Homeschooling on the Left and the Right: beyond public and Christian schools
Last week’s issue of The Economist includes a brief report on the phenomenal growth of homeschooling in the past thirty years in the United States. According to the report, approximately 2 million children are currently being homeschooled, roughly the same number as are attending charter schools.
Homeschooling is one of those issues on which folks on the right and the left often find more in common with each other than they do with those in the middle.
Although home schooling started on the counter-cultural left, the conservative right has done most to promote it, abandoning public schools for being too secular and providing no moral framework. Today the ranks of home-schoolers are overwhelmingly Christian, and 78% of parents attend church frequently….
Home schooling is not exclusively white and Christian. In 2007 a report found that Muslim children were one of the fastest-growing groups; black-home schoolers are around 4% of the total and comprised 61,000 children. The super-wealthy, and parents who must move around a lot, are also taking up home schooling in increasing numbers because of its flexibility.
In certain Christian circles homeschooling has actually sparked significant opposition because it is viewed as a threat to Christian schools. Some Dutch Reformed communities, for instance, have gone so far as to refuse ecclesiastical office to parents who homeschool their children. In fact, while the movement in general owes much to Christian skepticism towards developments in public schools, many homeschooling parents are just as motivated by their frustration with Christian schools. As far as they are concerned, many of these schools are neither as Christian as they claim, nor do they offer anything like the rigorous education the parents are seeking.
How do homeschoolers do?
Academically, home-schooled children seem to do well; they enter higher education in proportions similar to those who are conventionally educated, and score as well or better on college entrance exams. Nor, on the evidence of Mr Murphy’s book, are they socially backward: most seem confident, assured and well-adjusted. They also have fewer behavioural problems.
It is also the case that in many instances public schools have been far more cooperative with homeschoolers than have Christian schools.
Public schools can do little but co-operate these days, and most offer access to school facilities, websites, books and other materials. Some even allow home-schoolers to take specialist courses—allowing the school to tap into a portion of public financing they would otherwise lose entirely.
Flexible cooperation between public schools, charter schools, Christian schools and “home schools,” each of which may be a legitimate option for parents under varying circumstances, seems sensible to me. The United States stands to benefit from the decentralization and democratization of education, both because of what this does for competition and educational improvement and because of the pluralistic solution it offers in a nation that has thus far found that the only possible way to be post-Protestant is to be thoroughly secular. We don’t all have to do this the same way.
Posted on December 27, 2012, in Children, Education and tagged charter schools, Christian schools, homeschooling, public schools. Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.
Matt, aside from the Protestant Reformed, what “Dutch Reformed communities” do you have in mind that have barred church office to homeschool fathers?
Also, when I served on the local Christian school board a number of years ago, we forged a policy which explicitly provided cooperative services through the institutional school for homeschool parents.
Agreed. But careful, this conclusion doesn’t exactly jibe with the URCNA’s Article 14 of the Church Order which states that it is the duty of the elders to, among other things, “promote godly schooling.” It actually jibes better with the RCC Catechism 2229 which states: “As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.”
Zrim, to what are expressing your “agreed”? And to what “conclusion” are you referring to that “doesn’t exactly jibe” with the URC Article 14?
Jibes just fine is we understand the “liberty” is choosing among “God-centered” options, and understanding upon whom Article 14 is placing a duty. Article 14 addresses what the elders are to “promote”. This promotion could include both God-centered day school or homeschool for parents, which of course, is not “same way” of doing Christian education.
Mark, I am agreed that “we don’t all have to do this the same way,” which I take to be another way of affirming liberty on day schooling. I am not so sure that this jibes with “They [elders] are to…promote God-centered schooling…” the way it does RCC 2229.
Hi Mark,
I know of particular congregations outside the Protestant Reformed, one a very large one in the URCNA that has thankfully reversed its course, that have taken this step. I don’t think it’s profitable to name them here, but I’m not making this up.
Thanks Zrim, the Catholic statement seems solid, though it’s not clear to me that it is inconsistent with the URCNA church order.
Thanks, Matt. I didn’t think you were making it up, but rightly suspected it was based on some localized situation. I simply wanted to make clear that such is not the official position of the URCNA, nor to my knowledge, of any other Reformed denomination outside of the PR.
Mark (and Matt), what I have in mind are those of us who elect secular schools, which cannot in any way be construed as “God-centered.” I fail to see how an elder wouldn’t be compelled to admonish those who make such a choice if he is to promote God-centered schooling, just as he would have to admonish those who fail to maintain the purity of Word and sacrament if he is to promote the same. In which case, liberty is limited to the homeschooling (of Christian parents) or Christian schooling. Of course, “Christian” here becomes another sticky definition—is a Baptist school or Catholic school “God-centered”? For my part, when I think “God-centered” I don’t think Baptist or Catholic anymore than “secular.”
Zrim, you now raise different questions. “Promotion” does not always and necessarily require “admonition”. Much would depend on the heart attitude and particular circumstances of the parent in how they respond to the positive encouragement/promotion from the eldership. I could envision situations where admonishment would be in order, and scenarios where it wouldn’t.
As for excluding Baptist schools from the term “Christian”, I would doubt your eldership would take such an extreme sectarian view. I would agree in general with excluding Catholic schools from the term “Christian”, however.
So, Mark, Baptist is now synonymous with Christian (but Catholic isn’t)? So if I decide to renounce my family’s membership in the URC and adhere to the Baptist church around the corner that’s kosher? But I am working with the assumption that Christian can only properly be applied to those institutions that bear the three marks and persons who adhere to those institutions. It can be applied loosely to those that don’t necessarily, but since you make a distinction between Baptist and Catholic schools it seems you’re also in the strict definitions camp—which makes me wonder why you think Baptist is anymore Christian than Catholic, what with things like Belgic 29 and 34.
But on promotion, you seem to lower the bar to that squishy “heart attitude” water mark. Here’s the whole Article:
“The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centered schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.”
Purity of Word and sacrament, catechesis, visitation, discipline, evangelism and missions, and good order. Those are all things that strike me as explicitly biblical and in keeping with Reformed faith and practice. Are we to measure the “heart attitude” for those who neglect or otherwise oppose these things? Does it matter what the “heart attitude” of those who would antagonize good order or neglect catechism or undermine the purity of the Word?
But try a thought experiment: what’s to be lost by striking the promotion of God-centered schools? I see much to be lost by striking the promotion of any other element. The only thing I see lost by striking the former is vestiges of neo-Calvinism and Christian culture. I can see where that would strain you.
So, Mark, Baptist is now synonymous with Christian (but Catholic isn’t)? So if I decide to renounce my family’s membership in the URC and adhere to the Baptist church around the corner that’s kosher? But I am working with the assumption that Christian can only properly be applied to those institutions that bear the three marks and persons who adhere to those institutions. It can be applied loosely to those that don’t necessarily, but since you make a distinction between Baptist and Catholic schools it seems you’re also in the strict definitions camp—which makes me wonder why you think Baptist is anymore Christian than Catholic, what with things like Belgic 29 and 34.
Surely you know the gulf between Baptist and Catholic theology. As you say, the term “Christian” can be applied more generally, and in that, I would apply the term to the Baptists and not to the Catholics for obvious reasons on the doctrine of the justification, on Scripture, etc. etc.. As for whether your leaving the URC for a Baptist church is “kosher”, I don’t know what you mean by the term “kosher”. I would try to dissaude you from it as heading in a defective direction, but I would not think you should be excommunicated. The Baptists do exhibit marks of the true church, albeit in a less true form than the Reformed. Would your standard would exclude Lutherans from the term “Christian” given their defective view of the Lord’s Supper?
But on promotion, you seem to lower the bar to that squishy “heart attitude” water mark.
Not at all. The duty of elders in “promotion” was not in view. Their duty is their duty and it remains the same per the Church Order. My comment on the heart attitude was in reference to the parishioner’s response to the elder’s promotion, and depending on what is seen whether the elders’ work would need to include “admonition”.
Are we to measure the “heart attitude” for those who neglect or otherwise oppose these things? Does it matter what the “heart attitude” of those who would antagonize good order or neglect catechism or undermine the purity of the Word?
