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