OPINION: Balancing Homeschool Rights with Public Interest

We've all seen the reports by now. The Turpins, a California homeschool family, were discovered to be raising their children in deplorable conditions. In the aftermath, the California legislature is trying to determine this is typical, and require annual home evaluations for homeschoolers.

As a homeschooling parent, I have seen good and bad elements of homeschooling. I am concerned, not at the idea of regulation, but about the essential elements of it. In the first place, most public school educators are fundamentally opposed to homeschooling. It is not right, or helpful, to place oversight of any activity under the authority of someone who opposes that activity. You wouldn't put Planned Parenthood under the control of the Southern Baptist Convention, it is probably not the best idea to put homeschooling under the control of public school educators, who are taught primarily fierce criticisms of homeschooling.

I've seen the extremes of those who oppose any oversight whatsoever. They worry me, frankly. But I'm also realistic; if you put the hammer down too heavy, they will most assuredly drop off the grid. More unregistered births will take place. Families will move to areas where they are less likely to attract government attention. And this will create some disturbing pockets of fractured opposition within the country.

There are better ways to go about this, frankly. As a parent who homeschools for different reasons than many, I would like to see more private/public school cooperation. My tax dollars pay for curriculum as well. Why can we not purchase curriculum through the school district and receive tax credit for those specifically authorized purchases? Why can we not access certain classes that we choose through ITV, or even, in the case of labs, take our students to the campus to participate? Questions like these bear asking. And as an aside, some districts in some states do this. It would, in my opinion, serve the public interests better to study the successes (AND failures) of these model and use those for more widespread implementation.

I'm not the norm, and I know I am not the norm, but I don't see the government as the enemy. But neither do I see them as the exclusive answer. I've seen overreach of government that are, frankly appalling. But I have also seen times when the government provided help and hope to families that have none.

Another concern I have is gentrification. I have lived among families who open their canned food from the bottom of the can so that they can rinse the cans and restack them, empty in the cupboard...all because visits from well meaning government officials with a poor understanding of the mechanics of poverty have led the empty cupboards to be seen as signs of neglectful parenting. I have seen families who struggle to furnish their homes and are fearful that the wrong person will not see those homes as "good enough". These families also deserve access to the opportunity to educate their children at home. While programs like the school lunch program provide nutrition to their children, there is no reason that in a cooperative program, those could not be expanded to those who bring their children to the campus for a class or two per day. And such cooperative education would provide greater oversight as well as much needed socialization opportunities without unduly infringing on a family's Constitutional rights.

There would be opposition, certainly. At least at first. And it would come from both sides. But if we allow the development of these sorts of programs to foster greater cooperation with the understanding that we are trying to expand and develop more flexible educational opportunities for all, and if we place oversight under the auspices of someone who genuinely believes in the advantages of homeschooling, we can create something better without the feeling that we are being thrust into a frightening dystopia.

Let's be proactive instead of reactive. The Turpins are most definitely outliers, and policy made based on the actions of someone who is not typical of a demographic is generally bad policy.