General Home Education Information

1. The Alaska Department of Education found that home educated children in Alaska scored higher than their publicly
educated counterparts on standardized achievement tests. Moreover, when compared with those who had been home
educated for two years or more, the long-term students' performance was superior to the short-term students'
performance. (Alaska Department of Education Review, 1983)

2. The Arizona Department of Education reported that home educated children in Arizona perform at above-average levels
as measured by nationally standardized achievement tests.

3. A study of children in a home education network in Los Angeles showed that the children in the network scored
higher on standardized tests than did the children in the Los Angeles public schools. (Education Week, May 15, 1985)

4. In Western New York State, five home education families who were being charged with truancy submitted their children to
testing by school officials. The seven children who were tested averaged in the 90th to 99th percentiles on the
Stanford Achievement Tests. (Teachers College Record, Winter 1982)

5. The Maryland Home Education Association, which communicates with home education families throughout the state, reports
that parents confirm national studies that cite that home educated children perform better on standardized achievement
tests. Further more, parents usually report that their children are achieving one to several years ahead in many
academic areas.

6. Home Study International, a Maryland state-approved correspondence school, reports in a recent survey of school
principals around the nation that home educated children who enroll in their schools usually perform above average in
their studies and have no more trouble adjusting to the school environment than any transfer student from another
school.

7. In a recent exhaustive study on compulsory education laws and their impact upon public and private education, Patricia
Lines, director of the Law and Education Center at the Education Commission of the States, reports that where home
educated children have been tested with nationally standardized tests, they have scored above the average.
(ERIC Microfilm #ED 253 963)

8. In a 1986 Washington State study of 426 home schoolers, it was determined that these students scored as well or better
than their peers across the nation on the Standard Achievement Test series. A review of eleven studies which
address the situation concluded that home schooling is not inhibiting its students from matching or excelling the
average school achievement. To date, there is yet to be found any study which suggests that, as a group, home
schoolers perform below average on any kind of measure. (Home-Based Education: An Alternative That Works, John
Wesley Taylor V, PhD)

9. The results of a 1987 Washington State study of homeschool achievement data by Jon Wartes and others of the Washington
Homeschool Research Project have once again provided a wealth of fascinating data regarding home educators and
their children. Wartes summarizes, "With 104 (87 percent) of the 120 cells defined by the Stanford Achievement Test
series scoring at or above the 50 percentile and the median cell at the 65 percentile, it is apparent that this
sampling of home schoolers is, as a group, doing well. Fears that home schooling children are at an academic
disadvantage compared to conventionally educated students are not confirmed by this data." (page 14)
Report from the 1987Washington Homeschool Testing (1988)

A RELIGIOUS POSITION

Although parents might have numerous reasons for educating their children at home, religious reasons seem to predominate.

America is a land not of mere religious toleration, it is a land of religious freedom. There is a tremendous difference, as
our founding fathers understood it. Today, government at every level has the duty not only to tolerate religious beliefs and
convictions but to protect the right and liberty to exercise them. Therefore, it is the State's responsibility to protect
these rights insofar as they do not violate another's right.

Of the numerous religious faiths, Christians believe that, as Psalms 127:3 of the Christian's Bible says, "...children are a
gift of the Lord," a gift from God to the parents. The gift of children was not given to the church or to the state. God
instituted the family before both the church and the state. Historically, the family has been recognized as having the
responsibility of rearing and educating their children. The instruction from God to educate children was given to the fathers
in order that there might be faith and true knowledge in generations to come. In Psalms 78:5-7 it says, "For He
established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, that they should teach them to
their children. That the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they should put their confidence in
God, and not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments." These commands from God to the parents are repeated numerous
times in the Scriptures; the following is a sample:

Proverbs 22:6 - "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."

Deuteronomy 6:6 - "And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them
diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit down in your house and when you walk by the way and when you
lie down and when you rise up."

