Home based educational programs are becoming more and more popular with Wisconsin families. With the increased interest and participation in such programs, it is time that the state reevaluates its current laws. As they stand now, the statutes relating to home schooling are much too lenient; there is no accountability for parents and no safeguards in place to make sure that the children in these programs are actually receiving a quality education. I believe that additional restrictions need to be put in place that require children and or parents to participate in some kind of activity that will prove participants are at the same level as their public school peers. Arguments are made that when compared to the total amount of school aged children in the state, the number of children receiving their education through Home-Based programs are miniscule. Our focus should remain on the bulk of the children and keep resources going into the public schools. At one time this may have been true, but times have changed, home-based education programs have now become so popular that we as a state need to take a closer look. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) began keeping track of home schooled enrollments in this state during the 1986-1987 school years. At that time there were approximately 2,456 students receiving their education at home. That number has now skyrocketed, by an amazing 856% to a total of 21,034 students in 2003-2004 school year.(“WDPI Enrollment”, 2007) Although the number of home schooled students amounts to less than 2% of all school age students in the state, when you look at the actual numbers they are still high. If all the home schooled children in the state lived in one place, they would easily populate a small city. Imagine an entire city of uneducated or poorly educated individuals, how could the residents of that city be successful, contributing members of society? In Wisconsin, registering a child as a home schooled student is fairly easy, almost too easy. The following state statutes outline the process. Section 115.30 (3): On or before October 15, each administrator of a home-based private educational program shall submit, on forms provided by the department, a statement of the enrollment on the third Friday of September in the elementary and secondary grades under his/her jurisdiction to the department. Section 115.30(3): Instruction in a home-based private educational program shall indicate in his or her report whether the system or program meets all of the criteria under s. 118.165(1) Section 118.165(1) a) The primary purpose of the program is to provide private or religious-based education. b) The program is privately controlled. c) The program provides at least 875 hours of instruction each school year. d) The program provides a sequentially progressive curriculum of fundamental instruction in reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and health. This subsection does not require the program to include in its curriculum any concept, topic or practice in conflict with the program’s religious doctrines or to exclude form its curriculum any concept, topic, or practice consistent with the program’s religious doctrines. e) The program is not operated or instituted for the purpose of avoiding or circumventing the compulsory school attendance requirement under s. 115.15(1)(a) In other words, all a parent needs to do to home-school their child is to annually submit a form to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) notifying them of their intent to educate the child and agree that they will provide 875 hours of progressive instruction in the desired topics. It is never confirmed that the requirements were fulfilled; it is just assumed they were I don’t think that the few requirements demanded by the state of Wisconsin are enough. Where is the accountability? How can we be sure home-schooled students are getting the education they need and deserve? Although Wisconsin does not currently have any way to ensure home schooled students are learning anything, other states in the nation do. Currently twenty-six states have home schooling restrictions more rigorous than Wisconsin. Most require home-based education programs to meet additional requirements meant to ensure that a student is actually receiving an education. These restrictions vary from state to state but some examples include: 1) students must participate in state achievement tests 2) restrictions on the amount of education the parent/instructor has achieved 3) student portfolios submitted for evaluation 4) parent instructor keeps and submits written records of activities/attendance The state of Iowa has an interesting program. In order to home school students in that state, parents must submit a form to the Department of Education informing the state of the student’s vital records information, number of days they will be instructed, texts used, and an outline for instruction. Additionally they may also choose one of the following methods to show that instruction was carried out. 1) Parent must work with a supervising teacher; the parent must have 8 meetings, 4 of which must be face-to-face. 2) Parents must annually provide the results of a test administered by a certified teacher results at the end of every school year, by a certified teacher; there is a specific group of tests that the state approves and testing cannot be done by the parent. 3) Parents must annually provide a portfolio. The parent finds a portfolio evaluator, who must be a certified teacher, and the parent must keep samples of the child’s work, and a record of activities. At the end of the year, these are reviewed by the evaluator. 4) Home-school assistance program and only the larger school districts offer these programs; this option is also known as dual enrollment. Unfortunately home-schooling families do not agree with increased regulation. As a general rule, they feel that the more the state becomes involved in the affairs of their home based private education program, the less freedom they have to choose the direction of their child’s education. This is why I believe the Iowa model is a good one. Although it does force parents to have at least a rough plan of instruction it allows them the flexibility of subject matter and time. Parents are allowed to teach what they want at a pace that is right for the child. It also gives the state some reassurance that future citizens will be academically equipped to participate in society. Some families of home schoolers are so against additional restrictions that they have taken the issue all the way to the Supereme Court. Although the issues at hand vary from case to case their arguments are usually pretty similar. A 1993 U.S. District Court case, Kenneth Null v. Board of Education of the County of Jackson looks at the idea of standardized testing. In this dispute Brent Anderson attended public school for kindergarten, first and second grades. After second grade, Brent was removed from the public schools in favor of a home based education program.
