Homeschooling:

Private Choices and Public Obligations

Patricia M. Lines
Office of Research
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
Working Paper
revised, Februar, !""#
Working papers are intended to promote the e$change o% ideas
among researchers and policmakers. &he vie's in this paper are
those o% the author, and no o%%icial support b the (.). *epartment
o% +ducation is intended or should be in%erred.
&he author is a research analst in the O%%ice o% ,esearch, (.).
*epartment o% +ducation. Portions o% this 'orking paper 'ere
prepared 'hile the author 'as a visiting pro%essor in the +uphemia
Hanes Chair at Catholic (niversit o% -merica .C(-/. &he
author e$tends her gratitude to the *epartment %or granting leave,
and to C(- %or the support and encouragement necessar to allo'
'ork on this paper. - special note o% thanks should go to
colleagues at +* %or supporting the leave re0uest and %illing in
during the author1s absence: Milton 2oldberg, 3vor Pritchard,
Harold Himmel%arb and 4oe Conat.
&he author is also indebted to colleagues in the departments o%
education and politics at C(- %or support and encouragement.
)pecial gratitude is due to individuals 'ho commented on earlier
dra%ts o% this paper: 3vor Pritchard5 )usan O16anion, a doctoral
candidate at the (niversit o% Marland5 Craig Cunningham, o% the
Hde 3nstitute5 Claes ,n, o% Catholic (niversit o% -merica5 and
4ames Carper, o% the (niversit o% )outh Carolina.
3% ou have comments on this paper or 'ould like additional
in%ormation, please contact:
Patricia Lines
(.). *epartment o% +ducation
O+,37O%%ice o% ,esearch
888 9e' 4erse -ve. 9W, ,oom :!;
Washington *C <=<=>?8:#:
F-@: .<=</ <!"?<=A=
BO3C+: .<=</ 8=!?;8:#
39&+,9+&: plinesCinet.ed.gov
This is the second OR working paper to focus on issues involving homeschooling. The
first was Lines !Estimating the "ome Schooled #opulation! Octo$er %&&%.
A
Homeschooling:
Private Choices and Public Obligations
b Patricia M. Lines
- small but gro'ing number o% %amilies are educating their school?aged children at home rather
than at a school.
!
&hese %amilies, 'ho o%ten call themselves homeschoolers, have made this
choice %or a 'ide variet o% reasons. *espite their diverse motives, the all dissent %rom 'ell?
settled and democraticall determined rules about ho' -mericans should %ormall educate their
children. 6ecause homeschoolers s'im outside the mainstream, educators, polic makers and
the media have given them attention beond 'hat their numbers might 'arrant. &his attention is
more than mere curiosit. Homeschooling re0uires us to consider ane' the constitutional
balance bet'een maDoritarian rule and individual libert.
3ts critics see homeschooling as a challenge to the %undamental idea o% education as a public
obligation E one that must be met, at least in part, through cooperative e$change
'ithin a communit. &he critics see homeschoolers as isolationist, atomistic, and possibl
undemocratic. &his is not al'as clear or e$plicit, but the %re0uentl?asked 0uestion F'hat about
socialiGationF re%lects a 'orr that homeschoolers are 'ithdra'ing %rom the general enterprise.
)usan FranGosa has provided the %irst developed and articulate statement o% this vie'. )he
begins 'ith the 'ords o% 4ohn *e'e:
What the best and 'isest parent 'ants %or his o'n child, that must the communit
'ant %or all its children. -n other ideal %or our schools is narro' and unlovel5
acted upon it destros our democrac.
<
For FranGosa, in the best societ all parents understand E
that their o'n child1s good is dependent on the good o% others and that taking
ade0uate responsibilit %or one1s o'n re0uires continued participation in the
crucial debate about 'hat constitutes the best education %or all our children.
A
1
-s a rough estimate, there 'ere some <8=,=== to A:=,=== school?aged children in home schools in the !""=??
!""! school ear. Lines, F+stimating the Home )chooled Population,F ()+*, O%%ice o% ,esearch Working Paper no.
O, "!?8A;, October, !""!.
2
)usan *ouglas FranGosa, F&he 6est and Wisest Parent: - Criti0ue o% 4ohn Holt1s Philosoph o% +ducation,F in
4ane Ban 2alen and Mar -nne Pitman, eds., "ome Schooling' #olitical "istorical and #edagogical #erspectives
.9or'ood, 9e' 4erse: -ble$ Publishing Corporation, !""!/ pp. !<!E!A8, at !<!. &he re%erence is to 4ohn *e'e,
The School and Societ(, p. ;. &he passage can be %ound in The )hild and the )urriculum H!"=<I and The School and
Societ( H!"==, revised ed. !"!8I .Chicago: (niversit o% Chicago Press, combined ed., !"8:/ .each 'ork has its o'n
pagination, and hereina%ter each 'ill be cited b its title onl/.
3
FranGosa, p. !A#.
#
Focusing on the thought o% 4ohn Holt, an earl homeschooling advocate, she concluded that Holt
reDected this goal, and that he 'ould have homeschoolers make sel%?interest their guide. )he sa'
Holt as advocating a romantic and rugged individualism o% the 'orst sort. -ccording to
FranGosa, Holt believed that E
the %ull gro'th o% the individual is incompatible 'ith an %orm o% institutional
control built on communit consensus. (nlike the democratic social thesis in
*e'e1s prescriptions %or educational re%orm, Holt1s conservative libertarianism
de%ines a societ in 'hich the individual1s 'el%are is not the legitimate concern o%
the state, one1s children can be thought o% strictl as one1s o'n, and the individual
need %eel no responsibilit %or the good o% all. &he best and 'isest parent 'ithin
this ideological conte$t chooses to reDect social participation in %avor o% personal
independence and autonom.
. . . Holt1s conservatism ultimatel sanctions the educational neglect o% the vast
maDorit o% children and leads to a tacit acceptance o% their plight.
#
3s this a %air DudgmentJ *oes Holt1s vision o% homeschooling negate 'hat the communit should
'ant %or all its childrenJ 3% so, can one distinguish Holt1s vision %rom the vision o%
homeschoolers in generalJ *o all visions o% homeschooling do thisJ 3s communit consensus
the over?arching goalJ *oes %ailure to Doin this consensus destro our democracJ Have
homeschoolers 'ithdra'n %rom the debate about 'hat is best %or all childrenJ Must one
patroniGe the local public school in order to engage in this debateJ &o ans'er, one must
consider 'hat is communit and 'hat is Four democracJF One must consider, in particular, the
place %or individual libert 'ithin the -merican tradition.
&o begin, FcommunitF 'ill re%er to a committed and supportive circle o% others beond the
%amil. Ho' %ar the circle e$tends or should e$tend remains debateable. Ket, brie% re%lection
'ill lead most to agree that all %amilies need some support %rom those outside the %amil.
9ot even large, e$tended %amilies e$ist easil 'ithout contact 'ith others. 9o %amil survives in
isolation %or long. &he older members eventuall die5 the ounger members must Doin 'ith
ounger members o% other %amilies to establish the ne$t generation or the %amil ceases
altogether. Parents usuall understand this5 and usuall the 'illingl collaborate 'ith others to
educate their children. &he kno' that all their children must, in more than one sense, speak the
same language. One is reminded o% *e'e1s observation: F9ot onl is social li%e identical 'ith
communication, but all communication .and hence all genuine social li%e/ is educative.F
8
3n an ideal 'orld, the %amil and the communit support each other. When a child is born,
4
FranGosa, p. !<A.
5
4ohn *e'e, Democrac( and Education H!"!:I .9e' Kork: Free Press, !"##/, p. 8.
8
parents 'elcome her and take her lovingl into their care. 6ut almost immediatel, others
become involved. &hese others ma help the parents and share their delight in the birth5 the
o%ten help rear the child.
3n simple societies the child slips naturall into active communication 'ith parents and others E
relatives, %riends, neighbors. +ven in the sparsel populated areas o% the earl -merican %rontier,
%amilies rarel operated in true isolation. &he kne' their neighbors and made e%%orts to Doin
them %or rituals, recreation and mutual assistance.
With gro'ing specialiGation in occupations, the child and others in the child1s li%e have a more
complicated problem in getting ac0uainted. Others pla an increasingl important role, but o%ten
'ithout an permanent or personal commitment to the child. Medical pro%essionals help at birth5
the ma even e$clude %amil members and %riends. &hen the turn to the ne$t birth. )chool
teachers help in an important part o% the educational e%%ort5 some, like medical pro%essionals,
ma pre%er to e$clude %amil members %rom the scene o% their activities. &hen, a%ter a clearl?
de%ined nine?month school ear, the are read %or a ne' cohort o% students. 3n this kind o%
specialiGed societ, the school ma be a communit, but it is truncated in time and shallo' in
reach. 3n *e'e1s terms, it is Fnarro' and unlovel.F
9onetheless, the child 'ill need the others, Dust as he did in a more intimate communit. &he
child in turn 'ill have the capacit to enrich or to diminish the lives o% others, including those
'hom he has not met %ace to %ace. Ho'ever one de%ines communit, it is clear that 'ithin a ver
large sphere, everone has an interest in ever child.
&his does not %ull de%ine communit, but it allo's us to address the more di%%icult 0uestion o%
'hat is Four democracJF Ho' does our democrac settle con%licts bet'een the intimate
communit and the democraticall?determined consensus o% the larger societJ Ho' does it
settle con%licts bet'een a consensus 'ithin a communit, and individual libertJ What is the
role o% parents, communit and the larger societJ
&hese are gritt, practical 0uestions. Who is to take the primar responsibilit %or the child1s
introduction to societJ )hould it be those 'ho are personall and intimatel committed to the
child E those 'ho love the childJ )hould it be that 'ider circle 'ho 'ill a%%ect the child1s li%e,
and in turn be a%%ected b that li%eJ Or a larger more anonmous segment o% societ, that group
'e might call Fthe publicFJ -nd i% it is the public, 'e must ask 'ho speaks %or the publicJ
Pro%essional educatorsJ LegislatorsJ - school boardJ )ome other bodJ Finall, ho' do
-mericans engage in the crucial debate about these mattersJ
&he 2reeks 'ere among the %irst to attempt an ans'er. &heir debate %ocused on the role o%
parents and the political state in the education o% children. -s the 2reek idea o% the state
e$tended onl to the boundaries o% a small cit?state, this 'as a debate about the roles o% parents
and communit. -lthough this placed the 2reeks in a less complicated position than 'e %ind
ourselves, their vie's serve as a starting point.
:
Plato %avored the state, or communit, as the prime educator. 3n The Repu$lic, he advised that i%
one is serious about achieving the ideal state, one 'ould hold children .and 'ives/ in common,
separate children %rom their parents, and give the state e$clusive responsibilit %or rearing them.
:
3n The Laws Plato presented a more practical account o% his position, but still maintained the
priorit o% the state in the education o% the child:
Children must not be allo'ed to attend or not attend school at the 'him o% their
%ather5 as %ar as possible, education must be compulsor %or 1one and all1 . . .
because the belong to the state %irst and their parents second.
;
Plato1s best?kno'n student took another vie'. 6eginning 'ith doubt about an human1s abilit
to construct or even to identi% the ideal in the abstract, -ristotle sharpl criticiGed some o%
Plato1s prescriptions. &aking his observations o% human activit to serve as a guide to 'hat
'ould be best, -ristotle concluded that onl %amilies 'ould %ull and ade0uatel care %or %amil
members:
3n a state in 'hich there e$ists such a mode o% association Has that described b
PlatoI, the %eelings o% a%%ection 'ill inevitabl be 'ater . . . . H3In a state
organiGed like this there is virtuall nothing to oblige %athers to care %or their
sons, or sons %or their %athers, or brothers %or each other. &here are t'o impulses
'hich more than all others cause human beings to cherish and %eel a%%ection %or
each other: 1this is m o'n1, and 1this is a delight1.
>
3n short, personal commitment and love provide the energ needed to care %or oung children.
-nd parents are the best and most likel source %or it. -ristotle has said 'hat most
homeschoolers might sa.
&he debate continues not onl because it 'as never %ull resolved, but also because
circumstances have changed. &he political state has gro'n larger and more comple$ since the
age o% classical 2reece. 3t no longer coincides 'ith the communit o% others 'ho are personall
committed to one another. &he circle o% others no' e$tends to all those in the state, united b
shared goals and values, but 'ith %ormal and distant relationships among most o% its members.
Communit is no' understood to encompass some smaller sphere 'ithin the state, and usuall
'ithin a cit. &his complicates the de%inition o% Four democracF as toda, a local maDorit ma
be opposed to state?'ide maDorit, 'hich in turn ma be opposed to a national maDorit.
6
&he state must Fsend out into the countr all citiGens 'ho are above ten ears old, take over the children, a'a
%rom the present habits and manners o% their parents, and bring them up in their o'n 'as under the institutions 'e
have described.F The Repu$lic, B33, 8#=. &his is taken %rom the translation b Francis Mac*onald Corn%ord .9e'
Kork and London: O$%ord (niv. Press, !"#8/, p. <:<.
7
From translation b &revor 4. )aunders .Harmonds'orth, Middlese$, +ngland: Penguin 6ooks Ltd./, p. <"A.
8
#olitics, 33, iv.
;
&he uni0uel -merican aspect o% this debate began 'ith the %irst settlers. 3t took %ormal shape in
state constitutions, the *eclaration o% 3ndependence, the %ederal Constitution, and the 6ill o%
,ights. &hese are the original documents that de%ine Four democrac.F &he task o% developing
these documents re0uired -mericans to consider care%ull the essential assumptions about the
kind o% societ the had built and 'ere building.
)ome contemporar commentators argue that the %ramers intended to create an aristocrac.
"
&aken as a 'hole, 3 conclude that the Constitution aimed to create a %ederal government
operating 'ith democratic elements, and 'ith constraints on those elements. &his 'as more than
a compromise5 it 'as an attempt to gain the best %rom a societ that 'as not monolithic. 3t 'as
an attempt to obtain the best %rom a di%%erentiated societ E one composed o% closel?knit
communities 'ith strengths o% their o'n.
&rue, the basic constitutional documents do not create an un0uali%ied democrac, i% democrac
implies un0uali%ied maDorit rule. 3n the *eclaration, %or e$ample, there is no mention o%
democrac at all. Libert is the goal. &his 'as not necessaril an oversight. &hose alive at the
time o% signing o% the *eclaration understood 'ell enough that the decision o% a maDorit could
easil restrict the libert o% those 'ho %all into the minorit. &he *eclaration 'as a declaration
%or libert5 the %orm o% the ne' government 'ould come later.
9or did the %ederal Constitution establish an un0uali%ied democrac. 3t checked maDorit rule
through the indirect election o% senators b state legislatures and the indirect election o% the
president b an electoral college. 3t limited maDorit rule through e0ual representation, in the
)enate, %or each state, large or small and through li%etime appointments %or members o% the
)upreme Court. )tate governments retained a sphere o% sovereignt that 'ould allo' each state
to challenge the %ederal government, even i% it e$pressed the clear 'ishes o% a national maDorit.
&he 6ill o% ,ights placed signi%icant limits on public decisions to protect individual libert and
the authorit o% states. +$cept %or the direct election o% )enators toda, these %eatures have
endured.
&he pamphlets b Publius E Hamilton, Madison and 4a E, collected as the *ederalist #apers,
also reveal an anti?maDoritarian bias. &hese papers do not o%ten mention FdemocracF and 'hen
the do, it is usuall 'ith negative implications. &he *ederalist contains cautions about the
trann o% the maDorit and advocac o% checks on the transitor or localiGed passions that o%ten
be%uddle a maDorit. #u$lius argued not %or a democrac(, but a repu$lic E a government in
'hich the vie's o% the maDorit are re%ined and enlarged, Fb passing them through the medium
o% a chosen bod o% citiGensF 'ho can deliberate on the best course 'ithout coming under the
in%luence o% Ftemporar or partial considerations.F
!=
9
E.g., 2ordon ). Wood, F*emocrac and the Constitution,F in ,obert -. 2old'in and William -. )chambra,
eds., "ow Democratic Is the )onstitution+ .Washington and London: -merican +nterprise 3nstitute %or Public Polic
,esearch, !">=/, pp. !??!;5 Michael Parenti, F&he Constitution as an +litist *ocument,F id. at A"??8>.
>
&his does not mean the Constitution 'as, or is, undemocratic. MaDoritarian processes decide
elections. &he House, as a directl?elected bod, serves smaller geographic areas, %aces more
%re0uent elections, and has special authorit in the area o% ta$ation. &he )upreme Court, as the
least democratic branch o% government, remains the most restricted in its authorit. )tate and
%ederal constitutions have been amended since, but the basic structure remains recogniGable.
9ational maDorities and communities are held in balance. 9ational and local maDorities and
individual libert are held in balance.
&o understand %ull the political philosoph o% the Constitution, and especiall the role o%
individual libert, one should also consult the -nti%ederalists. &he -nti%ederalists 'ere those
'ho entered the great pamphlet 'ar over the adoption o% the (nited )tates Constitution.
!!
&he
initiall opposed adoption, but most gave support in the end. -lthough it has endured, their
name is misleading: the did not oppose a %ederal government, and the did not like the term
F-nti%ederalists.F )ome chose pen names impling support o% %ederalism, such as a FFederal
Farmer.F Federalist propagandists gave them their name, %or political purposes, in a Fnice piece
o% misdirection.F
!<
&he -nti%ederalists 'orried about the end o% %ederalism, the death o% states,
and the evolution o% a unitar and central government. &he 'orried about individual libert
and especiall, %reedom o% conscience. 3n short, the 'ere anti?centralists.
&he name also obscures the %act that the -nti%ederalists 'ere positive about 0uite a %e' things.
&o begin, the 'ere for man o% the same things the Federalists 'ere %or. 6oth Federalists and
-nti%ederalists subscribed to notions about the necessit %or each individual to pursue his or her
destin %or better or 'orse. 6oth subscribed to the idea o% original sin and sa' a need to impose
restraints on men and governments. 6oth understood government to be the creation o% men and
to re%lect human imper%ections. 6oth tended to agree 'ith the political theories o% Hobbes,
Locke and others inso%ar as the argued %or the necessit o% securing an agreement among men
to subordinate their predator impulses. 6oth had some distrust o% maDoritarian decision?making
processes.
3n addition to this, the -nti%ederalists had distinctive, positive ideas. Herbert 4. )toring begins
10
*ederalist no. !=.
11
6ecause man earl readers have associated &homas 4e%%erson 'ith the -nti%ederalists, 3 'ish to note that he
'as in France during the debate over adoption o% the Constitution. Moreover, he himsel% denied the a%%iliation:
Kou sa that 3 have been dished up to ou as an anti?%ederalist, and ask me i% it be Dust. . . . 3 am not
a %ederalist, because 3 never submitted the 'hole sstem o% m opinions to the creed o% an part o%
men 'hatever . . . . 3% 3 could not go to heaven but 'ith a part, 3 'ould not go there at all.
&here%ore, 3 am not o% the part o% %ederalists. 6ut 3 am much %arther %rom that o% the anti?
%ederalists. 3 approved %rom the %irst moment o% the great mass o% 'hat is in the ne'
Constitution . . . .
Letter to F. Hopkinson, March !A, !;>", in The ,ritings of Thomas -efferson, Ford. ed., B, ;8.
12
4ackson &urner Main, The .ntifederalists' )ritics of the )onstitution %/0%1%/00 .Chapel Hill: &he
(niversit o% 9orth Carolina Press, !":!/, p. iii.
"
his de%initive collection o% the -nti%ederalist papers 'ith a volume entitled, ,hat the .nti1
*ederalists ,ere *or
!A
to emphasiGe their positive contribution to -merican thought.
-nti%ederalists 'ere more inclined to be democratic, although like the Federalists, man had
mi$ed vie's on the matter. More than the Federalists, -nti%ederalists believed in a private
sphere 'here government ma never intrude.
Federalist and -nti%ederalist both regarded human kind as capable o% good and evil, but the
di%%ered in 'hom the trusted and distrusted most. &he Federalists 'orried about the uneducated
and lo'er classes. *aniel )ha1s rebellion galvaniGed their vie' in this regard. -bigail -dams,
'riting %rom London, e$pressed a 'idespread Federalist opinion 'hen she described the
)hasites as Fignorant, 'restless desperadoes, 'ithout conscience or principalsF and Fmobish
insurgents H'hoI are %or sapping the %oundation, and distroing the 'hole %abrick at once.F
!#
With such e$amples in mind, -le$ander Hamilton declared, FWh has government been
instituted at allJ 6ecause the passions o% men 'ill not con%orm to the dictates o% reason and
Dustice, 'ithout constraint.F
!8

&he -nti%ederalists 'orried about those 'ho held po'er, believing that po'er could corrupt
even the best o% men. &hus 6rutus .,obert Kates/ argued that Fpo'er lodged in the hands o%
rulers to be used at discretion is almost al'as e$ercised to the oppression o% the people and the
aggrandiGement o% themselves, et most men think . . . the 'ould not emploe it in this
manner.F Poeticall, he recalled +lisha1s prophes to HaGael that HaGael 'ould commit great
evils against the 3sraelites: Ftheir strongholds 'ilt thou set on %ire . . . and 'ilt dash their
children, and rip up their 'omen 'ith child.F HaGael protested, but +lisha responded, pointedl,
Fthou shalt be king o% )ria.F
!:
Po'er mired one in evil. Po'er as a universall corrupting %orce
'as a recurring theme among -nti%ederalist 'ritings.
!;
13
)toring, ,hat the .nti1*ederalists ,ere *or .Chicago and London: (niversit o% Chicago Press, !">!/.
14
Letter o% -bigail -dams to &homas 4e%%erson, 4an <", !;>;, in Lester 4. Cappon, ed., The .dams1-efferson
Letters' The )omplete )orrespondence 2etween Thomas -efferson and .$igail and -ohn .dams .Chapel Hill, (niv. o%
9orth Carolina Press, !"8"/, 3, !:>?:". 4e%%erson responded 'ith one o% his %amiliar e$pressions o% smpath %or the
)hasites, hoping %or their pardon:
&he spirit o% resistance to government is so valuable . . . that 3 'ish it to be al'as kept alive. 3t 'ill
o%ten be e$ercised 'hen 'rong, but better so than not to be e$ercised at all. 3 like a little rebellion
no' and then. 3t is like a storm in the -tmosphere.
Letter o% &homas 4e%%erson to -bigail -dams, Paris, Feb. <<, !;>;, Id. at !;<?;A.
15
*ederalist no. !8. )ee also no. :, " .both also b Hamilton/.
16
6rutus, +ssas 3B, @3, @33 and @B, 9e' Kork 4ournal, 9ovember <", !;>;, 4anuar A!, !;>>, Februar ; L
!#, !;>>, in -llen and Llod, eds., The Essential .ntifederalist .Lanham, Marland L London: (niversit Press o%
-merica, !">8/ Hhereinafter cited as .llen 3 Llo(dI, pp. <=!E<A, at <=;.
17
F&he -ddress and ,easons o% *issent o% the Minorit o% the Convention o% Pennslvania,F #enns(lvania
#acket and Dail( .dvertiser, *ecember !>, !;>;, in -llen L Llod, pp. 8AE;!, at :>. &he authors note that members
!=
2iven this di%%erence over 'ho the trusted, Federalists and -nti%ederalists di%%ered in their
pre%erence %or legitimate restraints. Federalists tended to see a 0uasi?aristocratic tradition, la'
and the Constitution as providing the needed order. -nti%ederalists 'ere more likel to %ind the
sources o% restraint in neighborl communities. &hus, an over?arching principle %or
-nti%ederalists 'as that government should be as close to home as possible.
&he desire %or a strong government led Hamilton, 'ho had hoped %or a single national
government, to %avor a %ederal government 'ith a direct relation to the individual. While his
rhetoric grounded this in strong support %or democrac,
!>
Hamilton1s primar concern 'as
bureaucratic control over individuals. Citing the propensit o% individuals to go astra, he
argued that Fbodies o% menF 'ill be even 'orse. He reasoned that F'hen the in%am o% a bad
action is to be divided among a numberF the group is read to commit Fimproprieties and
e$cesses, %or 'hich the 'ould blush in a private capacit.F
!"
&he -nti%ederalists, 'ho 'ere more concerned about lack o% restraint b those 'ho held po'er,
'anted to keep political po'er at the local level, 'here it 'as less dangerous. &he
-nti%ederalists sa' those 'ith less po'er E the common people E as the necessar check on
abuses o% po'er. &hus, the %avored strategies that 'ould keep %ederal o%%icials under the thumb
o% the voter: %re0uent elections, rotation in o%%ice, a greater number o% representatives. 6ut more
than this, the simpl did not 'ant a po'er%ul central government.
Hamilton concluded that the Fgreat, and radical viceF o% government under the -rticles o%
Con%ederation to be the FL+23)L-&3O9 %or )&-&+) O, 2OB+,9M+9&), in their
CO,PO,-&+ or COLL+C&3B+ C-P-C3&3+), and as contradistinguished %rom the
39*3B3*(-L) o% 'hom the consist.F
<=
- direct link bet'een the %ederal government and the
individual 'ould disarm smaller groups. Mediating institutions, such as states and local
governments, could erect irritating obstacles to the 'ise e$ercise o% %ederal po'er. Hamilton
o% Congress 'ill have to e$ercise considerable restraint to provide %or the best 'el%are o% all, and Fmust . . . %orego the
s'eets o% po'er, and relin0uish the pursuits o% ambition, 'hich %rom the nature o% things is not to be e$pected.F -
Marland Farmer echoes the same sentiments 'hen he declares Fthat in !!== ears there have been but %our Princes on
the French throne that did not deserve the gallo's.F He %inds numerous other historical e$amples. He %ears the po'er
given to the chie% e$ecutive, %or Fi% po'er does not corrupt him it certainl 'ill those that %ollo'.F Marland Farmer,
+ssas 333 .part 33/ and B33, .6altimore/ 4ar(land 5a6ette, March !>, -pril #, !;>>, in -llen L Llod, pp. <8#E<:!,
at <:=.
18
See The *ederalist no. <<. Hamilton argued %or proportional representation, primaril because he 'ished to
prevent a coalition o% small states %rom hindering the energetic actions o% the %ederal government. He used some
impressive democratic rhetoric to make this point: F&he %abric o% -merican empire ought to rest on the solid basis o%
&H+ CO9)+9& OF &H+ P+OPL+. &he streams o% national po'er ought to %lo' immediatel %rom that pure,
original %ountain o% all legitimate authorit.F
19
*ederalist no. !8.
20
*ederalist no. !8.
!!
vie'ed states as Flittle, Dealous, clashing, tumultuous common'ealths, the 'retched nurseries o%
unceasing discord . . . .F
<!
3n contrast, concern %or the integrit o% state government 'as universal among the
-nti%ederalists.
<<
For -nti%ederalists, states 'ere the crucible o% democrac. Onl here 'as it
possible %or an individual to have a concrete relation to the state. &he endorsed the -ristotelian
notion that the state should be no larger than that siGe that permits a 'eb o% human relationships.
9ot everone ma kno' their elected representatives, but the 'ill kno' someone 'ho does.
&his interest in state government must be understood in the conte$t o% its time. Like the cit?
state o% the 2reeks, the -merican states in !;>; retained man o% the %eatures o% a neighborl
communit. 3n most states a large number o% individuals could be politicall active or kno'
someone 'ho 'as. &his personal kno'ledge enabled the state to mediate bet'een individuals
and the larger, %ederal government. -s the -nti%ederalist ,ichard Henr Lee observed, Fstate
governments stand bet'een the union and individuals . . . .F
<A
and serve as Fguardians o% the
people.F
<#
Concern %or states gre' out o% belie%s about the ideal siGe o% government and ho' human beings
could and should relate to one another 'hile e$ercising their civic duties. Montes0uieu, 'hom
the -nti%ederalists o%ten cited on this point,
<8
had asserted that
HiIn a large republic, the public good is sacri%iced to a thousand vie's . . . . 3n a
small one, the interest o% the public is easier perceived, better understood, and
more 'ithin the reach o% ever citiGen5 abuses are o% less e$tent and o% course are
less protected.
<:
21
*ederalist no. ".
22
For e$amples, see Luther Martin, .Madison1s records o% the Federal Convention/, 4une <=, in -llen L Llod,
at != .e$pressing %ear that a more po'er%ul union 'ill Fprove dangerous to the sovereignties o% the particular states
'hich the union 'as meant to support . . . F/ 2eorge Mason, FObDections to the Constitution o% 2overnment %ormed
b the Convention, !;>;,F pp. !<??!A .%ear that the %ederal Dudiciar 'ill Fabsorb and destroF those o% the states/5
+lbridge 2err, FObDectionsF .- Letter to the Massachusetts )tate Legislature, 9e' Kork, October !>, !;>;, pp. <=E
<<5 ,ichard Henr Lee, FObDectionsF .- Letter to +dmund ,andolph, 2overnor o% Birginia/, 9e' Kork, October !:,
!;>;, pp. <<E<;5 F-ddress b a Plebeian,F 9e' Kork, !;>> HMelancton )mithI, pp. A!E#=, at A>.
23
He concluded that it 'as important that state legislatures and not individuals be the bod 'ho respond to
demands o% the %ederal government %or soldiers, ta$es, and so %orth. Federal Farmer, Letters 3 and @B33
.Poughkeepsie/ Count 4ournal, October >, !;>;, 4anuar <A, !;>>, in -llen L Llod, pp. ;8E"<, at >#.
24
Federal Farmer, Letters 3 and @B33, 7#oughkeepsie8 )ount -ournal, October >, !;>;, 4anuar <A, !;>>, in
-llen L Llod, pp. ;8E"<, at "<.
25
E.g., F&he -ddress and ,easons o% *issent o% the Minorit o% the Convention o% Pennslvania,F in -llen L
Llod, pp. 8AE;=, at 8:E8;.