Of course it matters. A neglecting or antagonizing against the good (Church) order or catechesis, or purity of the Word reflects one’s heart attitude.
But try a thought experiment: what’s to be lost by striking the promotion of God-centered schools? I see much to be lost by striking the promotion of any other element. The only thing I see lost by striking the former is vestiges of neo-Calvinism and Christian culture. I can see where that would strain you.
I want none of it struck, but for Biblical reasons. You want some of it stricken for your R2k reasons. See, it just took a bit more conversation to reveal the heart of your antagonism toward the Church Order provision.
Mark, ok, so what are the biblical reasons for “promoting God-centered schools”? And what exactly is a God-centered school? And what is to be done with those of us who don’t employ one? If elders should be promoting godly schools then doesn’t that mean discouraging ungodly schools? If so, why wasn’t our family even asked one question about the ungodly schooling we employ by the elders when being interviewed for a transfer of membership (nor followed up with)? That would seem to suggest it isn’t really that important, so why maintain the language?
Zrim, it is not as if you haven’t been supplied the Biblical argument. Repeatedly. You reject those arguments and there is no evidence anything will change your mind on it. I get that. If you are so antagonistic against Church Order Article 14, make a formal request to your elders to draft an overture to change the Church Order. They know the procedure.
As for why your eldership never asked you a question about the “ungodly” (your term) schooling you employ, I can not possibly answer that question. Go to the source and ask your elders why they didn’t inquire. Don’t presume to know their mind on it. It would be interesting to hear what you learn from their response.
Mark, I’ve no interest in pursuing such an overture. All I’m asking for is you in a combox to show the biblical argument for the particular language about “God-centered schooling” in 14. But to be fair, you’re right, I’ve yet to see any biblical argument for why the church has a calling to promote anything concerning the 3Rs. God-centered catechism, yes, God-centered curriculum, huh? The language is reflective of the neo-Calvinist notions that yet cling.
PS, it is not surprising but it never gets less than breathtaking how neo-Calvinists stop short of disciplining those who would renounce the Reformed faith (particularly their baptism) and call those who would extreme, radical, and sectarian. It’s as if the Reformation is over when it comes to the sacraments and Calvin’s idea that we are assailed on both sides by two sects (Rome and the Anabaptists) is antiquated, not to mention how outdated and wrong-headed Belgic 34 becomes. But yet, elders must promote something the Bible never calls for.
Mark, I’ve no interest in pursuing such an overture.
Aside from the fact that you don’t have to pursue it (ask your elders to pursue it), then I question the strength of your conviction that the URC is holding onto unbiblical vestiges of Neo-Calvinism.
All I’m asking for is you in a combox to show the biblical argument for the particular language about “God-centered schooling” in 14. But to be fair, you’re right, I’ve yet to see any biblical argument for why the church has a calling to promote anything concerning the 3Rs.
As I said, you’ve been shown it. Repeatedly. That deny you’ve ever seen a biblical argument confirms that no amount of Scriptural or confessional argument in a combox will open your eyes.
And I’ll add a note of encouragement. Seek out the pastoral counsel of those under whose authority you rest rather than looking for answers in internet comboxes. Talk to your elders to alert them to your desire to have them explain and open up the Scriptures to you and by God’s grace, can quiet your conscience.
Mark, thanks for the encouragement, but my conscience is just fine. It’s my mind that is simply curious is all. True, my expectations are low, but I thought maybe you’d be able to offer something I haven’t heard yet. I guess not. And from your tone (“open my eyes”) it still sounds like educational liberty is really more limited than what Matt suggests here.
Matt,
As a homeschooled student with friends in public and Christian private schools I can respond to your post with a hearty “Amen.” Thanks.
Michael Kearney
West Sayville URC (member/musician)
Long Island, New York
Pingback: Peering Inside the Belly of the Beast | Flyover-Press.com
Pingback: Home-schooling For Today’s Children | Magic Wanda the Dragon
Pingback: Homeschooling Vs. School At Home | Magic Wanda the Dragon