West Virginia, the state that Brent lived in at the time, had a statute that limited a child’s participation in home based education if standardized test scores fell below a certain level. W.Va. Code § 18-8-1, Exemption B(b)(4): If the child’s composite test results for any single year for English, grammar, reading, social studies, science and mathematics fall below the fortieth percentile on the selected tests, the person or persons providing home instruction shall initiate a remedial program to foster achievement above that level. If, after one year, the child’s composite test results are not above the fortieth percentile level, home instruction shall no longer satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirement exemption After his first year of home schooling, Brent’s composite score fell to the 17th percentile. He was retested after his second year and only reached the 38th percentile. According to the exemption statute, Brent was no longer eligible to participate in his home based program. Brent’s mother sued claiming that the exemption was unconstitutional and was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that denying “parents the right to continue to give their children home education when the students achieve test scores which are in the average ranges” (Null v. Board of Education, p. 3) was treating Brent differently than public school students were being treated. The due process claim stemmed from the parents right to direct their child’s education. In deciding the case, the court said that if a fundamental right is infringed on, like those guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the state’s interest in education is subject to a balancing process. Which is greater, the individuals right to direct their child’s education or the State’s desire for an educated, productive society? When a fundamental right is not involved and it is just a general liberty interest, reasonable restrictions can be upheld. In the case of the Bennets, based on the reasonableness of the exemption, the court viewed the exemption as constitutional. The court went on to comment on the claim of violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The complaint did not mention a suspect class (race, national origin, citizenship, sex, legitimacy) and is therefore not violating a fundamental right. Since a fundamental right was not at stake, the rational basis test was used and the court ruled the exemption was “rationally related to a legitimate state purpose and the Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim was meritless.” (Null v. Board of Education, p. 5) Standardized tests are only one form of review implemented by states. Other forms such as portfolios, working closely with a certified school officials and teacher education requirements are often fought by home-schooling families. In People of the State of Michigan v. John and Sandra Bennet, an instructor certification requirement was addressed. John and Sandra Bennet chose to withdraw their four children from their school and teach them at home. The Bennet children were promptly enrolled in a home based education program sponsored by Clonlara, Inc. The company provided the Bennets with a home instruction program and allowed them to utilize the services of certified teachers on the Ann Arbor campus. At the time the Bennets were teaching their children at home, the State of Michigan had certain laws that established guidelines for parents wishing to teach their children at home. One of the rules required that all instruction must be given by a teacher certified by the state to teach the subjects being taught, and the certificates evidencing this must be registered with the Intermediate Superintendent’s office The Bennets did not meet this requirement and were charged with failure to meet compulsory education laws. They were fined and told to contact their local school district to have the children tested for grade placement. The Bennets appealed the ruling arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the fundamental right to direct the education of their children. They cited several Supreme Court cases to support their argument including Pierce v. The society of Sisters, and Wisconsin v. Yoder. The court disagreed with the Bennets and said that at no time did the Supreme Court declare the right to choose the type of education for children as a fundamental right. It was then decided that because there was no fundamental right at stake, the state’s teacher certification requirement only had to meet the conditions of the minimal scrutiny test (rational basis). In other words because there was no fundamental right being argued, and because the Bennets were not a member of a protected class of individuals (racial or national origin) the law will be upheld if it serves a reasonable governmental purpose. Although the U.S. constitution guarantees citizens the right to life liberty and property, it does not say anything about education. Pierce v. The Society of Sisters, made it possible for parents to choose the type of education their children receive, but it does not guarantee that they will have one hundred percent free reign over the entire process. States also have a direct interest in the education of the students that reside within its boundaries. They will ultimately be responsible for the child that grows up to be a law-breaker, unemployed, or generally a poor citizen. It is because of this interest that the state is allowed to put reasonable requirements on certain aspects of education. At one time, Wisconsin’s statutes may have been adequate, but that is no longer the case. With the increased enrollments in Home-based private education programs, there needs to be greater accountability for the students learning there. We as a society need to make sure that ALL students, no matter where they are taught are getting the education that they need to participate in a global community. It only makes sense that we can no longer take people’s word for it, we need to know without a doubt that students are learning and it is only through increased restrictions that this can be accomplished.
References

1. (2007). Questions and DPI Responses Relating to Home-Based Private Educational Programs. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sms/doc/homeqa.doc

2. Enrollment and Family Unit Trends in Home-Based Private Educational Programs (2007). Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sms/hbstats.html

3. Kenneth Null v. Board of Education of the County of Jackson, 815 F. Supp. 937; 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3784

4. People of the State of Michigan v. John and Sandra Bennett, 442 Mich. 316; 501 N.W.2d 106; 1993 Mich. Lesix 1403

5. Stephen Pustell and Lois Pustell v. Lynn Public Schools, 18F.3d 50; 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 5479

6. Luebke, R. V. (1999, July). Homeschooling in Wisconsin: A Review of Current Issues and Trends. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from Ebsco Host Research Database (ED447571).

7. (2007). State Laws. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp