (1950),              17

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)              17

Shoreline Sch. Dist., 346 P.2d 999, 1002 (Wash. 1959).              18

State v. Peterman, 70 N.E. 550, 551 (Ind. 1904)              17

Other Authorities

Alan Scher Zagier, Colleges Coveting Home-Schooled Students, AP, September 30, 2006              24

Brian D. Ray Home educated and now adults: Their community and civic involvement, views about homeschooling, and other traits (Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute, 2004)              20, 21, 28

Brian D. Ray, A nationwide study of home education: Family characteristics, legal matters, and student achievement (Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute, 1990); Research Project. Home School Researcher, 6(4), 1-7; (1990)              25

Brian D. Ray, Academic Achievement and Demographic Traits of Homeschool Students: A Nationwide Study, Academic Leadership Live: The Online Journal, 8 no. 1 (February 2010)              25

Brian D. Ray, Home education in Oklahoma: Family characteristics, student achievement, and policy matters, National Home Education Research Institute (Salem, OR, 1992)              26

Brian D. Ray, Home schooling: The ameliorator of negative influences on learning? Peabody Journal of Education 75(1 & 2), 71, 83, 90 (2000)              25, 27

Catherine E. Snow, Wendy S. Barnes, Jean Chandler, Irene F. Goodman, & Lowry Hemphill, Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy 2-3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991)              27

Clive R Belfield, Home-schoolers: How well do they perform on the SAT for college admission? in Bruce S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; Galloway, 2005)              28

Deani Van Pelt. The choices families make: Home schooling in Canada comes of age, Frasier Forum, March 2004              25

Elaine Regus, UC Riverside a leader in courting home-schooled students, The Press-Enterprise, November 23, 2007              24

Gary Neil Marks, Are father's or mother's socioeconomic characteristics more important influences on student performance? Recent international evidence. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 293-309, (January 2008)              26

Georgina Gustin, Home-school numbers growing, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 3, 2007              24

Gordon Dahl & Lance Lochner, The impact of family income on child achievement. Discussion Paper No. 1305-05, Institute for Research on Poverty, 2005              27

House of Commons, Home education in England, Briefing Paper, Number 5108, 24 July 2019.  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05108/.  Accessed October 7, 2020.              vii

Howard B. Richman, William Girten, & Jay Snyder, Academic achievement and its relationship to selected variables among Pennsylvania homeschoolers, Home School Researcher, 6(4), 9, 13, (1990)              26

James S. Coleman & Thomas Hoffer, Public and private high schools: The impact of communities Chapter 5 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc, 1987)              27

Jennie F. Rakestraw, Home schooling in Alabama, Home School Researcher, 4(4), 1, 5 (1988)              25

Joan Ellen Havens, A study of parent education levels as they relate to academic achievement among home schooled children. Doctoral (Ed.D.) dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth TX (1991)              26

Jon Wartes, The relationship of selected input variables to academic achievement among Washington's homeschoolers. (Woodinville, WA, September 1990)              27

Lawrence M. Rudner, Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(8). (1999)              25, 26, 27, 28

Lindsey Burke, Academic Achievement of Home-schooled Students: Literature Review, April 2020, Education Freedom Institute Working Paper. http://efinstitute.org/academic-achievement-of-home-schooled-students-literature-review/. Accessed October 7, 2020.              26

Once Again Home-schoolers Score High on the ACT Exam, HSLDA, July 31, 2007              28

Oregon Department of Education, Office of Student Services, Annual report of home school statistics 1998-99 (Salem, OR. May 20, 1999)              25

Patrick Basham, John Merrifield & Claudia R. Hepburn, Home Schooling: From The Extreme To The Mainstream, 2nd ed 6, The Fraser Institute 2007              24

Paul Jones & Gene Gloeckner, First-Year College Performance: A Study of Home School Graduates & Traditional School Graduates, Journal of College Admission 183 (Spr. 2004), at 17, 20              28

Paula Wasley, Home-Schooled Students Rise in Supply and Demand, The Chronicle of Higher Education 54(7), 1, (Oct. 12, 2007)              24

Rhonda A. Galloway & Joe P. Sutton, Home schooled and conventionally schooled high school graduates: A comparison of aptitude for and achievement in college English, Home School Researcher, 11(1), 1-9 (1995)              28

Rhonda A. Galloway, “Home Schooled Adults: Are They Ready for College?,” in American Educational Research Association (San Francisco: 1995)              21

Richard G. Medlin, Homeschooled Children’s Social Skills, Home School Researcher 17(1), 1-8, (2006)              23

Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D., Homeschooling and the Question of Socialization Revisited, Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 88, Issue 3, 2013              19, 23

Richard G. Medlin, The Question of Socialization, Peabody Journal of Education 75(1 & 2), 107-123, 117, (2000)              21, 22

Scott White, et al., Emotional, Social & Academic Adjustment to College: A Comparison Between Christian Home Schooled & Traditionally Schooled College Freshman, Home School Researcher 17(4), 1-7, (2007)              21, 23

Scott White, Megan Moore, and Josh Squires, Examination of Previously Homeschooled College Students with the Big Five Model of Personality, Home School Researcher 25(1), 1-7, (2009)              22

Tanya K. Dumas, Sean Gates, & Deborah Schwarzer, “Evidence for Homeschooling: Constitutional Analysis in Light of Social Science Research,” Widener Law Review (forthcoming)              19

Tennessee Department of Education. Tennessee statewide averages, home school student test results, Stanford Achievement Test, grades 2, 5, 7 and 9 (Nashville, TN, 1988)              25

Terry Russell, Cross-validation of a multivariate path analysis of predictors of home school student academic achievement, Home School Researcher, 10(1), 9, (1994)              27

Thomas C. Smedley, Socialization of Home School Children, Home School Researcher 8(3), 9-16, (1992)              21

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1.5 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2007, NCES 2009–030, December 2008              19

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education, from the National Houshold Education Surveys Program of 2012              19

Treaties

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.              viii

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967), 999 U.N.T.S. 171.              viii

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-19, 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.              viii

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948)              vii


INTEREST OF AUTHOR

 

              Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is a nonprofit advocacy organization with over 100,000 member families around the world, including Englan.  HSLDA provides legal counsel and advice to member families on compliance with homeschool regulations, lobbies for policies that respect the right of parents to choose homeschooling without unwarranted government interference and engages in litigation to protect the right to home education from infringement. The author of this comment, Michael P. Donnelly, holds a J.D. from the Boston University School of Law, and an LLM with a concentration in comparative constitutional and international human rights law from the London School of Economics.  Donnelly has published numerous articles and book chapters on the subjects of education and human rights and is an international travelled commentator on the subject with a particular emphasis on home education.

             

HSLDA and its over 100,000 members have a clear interest in protecting the international legal right to home educationBoth parents and children have rights in the educational context, and HSLDA is committed to protecting the right to home education for both children and their parents.  Whenever human rights are threatened, anywhere in the world, all just persons have the duty to protect those rights through whatever means is necessary to preserve human rights and the dignity of the human person.  Thus, HSLDA has a clear interest in protecting the rights of those in the United Kingdom whose right to home education is currently being questioned.

             

This comment is provided with the hope that it will provide more context and awareness to the Committee on the growing educational movement known as homeschooling.


SUMMARY OF COMMENT

 

The purpose of this submission is to discuss the human rights aspects of home education and to provide contextual information about the positive outcomes for children who are home educated.

England has a well-documented history of protecting the rights of parents to homeschool.  The Education act of 1996 requires that a “the parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and 

(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.  (Emphasis added). The House of Commons Research Briefing[1] estimates that over 50,000 children are registered.  However, since there is no requirement that children be registered the number of children receiving home education in England is likely much higher.

 

The right to home education falls well within the scope of any properly understood conception of the human right to education.  Both parents and children possess rights relevant to the right to home education; parents possess the right to direct the education of their children and children have a right to a meaningful education, including through private alternative means.  England has an opportunity to show great leadership as an emerging free and democratic society to this important and fundamental right in a constitutional context and in recognition of England’s international legal obligations.

 

              Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes a prior parental right to choose the type of education their children will receive.  A state’s authority to mandate that children receive a certain minimum level of education does not grant the state authority to dictate how that level of education will be provided.  While state parties may create educational systems to ensure that all children can receive education, state parties may not eliminate all other forms of education, as doing so would violate the prior right of parents to select the type of education their children will receive. 

              Several human rights instruments impose binding legal obligations upon England to protect the right to education, including the right to home education.  Article 18.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires state parties to respect the religious liberty of parents to make decisions regarding the religious or moral education of their children, which Article 4.2 of the ICCPR grants non-derogable status.  Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) goes even further by recognizing an individual right to send one’s children to a nonpublic school.  The right to home education falls within the meaning of Article 13 of the ICESCR, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Education made abundantly clear in his evaluation of Germany. 

 

              The ICESCR guarantees the right of individuals and groups to establish and direct educational institutions.  Home education and distance learning through advanced technology are both valid educational options, and they are particularly important in economically disadvantaged areas that otherwise might not be able to provide sufficient education to comply with the child’s right to education.  The mere fact that a child is born in an economically disadvantaged area that has poor ‘traditional’ education options does not and cannot strip that child of his or her right to a meaningful education.  The ICESCR and other binding human rights instruments protect the right of parents to seek alternative means of educating their children, including through home education.

 

              The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) protects a child’s right to education, and requires governments to encourage the development of different forms of education and to make them accessible to every child.  This right to alternative forms of education clearly seeks to guarantee the right 1) to the best available education and 2) the right to a meaningful education, even if the child lives in an area with a deficit of quality educational institutions. 

 

              Numerous international jurisdictions recognize a right to home education.  The United States of America protects the right to home education at both the state and federal levels.  Multiple states treat home educating families as creating their own ‘schools’ for the purposes of complying with relevant educational regulations.  Likewise, a large number of countries recognize home education as a valid rightThe Canada, Australia, Russia, India, Ireland, France, South Africa and many others allow home education more or less freely. While no two regulatory schemes are the same, this proves that governments have the flexibility to determine the best and most effective way to allow their citizens to exercise their human rights. 

 

              Finally, home education has been demonstrated to be both positive academically and socially for children who graduate.  Research studies and anecdotal experience in the United States, and increasingly other countries, demonstrate how homeschooled students are well integrated and productive members in society after 40 plus years of experience and now with by far the world’s largest population of current and graduated homeschooled students.

45

 


 

DISCUSSION

I.                   The right to home education is protected by international human rights instruments as a right possessed by both children and their parents.

 

Although homeschooling (or synonymously, home education) is not mentioned explicitly as a human right in any human rights treaty, virtually all international human rights documents refer to rights of the individual to education as well as to the rights of parents or guardians to direct the education of their children.  The right to home education is clearly within the scope of this broadly protected right, as it is vital to ensuring that parents can make educational decisions to ensure that their children obtain the best possible education.  When properly interpreted, England’s international legal obligations also include protecting the right of children to a meaningful education, including through home education.  Failure to protect home education and other alternative forms of education strips children of this right and can harm the protection of this right for children in remote or economically disadvantaged areas who may not have access to high-quality ‘traditional’ schools.  States are bound to respect international human rights instruments that protect the right to education, and the right to home education is a logical and necessary element of that broader right.

This section examines four major sources of international human rights law and how they address education and the rights of parents.  Although there are numerous sources of human rights law which mention the right of education, four are of foundational importance to human rights: the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC.

 

 

A.    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a parental right to educational decision-making, including home education.

 

To determine whether home education ought to be included as a human right within the modern human rights system, we start by examining the UDHR which was created in response to the devastation and atrocities of World War II. Nearly 50 nations came together to create the United Nations (UN) whose founding members drafted a universal declaration of the rights they believed that civilized nations ought to protect (Cronin-Furman, 2009, p. 175, 176). With Eleanor Roosevelt as the Chair of the Committee on Drafting, the UDHR was adopted in 1948. The UDHR is a 30-article statement signed by every member of the United Nations and is considered the foundational human rights document in the modern international human rights framework. Although not a binding treaty, the UDHR is nonetheless a long list of the “rights,” both positive and negative, that the nations of the world consider important. It is an aspirational document that, though not binding, is an important foundation for understanding the scope of human rights. In relevant part, the UDHR provides as follows:

Article 26

1.  Everyone has the right to education.  Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.  Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.  It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

 

Since then virtually all governments have established a system of compulsory education at government-run education facilities as a means to fulfill the governmental duty to protect the right to education. Most countries with compulsory attendance laws make parents and/or children subject to state action unless exempted or excused by law. However, there is a significant difference between creating a compulsory education system and requiring compulsory attendance at a particular school.

 

The UDHR makes abundantly clear that parents have the prior right to decide what kind of education their children shall have. This, along with other references, indicates that there must be more than one means by which the right may be fulfilled and that parents supersede government in making the decision. Governments cannot require that the right to education be fulfilled through any particular means so long as the education the parents select provides sufficient education for the child; this includes through private, charter, parochial, or home education. This language clearly places the decision-making power of the parent above that of the state. This foundational principle should inform the interpretation of parental rights in all other modern human rights documents.  Further, it clearly supports the original intent of human rights—to protect the individual from the state, not the state from the individual.

 

B.     Binding human rights instruments and international norms protect home education.

 

Following the adoption of the UDHR, the UN drafted two binding human rights treaties the ICCPR and the ICESCR, both of which came into force in 1975. These treaties are often known as the International Bill of Rights and they encompass the five broad categories of human rights: civil and political rights (sometimes referred to as “negative rights”) protected by the ICCPR and economic, cultural and social rights (sometimes referred to as “positive rights”) in the ICESCR. 

1.      The ICCPR protects a parental right to educational decision-making.

Article 18.4:  The States Parties to the present convention undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

 

Although the ICCPR does not recognize education as a positive right, it does recognize and protect parental rights in education in article 18.4, which prohibits the state from interfering with parental liberty to ensure that their children receive a religious or moral education in conformity with the parents own religious or philosophical convictions. Article 4.2 makes this right non-derogable, a right that is of such importance a country may not derogate from respecting the right even if the life of the nation is at risk, which places it in the same category as other non-derogable rights, such as the right to be free from torture, the right to life, and the right to be free from slavery. It is important to recognize that the international community considered the parental right to direct education to be of such vital importance.

2.      Not protecting home education would violate the ICESCR, which protects the right to education through a means selected by parents, including through home education.

Article 13

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

4. No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph I of this article and to the requirement that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.

 

Unlike the ICCPR, the ICESCR recognizes a positive right to education. The ICESCR also goes further in its protection of parental rights, as it explicitly recognizes that parents have the right to send their children to non-public schools.  In turn, these schools are guaranteed a right to exist, subject only to minimum educational standards established by the state. The ICESCR also mirrors provisions of the ICCPR by recognizing the right of parents to “ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

 

Under the ICESCR, both individuals and groups have a right to “establish and direct educational institutions.” While at first glance this may not appear to be particularly relevant to home education due to the emphasis on “educational institutions,” a closer examination reveals otherwise. The family, as a fundamental unit of society, has existence as a societal institution, as Article 16.3 of the UDHR makes clear. Thus, States should view families that seek to educate their children at home as adding an educational component to an already existing institution.[2] The ICESCR recognizes that both individuals and groups may form educational institutions, and there is no logical reason to exclude families from participating in this right without simultaneously undermining the right of other more ‘traditional’ nonpublic educational institutions to exist.

 

Advanced learning technologies that allow children to receive education outside of a traditional school setting are developing rapidly, and these technologies are particularly important in economically disadvantaged areas that otherwise might not be able to provide sufficient education to a student to comply with the right to education. As technology advances, so too must the law’s understanding of how the right to education can be effectively fulfilled. With these technological increases, the question of who should decide what kind of education a child receives becomes ever more important. The notion that a child’s circumstances should pose a limit to his or her educational development is directly counter to the foundational principles underlying all international human rights instruments. The mere fact that a child is born in an economically disadvantaged area with poor ‘traditional’ educational options does not, and cannot, strip that child of his or her right to a meaningful education.

 

A legal system that unnecessarily constrains the right of parents to choose among all available methods of educating their children violates both the child’s right to education and the parental right to direct that education protected by Article 13 of the ICESCR.  Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Education observed:

[I am] a strong advocate of public, free and compulsory education, [but] it should be noted that education may not be reduced to mere school attendance … Distance learning methods and home schooling represent valid options which could be developed in certain circumstances, bearing in mind that parents have the right to choose the appropriate type of education for their children, as stipulated in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The promotion and development of a system of public, government-funded education should not entail the suppression of forms of education that do not require attendance at a school.

(Muñoz, 2007)

 

             

3.      The UN CRC protects a child’s right to alternative forms of education including the right to home education.

 

The CRC is intended specifically to protect the rights of children. In so doing, it also recognizes the rights of parents to direct their children’s education in Article 18, which notes that “Parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.”  The CRC also notes in Article 27.2 that parents bear a responsibility to “secure the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.”  Even when viewed in isolation, this broad language of “upbringing and development” certainly includes within its sweep the education of a child, and when viewing the CRC in relation to other human rights instruments (particularly the ICESCR, as well as the UDHR and ICCPR) the international community’s intent to preserve the parental right of educational decision-making becomes clear. The CRC also imposes other requirements on state parties which support a broad view of the responsibilities of governments to permit alternative forms of education, such as home education.  Article 28.1(b) of the CRC requires governments to “encourage the development of different forms of secondary education” and “make them available and accessible to every child.”  This responsibility to promote different forms of education is premised on the idea that different children are likely to require different types of education in order to flourish.  Because the international community has recognized that no government (no matter how efficient) is perfectly capable of determining which form is optimal for each of the millions of children within its jurisdiction, human rights instruments have protected the right of parents – those with the best understanding of their children – to select the best educational option for that child, whether free government education, private education, advanced distance education, or home education.

 

Article 28.1(b)’s requirement that governments make these educational options available and accessible to every child creates an obligation to ensure that every child can obtain education under all circumstances.  The requirement is thus that no government may derogate from this obligation by shutting off an important means of ensuring that the right to education is fostered in a meaningful way. Because home education is an important way to ensure that children who might otherwise lack access to schools to receive meaningful protection of their right to education; to find otherwise would violate a child’s rights under the CRC.

 

Article 5 of the CRC further requires government to “respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents” to provide “appropriate direction and guidance” to their children. Because the CRC focuses on the rights of children, it does not examine parental rights in great detail. However, this language does suggest that even though the CRC explicitly protects parental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, the CRC is not intended to limit parental rights. The CRC must be read in light of the totality of all the other contemporaneous as well previous human rights treaties.  The appropriate way, therefore, to determine the scope of parental rights to direct the education of their children is to evaluate that right as it exists under such other human rights instruments that address these rights more directly.

 

The CRC does not purport to restrict rights previously protected by other human rights instruments; thus, the CRC should not be interpreted to conflict with the ICESCR, the ICCPR, or the UDHR. Rather the CRC should be read harmoniously with these other treaties. The parental right to direct the education of children is entitled to significant protections under the ICESCR, the ICCPR, and the UDHR.  The UN Special Rapporteur has also made clear that this is true under the ICESCR; parents must have the right to choose to educate children at home. This Committee should read these rights in such a way to acknowledge them as part of England’s international obligations

 

C.    Numerous international jurisdictions recognize the right to home education freely. England should continue to protect that right without adding additional burdens on its citizens.

    1. The United States protects home education at both the federal and state levels.

 

The right to home education is clearly established in the United States under both federal and state jurisprudence and by statute. Over the past 112 years, every state in the United States has recognized a right to home education either by statute or judicial ruling (and sometimes both).  The foundational case from the United States Supreme Committee is Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), in which that Court unanimously ruled that the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution include the right of parents to direct the education of their children. Pierce makes clear that, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”  Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535. Numerous state supreme Committees have acknowledged this fundamental right in their own state Committee decisions. See for example Care and Protection of Charles, 399 Mass. 324 , 337-340 (1987).

The parental right to direct a child’s education extends to the right to select home education as the manner in which a child will be educated, as can be seen from an examination of state laws and judicial decisions. In People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574 (1950), the Illinois Supreme Committee set forth a clear statement that home education is a protected right. Levisen addressed parents who chose to educate their children at home and were then prosecuted for truancy.  The state of Illinois argued that it had the authority to require attendance at a local school and that home education was not permitted under the statutory system.  The Levisen Committee rejected this argument and ruled that a school is any “place where instruction is imparted to the young” and that the “number of persons being taught does not determine whether the place is a school.”  Levisen, 404 Ill. at 576.  The Levisen Committee went on to observe that the proper object of the state is to ensure “that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place.  Id., at 577.  See also Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. 372 (1893).

The Indiana Supreme Committee made a similar observation, ruling, “We do not think that the number of persons, whether one or many, make a place where instruction is imparted any less or more a school.”  State v. Peterman, 70 N.E. 550, 551 (Ind. 1904).  This lends strong support for the proposition that home education can qualify as a type of school.  The Peterman Committee also noted that a school is “a place where instruction is imparted to the young.  If a parent employs and brings into his residence a teacher… the meaning and spirit of the law have been fully complied with.  This would be the school of the child or children so education, and would be as must a private school as if advertised and conducted as such.”  Id.  The Washington Supreme Committee also observed that “[t]he three essential elements of a school are (1) the teacher, (2) the pupil or pupils, and (3) the place or institution. Shoreline Sch. Dist., 346 P.2d 999, 1002 (Wash. 1959). Home education meets all three elements of the Shoreline Sch. Dist. test – the parents serve as the teachers, the children serve as the pupils, and the home serves as the place.

 

Under this approach of the meaning of “school,” twenty-one states permit home education as a form of private school.[3] Such states recognize homeschools as private schools under either private school statutes or other judicial guidelines; they acknowledge that the home may be properly considered a “school” (or that a parent or group of parents may form a school by meeting statutory qualifications).

 

Education is regulated at the state level in the United States, a federal republic, and thus there are numerous states with differing approaches by which parents can comply with compulsory attendance laws.[4] In some states there is no requirement that home-educating parents ever make any contact with authorities at all.[5] In other states parents simply notify the authorities at the initiation of home education and are not required to complete any application or approval process.[6] 

In the United States, 15 or more states with total populations of approximately 100 million do not require families pursuing home education to make any contact whatsoever with government entities.  In others a simple one time or regular notice is all that is required. In only a handful of states are parents required to proactively demonstrate any kind of attainment of minimum standards to governing authorities.  The principle is clear.  When parents choose to exercise their prior right to educate their children, they are undertaking their primary role which precedes the government’s authority or duty to oversee.  While a few jurisdictions do impose some oversight, these mechanisms are limited.

II.                Homeschooling Produces Well-Developed and Socialized Adults

A.    Homeschooling has become a mainstream movement in the United States

 

Homeschooling has grown rapidly in the United States since the early 1980s, and especially so in the past decade. “The increase in the homeschooling rate (from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.2 percent in 2003 to 2.9 percent in 2007) represents a 74 percent relative increase over the 8-year period and a 36 percent relative increase since 2003.”[7] Early reports from the United States Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Studies show that homeschooling continued to grow from 2.9 percent of the school-age population in 2007 to 3.4 percent in 2012.[8] It is currently estimated that 1,770,000 million school-age children are homeschooled in the United States.[9]

 

B.     Homeschooling produces well socialized adults

 

“Socialization may be defined as the process by which a child acquires the skills, behavior patterns, values, and motivation needed for competent functioning in the culture in which the child is growing up.” [10] As homeschooling has increased in popularity, it has been the subject of much social-science research into this very issue.[11] Most relevant to this case is research indicating that homeschooled students develop into well-rounded and socially-integrated adults and become responsible citizens who are productive members of society.

Noteworthy among this body of research is Brian Ray’s 2004 study Home Educated and Now Adults.[12] This study surveyed 5,254 homeschooled adults ages 18 through 24, and found that homeschoolers are involved in their community, civics, and higher education to a greater extent than their traditionally-educated peers. For example, 50.2 percent of homeschooled students go on to some form of college, compared to 34 percent of their peers; 8.7% received associates degrees, compared to 4.1 percent of their peers, 11.8 percent received bachelor’s degrees, compared to 7.6 percent of their peers; and 0.8 percent received master’s degrees, compared to 0.3 percent of their peers.

 

Furthermore, 95 percent of those surveyed responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed that they were glad to be homeschooled; 92 percent agreed or strongly agreed that being homeschooled gave them advantages in adulthood; 88 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that homeschooling limited their educational opportunities; 94 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that being homeschooled limited their career choices; and, 82 percent agreed or strongly agreed that they would homeschool their own children.

 

Homeschool graduates also ranked high in the areas of social and civic involvement. “Seventy-one percent of subjects were participating in any ongoing community service activity (e.g., coaching a sports team, volunteering at school, or working with a church or neighborhood association), while 37 percent of similarly aged U.S. adults and 39 percent of all U.S. adults did so in 1996. While 88 percent of these home-educated subjects were a member of an organization (e.g., a community group, church or synagogue, union, homeschool group, or professional organization), only 50 percent of similarly aged U.S. adults and 59 percent of all U.S. adults were in 1996.”[13] The study also revealed that homeschooled graduates were as tolerant, if not more so, of differing viewpoints than the general population, and that they were more civically involved.[14]

 

These results are not limited to this single study. Another study, presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in 1995, looked at homeschooled students who went on to college and discovered that homeschoolers are often leaders on college campuses.[15] This study looked at 60 students who had been exclusively homeschooled in high school, and compared them to the rest of the student population according to sixty-three indicators. Homeschooled students came in first in 43 of the 63 indicators. “Because many indicators for which home-schooled students took first place involved positions of leadership, Galloway concluded that home-schooled students were readily recognized for their leadership abilities. She stated flatly, ‘They are the leaders on campus.’”[16]

 

Other studies demonstrate the same results. One study found that homeschooled children score in the 84th percentile for socialization, in contrast to their peers who scored in the 23rd percentile, and concluded that “children kept home are more mature and better socialized than those who are sent to school.”[17] Another study was unable to find a lack of adjustment among homeschooled students who went to college, and noted that “they appear to be able to adjust as well or better than traditionally schooled freshmen to collegiate life at a Christian college as measured by these various scales of college adjustment.”[18] Yet another study found that “[c]ollege students who were previously homeschooled were found to be significantly more Agreeable, Conscientious and Open as compared to their peers in the national college-aged norms.”[19]

 

In a 2000 article published in the Peabody Journal of Education, Richard Medlin, Professor of Psychology at Stetson University, who teaches both Child Psychology and Childhood Behavior Disorders, surveyed the research concerning homeschoolers’ social skills. In none of the studies he reviewed were homeschoolers behind their traditionally educated peers. Rather, he found that homeschooled children were very engaged in their community and social lives.

 

Despite the widespread idea that home schooling is socially isolating, the research documents quite clearly that home-schooled children are very much engaged in the social routines of their communities. They are involved in many different kinds of activities with many different kinds of people. In fact, the flexible schedule and more efficient use of time home schooling affords may allow home-schooled children to participate in more extracurricular activities than children attending conventional schools.[20]

 

He likewise found that homeschoolers are learning proper social behavior.

The research confirms that home-schooled children are learning rules for appropriate social behavior and forming healthy attitudes toward themselves. Their social behavior and self-esteem are certainly no worse than those of children attending conventional schools and are probably better.[21]

 

More recently, Medlin conducted another study and found, “Homeschooled children’s social skills scores were consistently higher than those of public school students. Differences were most marked for girls and for older children, and encompassed all four of the specific skills tested: cooperation, assertiveness, empathy, and self-control.”[22] He concludes that “[t]here appears to be, therefore, a convergence of evidence from three different perspectives––parental report, objective observers, and self-report––that homeschooled children’s social skills are exceptional.”[23]

 

In 2013, Professor Medlin published a thorough review of the literature about homeschooling and socialization and concluded that Compared to children attending conventional schools, however, research suggest[s] that [homeschooled children] have higher quality friendships and better relationships with their parents and other adults. They are happy, optimistic, and satisfied with their lives. Their moral reasoning is at least as advanced as that of other children, and they may be more likely to act unselfishly. As adolescents, they have a strong sense of social responsibility and exhibit less emotional turmoil and problem behaviors than their peers. Those who go on to college are socially involved and open to new experiences. Adults who were homeschooled as children are civically engaged and functioning competently in every way measured so far.[24] Professor Medlin concludes that “[a]n alarmist view of homeschooling, therefore, is not supported by the empirical research.”[25]

 

Research demonstrates that homeschooled students are also emotionally prepared for college. For instance, one study involving freshman students at a private liberal-arts college found that homeschooled students reported “significantly fewer anxiety symptoms than a matched sample of traditionally schooled students.”[26] Using the College Adjustment Scale (a measure of emotional, behavioral, social, and academic problems used by university counseling centers), researchers found no other significant differences between the two groups of students.

Accordingly, colleges have recognized the potential of homeschooled students. The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported that as early as a decade ago, “over 700 post-secondary institutions across the United States, including Harvard University, Yale University, Stanford University, MIT, Rice University, and the Citadel, admitted homeschooled students.”[27] Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers explains: “After years of skepticism, even mistrust, many college officials now realize it’s in their best interest to seek out home-schoolers.”[28] Some are even actively recruiting homeschoolers. “UC Riverside [is] the first UC campus and one of the first public research universities in the nation to recruit students who were home-schooled at the kitchen table or on the road instead of inside a classroom. ‘These students are very prepared for college-level work and doing very well here,’ said Merlyn Campos, interim admissions director.”[29] Regina Morin, director of admissions at Columbia College in St. Louis, Missouri, says the school is seeing more homeschoolers apply each year. “They tend to be better than their public school counterparts,” she said. “They score above average on tests, they’re more independent, they’re often a grade ahead.”[30]

 

C.    Homeschooled Students Are Academically Successful

 

Since 1988 a number of studies have compared the academic success of homeschooled students with those in the public-education system. These include official studies by the Tennessee Department of Education in 1988[31] and the Oregon Department of Education in 1999.[32] Additionally, there have been at least five national studies of the success of homeschooling by professional researchers[33], including Lawrence Rudner, formerly the Director of the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Testing and Measurement, a research library sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.[34]

All of these studies demonstrate that homeschooling produces higher scores on educational-achievement tests than public-school students. Homeschoolers achieve, on average, between 15 and 30 percentile points above public-school averages. These studies reveal that this is true for all grade levels and subjects. Studies also show that there is no significant correlation between teacher certification and educational success in homeschooling. Homeschool students achieve high results whether their parents possess a state teaching credential or not.[35] A recent review of the literature conducted by Dr. Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation found that virtually all studies showed positive academic outcomes for home educated students. [36]

 

When the achievement of homeschooled students is analyzed according to the educational level of their parents (high school diploma, some college, college degree, etc.), some studies find that there is a small correlation between parental education and student success while other studies find no correlation at all.[37] But these studies have all found that even those students whose parents have the lowest level of educational background still score higher than public-school students’ average scores.

 

In public schools, however, there is a strong correlation between the parents’ educational level and student success.[38] In public schools, the children of highly-educated families are the achievers; students from families with lower-level educational backgrounds score significantly lower on achievement tests. Not so in homeschooling. There is virtually no educational disparity between the children of the most highly educated compared to those with less education. Every segment of the homeschooling community scores materially higher than public-school students’ average scores.

 

This same phenomenon can be found when educational results are segmented according to family income. It is tragic to see that in public schools, students who come from low-income families have significantly lower results than students from high-income families.[39]

 

In contrast, homeschooled children from every income level achieve results that are significantly above public-school averages. Moreover, in some studies of homeschoolers there is no material difference in the achievement of the children from the poorest families compared to the children from the richest families.[40] Although some studies show a marginal difference in homeschool student success based on family income, even in these cases, students from the lowest income levels achieve well above public-school averages.[41]

Public schools appear unable to break the cycle of low achievement for students from low-income families. But homeschooling has demonstrated that children from low-income families succeed; and children of parents with lower educational levels also succeed.

 

Homeschoolers scored higher on the ACT (American College Test - a college admission test used by most colleges in the USA) than the national average for 10 years – from 1996 until 2006. In 2006, the ACT stopped reporting the results of homeschooled students separately. In 2006, the average ACT composite score for homeschooled students was 22.4, compared to the national average composite of 21.1.[42] The 2005 average ACT composite score for homeschooled students was 22.5, compared to the national average of 20.9. Part of this academic achievement may be related to the fact that homeschooled kids spend their time in radically different ways than their public- or private-schooled counterparts. In a study of fourth graders, 0.1 percent of homeschooled children watched six hours or more of television per day whereas 19 percent of public-school children watched television at this staggering rate.[43] Studies also show that homeschooled graduates demonstrate success and do as well or better, on average, than the general public in all measures of adult success. These measures include the rates of matriculation in college, completion of college, civic engagement, and community service.[44]

 

In the past thirty years homeschooling has gained in popularity every year. Every mother who homeschools her children is familiar with the unfortunate myths that arose about socialization. Those myths have been empirically dispelled by a wide variety of research. On all counts homeschooling meets the standard set by public schools, and virtually all of the research demonstrates that homeschoolers far exceed that bar.

Conclusion

 

Multiple binding human rights instruments impose legal obligations on England to protect the right to education, and this right includes within its scope the right to home education, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Education has made clear.  The ICCPR, ICESCR, and CRC protect the parental right to select the means by which one’s children will be educated, and also protect the right of the child to alternative forms of education, including through home education.  Numerous international jurisdictions protect the right to home education, and this Committee should follow suit and recognize that home education is a human right deserving of protection.  The Konrad decisions of the German FCC and the ECtHR inaccurately apply proportionality analysis and should be rejected as unpersuasive by this Committee.  Konrad also does not address the right to home education under the ICCPR, ICESCR, or CRC, which further makes its inapplicability clear.

Home Education is a mainstream educational movement and is emerging in many other countries, where it has demonstrated that it produces excellent outcomes. Children who are homeschooled excel both socially and academically.  They integrate into society and become productive engaged citizens who add to society in a diverse and meaningful way. Home education is a new approach in modern educational history, but public schools are really the newcomers at only one to two hundred years old. The growth and results of this rediscovered approach to education deserves the respect and protection of this Committee for its outcomes as well as because of the rights implicated by it.

 

Home Education in England has proven effective and should continue to be respected in its current for with the current regulatory framework.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael P. Donnelly, J.D., LL.M.

Senior Counsel, Global Outreach

Home School Legal Defense Association.


APPENDIX I

JURISDICTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGULATING

HOME EDUCATION AS A RECOGNIZED FORM OF PRIVATE SCHOOLING

 

Twenty-one states regulate home education as a form of private schooling:

Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington West Virginia.

 

 

In addition, 13 states offer parents two or more statutory means to homeschool:

Alabama: recognizes home-based instruction in “church schools” or “private schools,” Ala. Code § 16-28-1 (2016), as well as “instruction by a private tutor.” Ala. Code § 16-28-5 (2016). Homeschoolers who choose the “church school” option file a one-time notice.

Colorado: See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-33-104.5 (2016) (“home school”), § 22-33-104(2)(b) and people in Interest of D.B., 767 P.2d 801 (Colo. App. 1988) (“independent school”), or § 22-33-104.5 (3)(f) (parent as certified teacher).

Delaware: Del. Code Ann. § 2703A(2) (2016) (“single-family homeschool”), § 2703A(1) (“multi-family homeschool”), or § 2703A(3) (“single-family homeschool coordinated with the local school district”).

Florida: Fla. Stat. § 1002.41 (2016) (“home education program”), § 1002.01(2) and State v. Buckner, 472 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (a group of individual homeschools may form a “private school”), or § 1002.43 (“private tutor law”) [Florida];

Kansas: offers parents two options to educate their children at home, neither of which is called a “homeschool,” and which require only a single registration with the State Board of Education. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-1111(a)(2) (2016); see also In re Sawyer, 672 P.2d 1093 (1983) (“non-accredited private school”); In re Willms, No. 87-JC-350 (Shawnee County Dist. Ct., Feb. 12, 1988) (recognizing a home instruction program as a “satellite to a local private school board”).

Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. § 17:236 (2016) (“home school statute”) or § 17:232 (“private school”).

Maryland: Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 7-301(a) (2016) (“portfolio” home school) or Md. Regs. Code tit. 13A, §§ 09.09.01(C), 10.01.05 (2016) (“church umbrella school”).

Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 5001-A(3)(A)(4) (2016) (“home school”) or tit. 20-A, § 5001-A(3)(A)(1)(b) (“recognized” private school).

South Carolina: S.C. Code § 59-65-40 (2016) (school district board of trustee approval), § 59-65-45 (membership in the South Carolina Association of Independent Home Schools), or § 59-65-47 (membership in an association for home schools which has at least fifty members.

Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3050 (2016) (“home school”), § 49-6-3050(a)(2)(A) (associate with church-related school), § 49-6-3050(a)(3) (parent-as-teacher in church-related school), § 49-50-801 (satellite campus of church-related school), or § 49-6-3001(c)(3)(A)(iii) (enroll in distance learning program of accredited private school).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 53A-11-102(2) (2016) (“home school”) or § 53A-11-101.5(2) (“private school”).

Washington: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 28A.255.010, 28A.200.010 (2016) (“home-based instruction”) or §§ 28A.225.010(1)(a), 28A.195.010(4) (an “extension program for parents” overseen by an “approved private school”).

West Virginia: W.Va. Code § 18-8-1(c)(1) (2016) (“approval” home school), § 18-8-1(c)(2) (“notice” home school), or § 18-8-1(k) (individual home schools forming a private, parochial, church, religious or “other nonpublic school”).

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 22-4-101, -102 (2016) (“home school”) or § 21-4-101(a)(iv) (a school “operated under the auspices or control of a local church or religious congregation or a denomination”).

 

 

Several states do not require parents to provide any notice to public authorities that they intend to home educate their children, including California and Texas, the two most populous states in the United States, which have a combined population of nearly 66 million persons.

These include California and Texas, the two most populous states in the United States.

California: Cal. Educ. Code §§ 33190, 48222 (2016) (“private schools”) and Jonathan L. v. Superior Committee, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (Cal. App. 2008).

Texas: Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 25.086(a)(1) (2016) (“private schools”) and Texas Educational Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W. 2d 432 (Tex. 1994).

Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-184 (2016) (“elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public school.

Indiana: Ind. Code § 20-33-2-4-(2) (2016) (“another school [which is] taught in the English language) and State v. Peterman, 70 N.E. 550 (Ind. App. 1904).

Illinois: 105 Il. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/26-1(1) (2016) (“a private or a parochial school where children are taught the branches of education taught to children of corresponding age and grade in the public schools, and where the instruction of the child in the branches of education is in the English language”) and People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574 (1950).

Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 159.030(1)(b) (2016) (“private, parochial, or church school”).

Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 1 (2016) and Care and Protection of Charles, 399 Mass. 324 (1987) (“otherwise instructed in a manner approved in advance by the superintendent or the school committee”).

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:38-25 (2016) (“equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school”).

South Dakota: S.D. Cod. Laws § 13-27-3 (2016) (“otherwise provided with alternative instruction”).

 

 

Eleven states set up a one-time notification system, which means that parents only have a duty to notify public authorities when they initially begin to home educate their children, and have no further contact with those authorities. 

Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 14.30.010(b)(12) (2016) (no notice).

Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-802 (2016) (one-time notice).

Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 5001-A(3)(A)(4) (2016) (one-time notice).

Missouri: Mo. Ann. Stat. § 167.031.2 (2016) (no notice).

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 392.070, 392.700 (2016) (one-time notice).

New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 193-A (2016) (one-time notice).

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:38-25 (2016) (no notice).

Oklahoma: Okla. Const., art. XIII, § 4, School Bd. Dist. No. 18 v. Thompson, 103 P. 578 (Okla. 1909) (no notice).

Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 330.030, 339.035 (2016) (one-time notice).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 53A-11-102(2) (2016) (one-time notice, unless the family moves to another school district) [Utah].

Virginia: Va. Code § 22.1-254(B) (one-time notice) (Virginia also has a religious exemption statute).

 


APPENDIX II

INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTIONS RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO

HOME EDUCATION BY STATUTE, CONSTITUTION, OR COMMITTEE RULING

 

No Regulation Jurisdictions do not require initial or ongoing contact between home-educating families and local authorities.  These jurisdictions include:

              Colombia

              England

              Wales

              Finland

              Georgia

              India

              Kosovo

              Mexico

              Peru

              Alaska, USA

              Connecticut, USA

              Idaho, USA

              Illinois, USA

              Indiana, USA

              Michigan, USA

              Missouri, USA

              New Jersey, USA

              Oklahoma, USA

              Texas, USA

 

Low-Regulation Jurisdictions require some form of annual notice to local authorities, but do not require any other approval process.  These jurisdictions include:

              Indonesia

              Philippines

Russia

              British Columbia, Canada

New Brunswick, Canada

Ontario, Canada

Prince Edward Island, Canada

Saskatchewan, Canada

Alabama, USA

Arizona, USA

California, USA

Delaware, USA

Kentucky, USA

Kansas, USA

Mississippi, USA

Montana, USA

Nebraska, USA

Nevada, USA

New Mexico, USA

Wisconsin, USA

Wyoming, USA

 

Moderate-Regulation Jurisdictions require annual notification and some type of annual assessment of student progress.  These jurisdictions include: 

Austria

Australia

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Denmark

Ireland

Northern Ireland

Norway

Portugal

Qatar

Slovenia

Manitoba, Canada

Yukon Terrirory, Canada

Arkansas, USA

Colorado, USA

Florida, USA

Georgia, USA

Iowa, USA

Louisiana, USA

Maine, USA

Maryland, USA

Minnesota, USA

New Hampshire, USA

North Carolina, USA

Ohio, USA

Oregon, USA

South Carolina, USA

South Dakota, USA

Tennessee, USA

Virginia, USA

Washington, USA

West Virginia, USA

 

High-Regulation Jurisdictions have extensive bureaucratic regulations or a formal approval system.  These jurisdictions include:

Albania

Belarus

Czech Republic

Estonia

France

Hungary

Iceland

Israel

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malaysia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Poland

Singapore

South Africa

Sweden

Alberta, Canada

Quebec, Canada

Massachusetts, USA

New York, USA

North Dakota, USA

Pennsylvania, USA

Rhode Island, USA

Vermont, USA

 

Prohibited Jurisdictions do not permit home education.  These jurisdictions include:

Bulgaria

People’s Republic of China

Cuba

Germany

Greece

Spain

Sweden

 

Unrecognized Jurisdictions have no laws defining home education as permitted or prohibited.  These jurisdictions include:

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Japan

Jordan

Republic of Korea

Malta

Pakistan

Romania

Saudi Arabia

Ukraine

Uruguay


APPENDIX III

German Constitutional Committee Decision

In Re Konrad

 

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

 

- 1 BvR 436/03 -

 

In the case relating to

the constitutional complaint

 

 

 

 

1. OfMrK...,

2. Of Mrs K...,

3. The child K...,

4. The child K...,

 

 

 

 

-Attorneys:

 

Attorney Professor Dr. Komad Redeker und Koll., MozartstraBe 4-10, 53115 Bonn-

 

Against:

 

 

a) The decision by the Federal Committee of Justice of January 7 2003 - BVerwG 6 B 66.02 -,

b) The decision of the Administrative Committee Baden-Wiirttemberg of. June

18 182002-9 s 2441/01 -,

c) The decision of the Administrative Committee Freiburg of July 11 2001 - 2 K

2467/00 -,

d) The response of the higher educational authority Freiburg of October 30

2000 to their objection- 720/40 Konrad -

e) The decision of the state educational office in Offenburg of August 28

2000-41-6601.0/19-

 

 

 

 

the second chamber of the first senate of the Federal Constitutional Committee represented by

 

Judges Jaeger, Hornig,

Bryde

 

 

 

 

unanimously decided on April 29 2003, in accordance with § 93 b in combination with § 93 a

BVerfGG in the version of the proclamation of August 11 1993 (BGB1 IS. 1473):

t to accept the constitutional complaint for arbitration.

 

 

 

 

Reasons:

 

I.

 

I

 

The complaint is directed against the refusal to allow homeschooling outside state or private schools by parents of school-aged children (cf. VGH Baden-WUrttemberg, ESVGH 52, 255 = DVBI2003, S. 347). The complainants, parents and their children, who are subject to compulsory schooling, belong to a bible-believing Christian community and reject the attendance of state schools for religious reasons. They see the refusal to exempt their children from attendance of the state elementary school as a violation of their basic rights, in accordance with Art. 4 Sec. I and 2, Art. 6 Sec. 2 sentence I, Art. 2 Sec. I in combination

with Art. I Sec. I as well as in accordance with Art. 3 Sec. I and 3 sentence I of the German

Basic Law.

 

II.

 

2

 

The conditions necessary for acceptance, according to § 93 a Sec. 2 of the Federal

Constitutional Committee Act, do not exist.

 

3

 

I. The constitutional complaint is not accorded significance under constitutional law, because the relevant constitutional issues have already been decided on by the Federal Constitutional Committee. (cf. Particularly BVerfGE 41, 29; 47, 46; 52, 223; 93, 1).

 

4

 

2. Nor does the acceptance of the constitutional complaint betoken the implementation of the basic rights whose violation the complainants have criticized. (cf.BVerfGE 90,22 <25 f.>). This is because the rejection oftheir application for an exemption does not raise any qualms under constitutional law.

 

5

 

a) The decisions that were criticized in the complaint violate neither the rights of the parents as derived from Art. 4 Sections. I, 2 and Art. 6 Sec. 2 sentence I of the Basic Law nor the rights of the underaged complainants as derived from Art. 4 Sections. I, 2, Art. 2 Sec. I in conjunction with Art. I Sec. I of the Basic Law.

 

 

The resolution of the conflict between the right of the parents, to convey their beliefs to their children and to keep them distant from what they regard as false or dangerous beliefs (cf. BVerfGE 93, 1 <17> ), and the corresponding right of the children to be educated accordingly, as well as, on the one hand, the state's educational mandate, which has equal

ranking with the parental right to educate, as derived from Art. 7 Sec. I of the Basic Law, and, on the other hand, the principal of practical concordance (cf. BVerfGE 93, 1 <21>), does not call for the granting of the exemption applied for by the complainants.

 

7

 

The duty to attend the state elementary school serves the legitimate goal of the implementation of the state's educational mandate and is suitable and necessary for the attainment of this aim. This mandate is not only aimed at the conveying of knowledge, but also at the development of responsible citizens, who should be able to take part in the democratic processes of a pluralistic society as equals and in a manner that demonstrates a sense of responsibility towards society as a whole. It might be the case that the restriction of the state's educational mandate to the regular supervision of the practising and success of home education can present a milder and and also equally suitable method for serving the purpose of knowledge transfer. Yet, the view that simple state supervision of home education does not have equal efficacy with regard to the educational goal of conveying social and civic competence cannot be perceived as a misjudgement. This is because social competence in dealing with with people who have different opinions, lived tolerance, the ability to assert oneselfand the assertion of a conviction that differs from that of majority opinion can be practised more effectively if contacts with society and with the various views represented in society do not take place only occasionally, but rather are part of the everyday experience associated with regular school attendance.

 

8

 

The encroachment into the basic rights of the complainants that is connected with the duty to attend school is reasonably commensurate to the benefit that can be expected from the fulfilment of this duty for the state's educational mandate and the common interest that supports this mandate. The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the

· development of religiously or philosophically motivated "parallel societies" and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude religious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practising of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue  that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making

process.

 

9

 

The encroachments into basic constitutional rights that thereby arise from compulsory school attendance are reasonable for those affected, both parents and children, because the severity of these encroachments are widely attenuated to a large degree by the obligation to respect differing religious convictions and by the remaining possibility for the parents to influence their children's education both in and out of the school. In the first respect mentioned above­ not to mention that those affected can, in individual cases, sidestep this issue through the attendance of a private school according to Article 7, section 4 of the Basic Law-the obligation of public schools to exercise neutrality and tolerance has particular weight. The strict adherence to this obligation ensures not only that unreasonable conflicts of belief and conscience do not arise (cf.BVerfGE 41,29 <51 f.>) and that there is no indoctrination of pupils in the area of sex education (cf. BVerfGE 47,46 <75 ff.> ). Rathermore, it obliges the state, through its teachers, to work towards the exercising of tolerance towards those who belong to religious minorities. The confrontation with the views and values of an increasingly secularly tinged pluralistic society that nonetheless arises out of school attendance can be endured by the complainants, in spite of the conflict with their own religious convictions.

 

10

 

b) Nor can the decisions which the complainants object to be constitutionally faulted with regard to equality.

 

11

 

aa) Art. 3 sec. 3 sentence 1 of the Basic Law is not violated thereby, that the complainants are treated the same as those members of society who are not brought into conflict with their religious beliefs through school education. General compulsory school attendance and the rejection of the above mentioned compulsory attendance serve the implementation of the state's educational mandate and do not tie in with religious beliefs, which is in line with Article 3, section 3, sentence 1 of the Basic Law. (cf.BVerfGE 85, 191 <206>; 97, 186

<197>).

 

12

 

bb) The differences between those who are "school refusers" for religious reasons and children who are exempt from compulsory school attendance because their parents, due to their occupation, do not have a firm residence are of such a nature and such a weight that they justify unequal treatment in accordance with article 3, section 1 of the Basic Law (All people are equal before the law). (cf. for example, BVerfGE 82, 126 <146>). While the

encroachment associated with compulsory school attendance can be viewed as reasonable for the first group of people, this is not the case where the participation in public schooling for children of people who, due to their occupations, have to constantly change their abode, can only be achieved through the separation of the children from their parents.

 

13

 

We refrain from further justification in accordance with § 93 d section 1 sentence 3 of the

Federal Constitutional Committee Act.

 

14

 

This decision cannot be contested(§ 93 d section 1 sentence 2 Federal Constitutional Committee

Act).Jaeger               Hornig               Bryde

45

 


 

Certificate of Translation, BverG_Konrad.doc              .

Page 1 of!

 

 

 

 

 

Case Name: Uwe Andreas JosCfRomeike & :FamiJy

 

Case Number: A087 3Ci$-600 to606

 

 

 

 

 

I,the undersigned person, am competellt to translate ftol!l German into Engli, and certny · that the translation ofthe attached _German ConstitutionalCommitteejudgement inthe case of the konrad fiunily_ is true              . the· est ofmy abilities.              .

Signature of Translator:·              Typed/Printed Name:CatherinaMartillll Groeneveld

 

Address: MoyCullen Road, Spiddal, County Gajway,Irelatld

 

Address (contl]]ued):

 

Telephone Number: + 35391504989

 

; '             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 


 

v

'1'-


 

 

. ':


Redeker Sellner Dahs & Widmaier a-tin;:. Bonn

BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT              0 9. Mai 2003

LBvR 436/03.. -              ·F!TISIK·

45

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 


 

. ·..

;.  _.:.


 

In Verfahren

 

iiliar

 

cli.e Ve.rfassunqsbeschwerde

45

 


 

 

 

 

45

 


 

c.   '-.   ./

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\0.'...../


 

,.·,              1.. de·s Heri:n  Fritz              o n. r a d ,

. 2.·cter·Frau.Marianna              Konrad,

,.3;.der··Miriderjah:dgen Rebekka               K·o n r ad,

L · des Minderjil.hrigen Josua               K o n r a d ,

··Beschwerdefuhrer zu 3·und 4 gesetzlich vertreten

:·durch die ·Beschwerdefuhrer zu 1 und 2,

· ugsweiererstra e 36, 77933 Lahr,

 

 

-·Bevoilmachtigte; Rechtsanwalte Professor Dr. Konrad Redekei" und Koll., MozartstraBe 4-10, 53115 Bonn -

 

 

gegen a) den Beschluss des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 7• Januar 2003- BVerwG 6 B 66.02 -,

 

b) das Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs Baden-Wurt­

temberg vom 18. Juni 2002 - 9 S 2441(01 -,

 

c) das·Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichts Freiburg

voin 11. JuU, 2001 -·2 K 2467/00 -,               '

 

·dl  den Widerspruchsbescheid des Oberschulamts Freiburg vom 30. Oktober 2000· - 720I40 Konrad .-,

 

e) den Bescheid des Staatlichen Schulamts Of£enburg vom 28..August 2000               41-6601.0/19

45

 


 

·hat -die 2.. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungs-­

 

gerichts durch die Richteri-n Jaeger und die Richter Hornig,

Bryde

 

gema.l)  § 93 b in Verbindung mit § 93 a BVerfGG in der Fassung·

-der_Bekanntmachung-vom 11. August 1993 (BGBl Is·. 1473)

·am ..29.·April 2003 einstirnmig beschlossen;

 

45

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·"---'


_·Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Ent­

scheiclung angenommen.

 

 

 

 

G r U n d e

 

 

I.

45

 


 

 

 

 

45

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.C·.._,.-


Die Verfassung·sbeschwerde richtet sich gegen die Ablehnung eiher Genehmigung·zur Erteilung von Heimunterrlcht auaerhalb' staatlicher oder privater Schulen durch Eltern grundschul­ pflichtiger Kinder (vgL VGH Baden-Wiirttemberg, ESVGH .52,   255

.= DVBl 2(}03_,              S. 34 7)  . Die Beschwerdefiihrer, Eltern und deren schulpflichtige Kinder, geh5ren einer bibelglaubigen christ-

. licpen Gemeinschaft an und lehnen den Besuch staatlicher

 

Sc ulen aus religiosen GrUnden ab. Durch die Verweigerung der beantragten Befreiung von der Pflicht zum Besuch der staatli

..chen Grundschule sehen sie sich in. ihren Grundrechten aus

 

:_Art. 4_ Abs.              1. und  2, _Art.              6 Abs. 2 Satz 1, Art. 2 Abs. 1 J.n

.Verbindung_mit Art. 1 AbS· 1 sowie aus Art. 3 Abs. 1 und 3

Satz 1·GG verletzt.

 

 

 

II.

 

 

 

Die Annahmevorausset:z:ungen des § 93 a Abs. 2 BVerfGG lie gen nicht vor.

45

 


 

_1. Der Verfassungsbeschwerde kommt grundsi:itzliche verfa ­ sungsrechtliche Bedeutung nicht zu, weil die maEgeblichen verfassungsrechtlichen Fragen vom Bundesverfassungsgericht schon entschieden sind (vgL insbesonderce BVerfGE 41, 29; 47,

46; 52, 223; 93, l)-

 

 

 

2. Die'Annahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde ist auch nicht

 

_zur Durchsetzung der von den Beschwerdefuhrern als verletzt g_eri.igten Grundrechte angezeigt (vgl. BVerfGE 90, 22- <;25 f >J. Denn die Ablehnung·der beantragten Befreiung begegnet keinen cturchg              ifenden verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken.

 

 

)Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen verletzen weder die

 

E].ternrechte aus Art. 4 Abs. 1, 2 und Art. 6 Abs. 2 Sat;:; 1··GG

 

.. no.ch die Rechte der beschwerdefiihrenden Schuler aus Art. 4

 

Abs. 1, 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG.

 

 

 

Die L6sung des Konflikts zwischen dem Recht der ltern, ihren Kindern ihre Glaubensuber_zeugung zu vermitteln und sie

.. von fur falsch oder scbadlich gehaltenen Glaubensuberzeugun­

 

gen fern zu halten (vgl. BVerfGE 93, 1 <17>), und-dem korres­

 

.pondierenden Recht der Kinder, entsprechend erzogen zu wer­

 

_den, einerseits sowie dem dem elterlichen Erziehungsrecht

 

.gleichgea·rdneten staat"richen Erziehungsauftrag aus Art. 7

 

Abs.·1·GG andererseits              (vgl. BVerfGE 52, 223 <236>) nach dem

 

Grundsatz der praktischen Konkordanz (vgl. BVerfGE 93, 1

 

-<21>) gebietet es nicht, den Beschwerdefiihrerh die beantragte

 

Genehmigung zu erteilen.

 

 

 

Die 'Pflicht zum Besuch der staatlichen Grundschule dient dem legitimen Ziel der Durchsetzung des staatlichen·Erzie­

 


 

:

 

und erforderlich. Dieser AuftJ:"ag richtet sich·nicht nur auf die Ve ittlung von Wissen, sondern auch auf die. Heranbildung verantwortlicher Staatsburger, die gleichberechtigt und dem Ganzen gegentiber verantwortungsbewusst an den demokratischen PJ:"ozessen in einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft sollen teil­

.h bn konnen. Esg zutreffen,              dass die.Beschrankung des staatlichen Erziehungsauftrags auf die·regelmaiHge· Kontrolle von_ Durchftihrung und Erfolg eines Heimunterrichts zu·r Errei-

. chung des Ziels der Wissensvermittlung ein milderes und inso-·

weit auch gleich geeignetes Mittel darstellen kann. Doch kann es.nicht als eine Fehleinschatzung angesehen werden, die blo­

C:'               e staatliche Kontrolle von Heimunterricht im Hinblick auf

 

das Erziehungsziel der Vermittlung_sozialer und staatsburger­ licher Kompetenz nicht als gleich wirksam zu bewerten. Denn soziale Kompete.nz im Umgang auch mit 1\..ndersdenkehden, gelebte Tcleranz, Durchsetzungsvermogen und Selbstbehauptung einer

von der Mehrheit abweichenden.Uberzeugung konnen effektiver

 

eingetibt -w·erden,. wenn Kcntakte mit der Gesellschaft und den in· "ihr ve:rtretenen unterschiedlichsten Auffassungen nicht nur

·ge1egentlich·stattfin n, sondern· Teil einer mit dem

 


 

 

reg_elrnl;\_IHgen Schulbesuch .verbundenen Alltagserfahrung


·'

sind,.,:.:. ..


 

 

c._,. .               ·Die mit der Pflicht zum Besuch der staatlichen Grundschule

verbundetien EingJ:"iffe in die genannten Grundrechte del:" Ee­

 

.schwerdefuhrer stehen auch in einem angemessenen Verh1Htnis iu dem Gewinn, den die 'Erfullung dieser Pflicht fur den

·staatlichen·Erzi hungsauftrag und die hinter ihm stehenden

 

Gemeinwohlinteressen erwarten lassen. Die Allgemeinheit hat ein berechtigtes Interesse.daran, der Entstehung von religios

,oder weltanschaulich motivierten "Parallelgesellschaften,.·

 

:entgegenzuwirken und Minderheiten auf diesem Gebiet zu inte­

 

grieren. IntegJ:"ation setzt dabei nicht nur·voraus, dass die


 

·""1-

 

.              .

derheiten nicht ausgrenzt, sie·verlangt vielmehr auch, dass

 

diese sich selbst rticht abgrenzen und· sich einem Dialog_ mit Andersdenkenden und -glauhigen nicht verschlieBen. Fur eine offene pluralistische Gesellschaft bedeutet der Dialog mit·

_solchen Minderheiten eine 8ereicherung. Dies im Sinne geleb-

 

. ter To.leranz einzuiiben und zu praktizieren, ist wichtige Au£-

··' gabe schon der Grundschule. Das Vorhandensein eines breiten- Spektrums von Uberzeugungen in einer K1assengemeinschaft kann die Fahigkeit. a1ler Schliler zu Toleranz und Dialog als einer

· Grundvoraussetzung demokratischer· w·illensbildungsprozesse

 

·nachhaltig fordern.

 

 

 

Die. dabei inf.olge der .Schulbesuchsp:flicht auftretenden Be- .

 

,eintrachtigungen· grundrechtlicher Freiheiten sind f\l.r die Be­ tro fenen zumutbar, weLl die Schwere dieser Beeintrachtigun­ gen·durch Pflichten zur ROcksichtnahme auf abweichende reli­

.".giose Oberzeugungen·und durch dv; verbleibende M6glichkeit

i.              .

der Einflussnahme der Eltern auf die Erziehung ihrer Kinder

 

innerhalb wie vor allem auBerhalb der Schule so weit abgemil-' dert wird·, dass die Unzumutbarkeij:.sschwelle·fur Eltern wie

..'S h(i.ler nicht Uberschritten wird. Dabei kommt in der. zuer t genannten Hinsicht - von der Moglichkeit abgesehen, im Ein­ zelfall auf der Grundlage des Art. 7 Abs.· 4 GG auf eine den religiosen Vorstellungen.und Bindungen der Betroffenen Rech­

·nung tragende Privatschule auszuweichen - der Verpflichtung

 

der staatlichen schulen zu Neutralitat und Toleranz besoncte­

 

;res Gewicht zu. Diese Verpflichtung stellt bei strikt.er Be­

 

;achtung nicht ur sicher,.dass nzumutbare Glaubens- und Ge­

 

·wissenskonflikte nicht entstehen (vgl. BVerfGE 41, 29 <51

.f.>f und eine Indoktrinierung der Schiller auch au£ dern Gebiet der Sexualerziehung unterbleibt (vgl. BVerfGE 47, 46 <75 ff.>). Sie nimmt den Staat vielmehr auch in die Pflicht, in

 


 

ranz gege uber Menschen hin:zuwirken, die wie die Beschwerde-

 

. fuhrer weltanschauliche Minderheitenpositionen vertreten. Die mit dem Besuch der Schule gleichwohl verbundene Konfrontation mit den Auffassungen und Wertvor tellungen einer zunehmend sakular gepragten pluralistischen Gesel1schaft ist_den Be­ schwerdefuhrern·trotz des Widerspruchs zu ihren eigenen reli­ giosen Oberzeugungen zuzurnuten.

 

 

b)· Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen sind verfassungsrecht­

 

··lich auch -unter Gleichheitsgesichtspunkten nicht zu beanstan­

_den:

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( .:

"-'"


aa} Art. 3 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GG wird nicht dadurch verletzt,

· , dass· die Beschwerdeftihrer hinsichtlich der Pflicht zum·sesuch der Grundschule ebenso behandelt werden wie Angehorige der Bevolkerungsmehrheit, die durqh die Schulerziehung nicht in

ei en. Widerspru.ch zu ihren Glaubensuberzeugungen gebl::acht

 

wer.den. Die allgemeine Schulpflicht und'die.Versagung einer

 

·Befreiung von der genannten Besuchspflicht dienen der Umset-

_.zung.des·staatli hen E.rziehungsauftrags und kntipf'en n.icht,

··w-ie.es.fi.ir Art. 3 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GG erforderlich wi;i.re (vgl.

 

BVeifGE 85, 191 <206>: 91, 166 <197>), an religiose Uberzeu- gungen an.