Isaiah 38:19 - "It is the living who give thanks to Thee, as I do today; as a father tells his sons about Thy
faithfulness."

Ephesians 6:4 - "And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the instruction of the Lord."

Many parents believe that education cannot be divided into secular and religious areas, that all education is inescapably
religious, and that it is impossible to rear their child in an ideological vacuum that is perceived to be morally, ethically,
and religiously neutral. The teacher, the curriculum, the group attitude will all communicate a value system, be it atheistic,
hedonistic, or any other religion. Neutrality is impossible.

Jesus Christ said that, "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his
teacher." Christian parents cannot send their children to a setting where they are exposed to philosophies and principles
contrary to these religious beliefs and convictions to which they hold, and expect them to not be adversely influenced. Along with
and superior to math, English, and science, Christian parents understand that loving God and serving Him must be a priority in
their child's life and education.

Obviously, the parents can choose to delegate to someone else their authority to educate their child. This of course
would be their right, not another's. In a situation where the parent assumes the responsibility themselves and the state is
hostile to that position, the Christian parent must be faithful first to God. The Bible says in Acts 5:25 that, "We must obey God
rather than men."

Many parent believe that their right to educate their children at home for religious reasons is an established American
tradition as well as a right and liberty enjoyed under the protection of the Constitution of the United States.

A LEGAL POSITION

With a resurgence of interest in home schooling, coupled with an increase in government involvement in education and
family matters because of alleged child abuses, both legislators and Board of Education members have been placed in an awkward
position. Since all laws and policies must comply and conform with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, solving this
dilemma must ultimately take us back to this document.

The Supreme Court, in a number of circumstances, has been given the responsibility to determine what the Constitution has
to say regarding parental rights in the education of children. As early as the late 1800's the Supreme Court has been called
upon to decide such matters. Since that time the High Court has delivered numerous landmark decisions affecting parental rights,
education, and State's involvement and interest.

Without making an exhausting list, several major Supreme Court cases and a summary of their conclusions, are included, as
well as a list of other pertinent cases.

To lay a foundation for the subject, the Supreme Court in PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976), stated that the
Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and
child rearing and education." This has certainly been the position of the Supreme Court throughout its history. In the
famous case of WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) the court stated, "...the history of the western civilization reflects a
strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents
in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."

In the case of PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 531 (1925) the courts declared, "The child is not the mere create
of the state; those that nurture him and direct his destiny, have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare
him for added obligations."

In the case of GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 158-178 (1944) it was upheld that, "the right to educate one's children
as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

Quoting again from WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. (1972) the court laid out parental rights to educate in no uncertain terms.
The court said, "A state's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from the balancing
process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of the parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their
children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'preparing them for additional obligations.' We can accept it as settled,
therefore, that however strong the state's compelling interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the
exclusion of subordination of all other interest."

The courts again reached to the heart of the matter in case of MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923) when it
stated that, "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or
place." In the closing of that case the court continued, "The law is not made to punish those who provide their children with
instruction equal to or superior to that obtainable in the public schools. It is made for the parent who fails to properly educate
their child."

There are literally dozens of other citings from the Supreme Court that could be used to further establish a case for parental
right in home schooling without interference on the part of the state. Other court cases will be listed separately. But suffice
it is to say that the right of a parent to teach their child as they desire is a constitutionally protected right. Following
that thought a step further, a quote from the Supreme Court case of MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 491, "Where rights secured
by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Also, in MILLER v. U.S., F 486 AT 489, the court said that, "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime."

The situation, as the court sees it, then, is that parents have the primary interest in the education of their children
which supercedes any "compelling" interest of the state. The state should be in the position of encouraging and supporting
parents in their role and decisions of education.