!<
,ichard Henr Lee added that in a small state, people Fcan unite and act in concert and 'ith
vigor, but in large territories, the men 'ho govern %ind it more eas to unite, 'hile people cannot
. . . .F
<;
&he -nti%ederalist 4ohn Winthrop argued %or Fthe necessit o% local governmentsF because it 'as
Fimpossible %or an single legislature %ull to comprehend the circumstances o% the di%%erent
parts o% a ver e$tensive dominion as to make la's adapted to those circumstances.F
<>
He and
his colleagues sa' state governments laing claim to the %irst loalt citiGens o'ed a countr,
'hile the %ederal government 'as secondar.
<"
&he individual should kno' and understand government in a personal 'a, Dust as
representatives should understand their constituenc. &his idea led -nti%ederalists to 'orr
about the large siGe and the remoteness o% the %ederal government, and the number o%
representatives, 'hich the sa' as too %e'.
*istance %rom the capitol 'as a preoccupation o% the -nti%ederalists %or the same reason.
,epresentatives 'ould have di%%icult keeping in touch 'ith their constituenc.
A=
Concern %or
the siGe o% the House o% ,epresentatives related to a concern that the -merican government keep
its roots in di%%erentiated communities. With too %e' representatives at the %ederal level, the
upper classes 'ere likel to monopoliGe even the House, depriving everone else o% an
opportunit to participate.
A!
&hese things, combined 'ith the large siGe o% the union, 'ould onl alienate those le%t out o% the
process:
26
Spirit of Laws, chapter $vi, vol. 3, as 0uoted b 6rutus H,obert KatesI, Letters 3 and B, 9ew :ork -ournal,
October !> and *ecember !A, !;>;, in -llen L Llod, pp. !=<E!;, at !=;.
27
Federal Farmer, Letters 3 and @B33, in -llen L Llod, pp. ;8E"<, at "<.
28
-grippa, +ssas B33, 3@, @33, @3B, 72oston8 4assachusetts 5a6ette, *ecember !> L <>, !;>;5 4anuar !!,
!#, L !>, !;>>, in -llen L Llod, pp. <<>E#<, at <AA. &his point 'as echoed b ,obert Kates. 6rutus, Letters 3 and
B, 9ew :ork -ournal, October !> and *ecember !A, !;>;, in -llen L Llod, pp. !=<E!;, at !="E!=.
29
See e.g., Luther Martin, FObDectionsF .%rom Kates1 records o% the Federal Convention, 4une <; and <>, !;>;/,
in -llen L Llod, pp. !:E<=, at !;. &hus, Martin argues that FH'Ie must treat as %ree states 'ith each other upon the
same terms o% e0ualit that men originall %ormed themselves into societies.F
30
Kates and Lansing, F,easons o% *issentF .- letter to 2eorge Clinton, 2overnor o% 9e' Kork, -lban, <!
*ecember, !;>;/, in -llen L Llod, at !#E!:. -t the convention Lansing had obDected to a %ederal veto over state
legislation, also because o% a lack o% speci%ic kno'ledge at %ederal level o% local a%%airs. 4ohn Lansing .%rom Madison1s
records o% the Federal Convention/, 4une <=, !;>;, in -llen L Llod at p. >.
31
See e.g. F-ddress and ,easons o% *issent o% the Minorit o% the Convention o% Pennslvania,F -llen L
Llod, pp. ;=, at :<.
!A
&he should be satis%ied that those 'ho represent them are men o% integrit, 'ho
'ill pursue the good o% the communit 'ith %idelit, and 'ill not be turned aside
%rom their dut b private interest . . . . 6ut it is impossible HthatI the people o%
the (nited )tates should have su%%icient kno'ledge o% their representatives, 'hen
the numbers are so %e' . . . . H-I great part o% them 'ill probabl not kno' the
characters o% their o'n members, much less that o% a maDorit o% those 'ho 'ill
compose the %ederal assembl. &he 'ill consist o% men 'hose names the have
never heard, and 'hose talents and regard %or the public good the are total
strangers to5 and the 'ill have no persons so immediatel o% their choice so near
them, o% their neighbors and o% their o'n rank in li%e, that the can %eel
themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands. &he representatives o%
the people cannot, as the no' do, a%ter the have passed la's, mi$ 'ith the
people, and e$plain to them the motives 'hich induced the adoption o% an
measure, point out its utilit, and remove obDections . . . .
A<
&heirs 'as a modern vision o% alienation %rom government. Kates and Lansing complained o%
the FremotenessF o% the proposed %ederal government.
AA
Luther Martin %ound the %ederal plan
created a government that 'as Ftoo remote . . . . &he people 'ant it nearer home.F
A#
4ohn
Winthrop thought that la's should emanate onl %rom Frepresentatives . . . 'ho are immediatel
subDect to the 'ant o% them.F
A8
&here can be little doubt that the -nti%ederalists 'ere %or a union, but the did not 'ant a
comple$, distant, bureaucratic government meddling in local a%%airs. 9or did the care to have
this distant government, or an government %or that matter, meddling in private a%%airs. While
the Federalists stressed the need to establish a strong, FenergeticF government, -nti%ederalists
'orried about 'hen strong governments 'ent astra.
&hus, the other principle that the -nti%ederalists agreed upon most uni%orml 'as the need %or a
6ill o% ,ights.