 

. bbl ·Zwischen "Schulverweigerern" aus religiosen Grunden und nicht. schulbesuchspflichtigen Kindern von Personen, die

'

aus beruflichen Grunden eirien festen Wohnsitz nicht haben,

 

bestehen Unt.erschiede von solcher Art und solchem Gewicht,

.dass·sie die ungleiche Behand1ung gemae Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG rechtfertigen konnen (vgl. etwa BVerfGE 82, 126 <146>). W h­ rend fur die erste Personengruppe der mit der Schulbesuchs pflicht verbundene Grundrechtseingriff, wie ausgefuhrt, als zumutbar angesehen werden-kann, ist dies jedenfalls dann

 


 

nicht der Fall, wenn eine Teilnahme der Kinder von Personen mit berufsbedingt standig wechselndem Aufenthalt am staat1i chen Schulunterricht nur durch eine Trennung von Eltern und Kindern erreicht.werden kann.

 

 

Von einer weiteren Begrundung wird gemaB § 93 d Abs. 1

 

Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

 

 

 

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar 93.d Abs. 1 Satz 2

 

. BVerfGG}..

 

 

 

 

 

Jaeger              Bomig              Bryde

 

 

,: .

 

 

/A{Jsgefertigt

· /,{tl;t£Ytu

t\mtsi sp..:;:k!-0r,; 1

a}s Urku!1dsbeam if'i U-::r Gm·,.-::;;-;i:H!ss[e le

des Buod svJrtassurtgsge.rich s

 

 

 

 

 

October 2020

1

 


[1] House of Commons, Home education in England, Briefing Paper, Number 5108, 24 July 2019.  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05108/.  Accessed October 7, 2020.

[2] As will be examined infra (particularly in the analysis of People v. Levisen), numerous jurisdictions permit home education as a type of private schooling, and view families who home school children as operating a nonpublic educational institution.  It would be consistent with these jurisdictions for this Committee to rule that home-educating families create a nonpublic educational institution within the meaning of the ICESCR.

[3] See Appendix I for references and analysis of each jurisdiction.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1.5 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2007, NCES 2009–030, December 2008, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf.

[8] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education, from the National Houshold Education Surveys Program of 2012, NCES 2102-028, Table 7, August 2013. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013028/tables/table_07.asp; visited November 7, 2013.

[9] Id.

[10] Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D., Homeschooling and the Question of Socialization Revisited, Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 88, Issue 3, 2013, at 285.             

[11] Tanya K. Dumas, Sean Gates, & Deborah Schwarzer, “Evidence for Homeschooling: Constitutional Analysis in Light of Social Science Research,” Widener Law Review (forthcoming), draft available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1317439.

[12] Brian D. Ray Home educated and now adults: Their community and civic involvement, views about homeschooling, and other traits (Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute, 2004).

[13] Id. 48, internal citations omitted.

[14] Id. 48-49.

[15] Rhonda A. Galloway, “Home Schooled Adults: Are They Ready for College?,” in American Educational Research Association (San Francisco: 1995), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/0a/d0.pdf.

[16] Richard G. Medlin, The Question of Socialization, Peabody Journal of Education 75(1 & 2), 107-123, 117, (2000).

[17] Thomas C. Smedley, Socialization of Home School Children, Home School Researcher 8(3), 9-16, (1992).

[18] Scott White, et al., Emotional, Social & Academic Adjustment to College: A Comparison Between Christian Home Schooled & Traditionally Schooled College Freshman, Home School Researcher 17(4), 1-7, (2007).

[19] Scott White, Megan Moore, and Josh Squires, Examination of Previously Homeschooled College Students with the Big Five Model of Personality, Home School Researcher 25(1), 1-7, (2009).

[20] Medlin 2000, 112-113 supra.

[21] Id., 116

[22] Richard G. Medlin, Homeschooled Children’s Social Skills, Home School Researcher 17(1), 1-8, (2006).

[23] Id.

[24] Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D., Homeschooling and the Question of Socialization Revisited, Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 88, Issue 3, 2013, at 284.

 

[25] Id.

[26] White, et al., 2007, supra.

[27] Paula Wasley, Home-Schooled Students Rise in Supply and Demand, The Chronicle of Higher Education 54(7), 1, (Oct. 12, 2007); see also Patrick Basham, John Merrifield & Claudia R. Hepburn, Home Schooling: From The Extreme To The Mainstream, 2nd ed 6, The Fraser Institute 2007, available at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/Homeschooling2.pdf.Basham at 15.

[28] Alan Scher Zagier, Colleges Coveting Home-Schooled Students, AP, September 30, 2006, available at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ articles/2006/09/30/colleges_coveting_home_schooled_students/.

[29] Elaine Regus, UC Riverside a leader in Committeeing home-schooled students, The Press-Enterprise, November 23, 2007, available at http://www.pe.com/ localnews/highereducation/stories/PE_News_Local_D_home-school24.3085ff7.html.

[30] Georgina Gustin, Home-school numbers growing, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 3, 2007, available at http://forum.gon.com/ showthread.php?t=141756.

[31] Tennessee Department of Education. Tennessee statewide averages, home school student test results, Stanford Achievement Test, grades 2, 5, 7 and 9 (Nashville, TN, 1988).

[32] Oregon Department of Education, Office of Student Services, Annual report of home school statistics 1998-99 (Salem, OR. May 20, 1999).

[33] Brian D. Ray, Academic Achievement and Demographic Traits of Homeschool Students: A Nationwide Study, Academic Leadership Live: The Online Journal, 8 no. 1 (February 2010), available at http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/Academic_Achievement_and_Demographic_Traits_of_Homeschool_Students_A_Nationwide_Study.shtml; Brian D. Ray, A nationwide study of home education: Family characteristics, legal matters, and student achievement (Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute, 1990); Research Project. Home School Researcher, 6(4), 1-7; (1990); Deani Van Pelt. The choices families make: Home schooling in Canada comes of age, Frasier Forum, March 2004, available at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/The%20Choices%20Families%20Make~~%20Home%20Schooling%20in%20Canada%20Comes%20of%20Age-Mar04ffpelt.pdf.

[34] Lawrence M. Rudner, Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(8). (1999). available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/.

[35] Jennie F. Rakestraw, Home schooling in Alabama, Home School Researcher, 4(4), 1, 5 (1988); Brian D. Ray 1990, 13, 38 supra; Brian D. Ray, Home schooling: The ameliorator of negative influences on learning? Peabody Journal of Education 75(1 & 2), 71, 83, 90 (2000); Howard B. Richman, William Girten, & Jay Snyder, Academic achievement and its relationship to selected variables among Pennsylvania homeschoolers, Home School Researcher, 6(4), 9, 13, (1990); Rudner 1999, Table 3.11 supra.

[36] Lindsey Burke, Academic Achievement of Home-schooled Students: Literature Review, April 2020, Education Freedom Institute Working Paper. http://efinstitute.org/academic-achievement-of-home-schooled-students-literature-review/. Accessed October 7, 2020.

[37] Joan Ellen Havens, A study of parent education levels as they relate to academic achievement among home schooled children. Doctoral (Ed.D.) dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth TX (1991), 92-97; Brian D. Ray, Home education in Oklahoma: Family characteristics, student achievement, and policy matters, National Home Education Research Institute (Salem, OR, 1992), 25; Rudner 1999, Table 3.12: “It is worthy to note that, at every grade level, the mean performance of home school students whose parents do not have a college degree is much higher than the mean performance of students in public schools. Their [homeschooled] percentiles are mostly in the 65th to 69th percentile range.”

[38] Gary Neil Marks, Are father's or mother's socioeconomic characteristics more important influences on student performance? Recent international evidence. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 293-309, (January 2008).

[39] James S. Coleman & Thomas Hoffer, Public and private high schools: The impact of communities Chapter 5 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc, 1987); Gordon Dahl & Lance Lochner, The impact of family income on child achievement. Discussion Paper No. 1305-05, Institute for Research on Poverty, 2005 available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/; Catherine E. Snow, Wendy S. Barnes, Jean Chandler, Irene F. Goodman, & Lowry Hemphill, Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy 2-3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

[40] Ray 2000, 83-90 supra; Terry Russell, Cross-validation of a multivariate path analysis of predictors of home school student academic achievement, Home School Researcher, 10(1), 9, (1994).

[41] Rudner 1999, Table 3.10 supra; Jon Wartes, The relationship of selected input variables to academic achievement among Washington's homeschoolers. (Woodinville, WA, September 1990), 79, 122.

[42] Once Again Home-schoolers Score High on the ACT Exam, HSLDA, July 31, 2007, available at http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200707310.asp.

[43] Rudner 1999, Table 2.10 supra.

[44] Clive R Belfield, Home-schoolers: How well do they perform on the SAT for college admission? in Bruce S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; Galloway, 2005), 167-177; Rhonda A. Galloway & Joe P. Sutton, Home schooled and conventionally schooled high school graduates: A comparison of aptitude for and achievement in college English, Home School Researcher, 11(1), 1-9 (1995); Paul Jones & Gene Gloeckner, First-Year College Performance: A Study of Home School Graduates & Traditional School Graduates, Journal of College Admission 183 (Spr. 2004), at 17, 20; Ray 2004, supra.