CASES PERTAINING TO EDUCATION

DATE CASE

1893 COMMONWEALTH v. ROBERTS, 159 MASS.

1904 STATE v. PETERMAN, 32 IND. AP. 665

1923 MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390

1925 PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510

1927 FARRINGTON v. TOKYSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284

1944 PRINCE v. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158-178

1948 PACKER COLLEGIATE INST. v. U. of STATE of N.Y.,
76 N.Y.S. 2D 499

1950 PEOPLE v. LEVISEN, 90 N.E. 2D. 213

1960 BATES v. LITTLE ROCK, 361 U.S. 516

1961 STATES v. MASSA, 95 N.J. SUPRER. 382

1965 GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 516

1972 WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205

1974 MEEK v. PITTENGER, 374 F. SUPP. 639,653

1976 PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693

1976 STATE v. LaBARGE, 357 A. 2D 121

1976 OHIO v. WHISNER, 351 N.E. 2D 750

1978 PERCHEMLIDES v. FRIZZLE (cit. unavailable)


SUPPORTIVE LEGISLATION FOR HOME SCHOOLING

More and more parents, who maintain suitable standards of raising their children, are subsequently returning to the roles 
of educator and mentor.  An increasing number of states have responded to this action by facilitating the parent's right to 
educate with favorable home school laws.  Twenty-three states have passed home school laws, with a number of these occurring 
recently.  It is apparent that a growing awareness of the fundamental (Constitutional) right of the parent to choose 
appropriate education for his children is being recognized by many state legislators.  

Steps to ensure a process whereby the home educator can implement an effective home instruction program without undue 
requirements have already been taken in numerous states.  For example, Mississippi statutes acknowledge "...the primary right 
and obligation of the parent or parents...to choose the proper education and training for (the home-educated) child.  
Furthermore, no state agency or other entity has the right to control, manage or supervise the operation, management, program, 
curriculum, admissions policy or discipline or any home instruction program."  (SS 37-13-91)

In Missouri, a parent may home instruct his children without "unnecessary investigation" if he chooses private or religious-
based instruction and provides evidence that the children are receiving regular instruction.  A record or plan book of the 
subjects taught, samples of student work and a record of evaluations need only be retained by the parent.  "The state of 
Missouri shall be prohibited from dictating through rule, regulation or other device any statewide curriculum for home 
schools."  (SS 167.031)  The home school program is protected from any concept, topic or practice in conflict with the school's 
religious doctrines.  The state of Wyoming provides similar protection from inclusion of curriculum with conflicting content 
to the home-based educational program (SS 21-4-101).  Also in Wyoming, the parent need merely show that a "basic educational 
program" is given to the home-instructed child.

In one of the most recent cases (April, 1987), the court in Texas have finally decided on a two year old home schooling case. 
 The court declared that home schools are to be considered legal private schools.  The court further stated that since their state 
constitution only authorized the legislature to establish and maintain public education, that private schools were out of their 
jurisdiction.  The court held that any other interpretation of the compulsory attendance law, i.d., that home schooling is 
illegal, would violate the home schooler's rights under 42 USC. 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act.  

Even among those states not yet adopting home school statutes, several states clearly allow for home-based education 
without unnecessary state and local school board intervention.  Some of these states are Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, 
North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Dakota.  Teacher certification is not the requisite in the state supporting home-based 
instruction.  Only three states require otherwise.

It is the purpose of this disclosure to review the current favorable legislative atmosphere for home schooling.  Many states 
have provided the avenue whereby the conscientious parent/educator may implement an effective home-based program 
with minimal constraints or intervention.

Reprinted with permission from the Home School Legal Defense Association.



A SELECTED HOME SCHOOLING BIBLIOGRAPHY


The Bible

Ballmann, Ray E.  The How and Why of Home Schooling.  
Westchester, IL:  Crossway Books, a division of Good News 
Publishers, 1987

Baker, Virginia Birt.  Teaching Your Children At Home.  Van, TX: 
 Mrs. Virginia Birt Baker, 1984

Dobson, James.  Dare to Discipline.  Wheaton, IL:  Tyndale House, 
1970