A:
Man gave their support to the Constitution, enabling rati%ication, onl a%ter the
Federalists promised that a 6ill o% ,ights 'ould be added. &he -nti%ederalists thought it
32
6rutus H,obert KatesI, +ssas 3B, @3, @33, and @B, 9ew :ork -ournal, 9ovember <", !;>;, 4anuar A!,
!;>>, Februar ; and !#, !;>>, in -llen L Llod, pp. <=!E<A, at <=#.
33
,obert Kates and 4ohn Lansing, F,easons o% *issentF .- letter to 2eorge Clinton, 2overnor o% 9e' Kork/,
-lban, *ecember <!, !">;, in -llen L Llod, pp. !#E!:, at !8.
34
FObDectionsF .%rom Kates1 records o% the Federal Convention, 4une <; and <>, !;>;/, in -llen L Llod, pp.
!:E<=, at !".
35
-grippa H4ohn WinthropI, Letter 3B, .6oston/ 4assachusetts 5a6ette, *ecember A, !;>;, in -llen L Llod,
pp. !<!E<A, at !<<.
36
F&he -ddress and ,easons o% *issent o% the Minorit o% the Convention o% Pennslvania,F -llen L Llod,
pp. 8AE;=, at 8#E8:5 FFederal Farmer,F Letters 33, 333 and @33, 7#oughkeepsie8 )ount -ournal, October " and !=,
!;>;, 4anuar !<, !;>>, in -llen L Llod, pp. !;;E"<, at !;".
!#
essential to de%ine an inner sphere 'here governmental authorit could not intrude: Fthat
residuum o% human rights, 'hich is not intended to be given up to societ, and 'hich indeed is
not necessar to be given %or an good social purpose.F
A;
&he also thought it important to
secure %or the states their right%ul place as the principal source o% political authorit in the (nited
)tates, through the tenth amendment.
&he 6ill o% ,ights, much more than the Constitution itsel%, ma appear to re%lect a radical
individualism. 6ut this vie' ignores the tenth amendment and the neighborl aspects o% states at
that time. &he tenth amendment asserted a sphere o% authorit that 'as, %or man o% the
%ounders1 generation, coterminous 'ith communit.
9or did the -nti%ederalists assume that the %irst nine amendments 'ould lead to the unrestrained
pursuit o% rugged individualism, as is o%ten supposed. 3ndividual rights in the Constitution held
out man possibilities. 3t could leave a human being %ree to live an isolated and antisocial li%e, or
%ree to participate in the li%e o% a cohesive communit. &he %ormal 'ritings o% a people o%ten sa
nothing about the most essential part o% their belie%s E the things the take %or granted. Famil
and communit 'ere the bedrock o% -merican li%e. 3n the -nti%ederalist vie', strong individual
rights meant a strong role %or %amil and communit.
&hus, the -nti%ederalists 'ere the strongest proponents o% t'o vital elements in the restraining
%orces on the trann o% the maDorit: communit and individual libert. &he trusted in close
and neighborl relations among individuals as the source o% restraint on sel%ish uses o% po'er.
&he %elt alienated b the idea o% remote government controlled b e$perts, 'ith little personal
contact 'ith the people a%%ected b %ederal la'. &he pre%erred that government that 'as closest
to home: state and local government. Man %avored a more egalitarian democrac,
A>
but onl at
this local and more personal level, 'here the trann o% the maDorit 'as more easil checked.
&he had %aith in local to'ns, in local congregations, in ordinar people acting 'ithin their
communities.
A"
Most -nti%ederalists, and indeed, most Federalists, assumed that individual rights 'ould secure
the %ree association o% each into communities bound b mutual caring and %aith. &hus, as the
%irst -mericans sa' it, the 6ill o% ,ights 'as a statement o% individual rights, but its purpose 'as
to permit a communitarian li%e. (nanimit on this idea saved the Constitution. -nti%ederalists
%inall assented to it, a%ter the secured a promise that a 6ill o% ,ights 'ould %ollo'. -ll o% this
is part o% the de%inition o% our democrac.
37
,ichard Henr Lee, FObDectionsF 9e' Kork, October !:, !;>;, -llen L Llod, pp. <<E<;, at <#.
38
*uring this period, state government 'as much more democratic than the %ederal. &he more democratic
states provided %or limitations on terms, rotation in o%%ice, e$pansion o% the %ranchise, and a 'eak e$ecutive. One state,
Pennslvania, chose a unicameral legislature, %eeling that the upper house 'ould be too removed %rom the people.
39
For %urther analsis o% the essentiall conservative, communitarian vie's o% the -nti%ederalists, see )toring,
volume !.
!8
&he %undamental assumptions o% both Federalists and -nti%ederalists about the signi%icance o%
state and communit help e$plain 'h the Constitution 'as adopted 'ithout a 'ord about
education. 3t also e$plains 'h the nation1s leading citiGens 'ere soon bus 'ith education
proDects o% all sorts. -cting through local communities and state governments, citiGens pressed
%or public schools, and %or compulsor attendance re0uirements.
&his took time. First, there had to be a su%%icient suppl o% schools, but as soon as there 'as,
states began to compel attendance. Massachusetts, al'as the leader in advancing public
education, passed the %irst compulsor attendance la' in !>8<. Other 9e' +ngland states
rapidl %ollo'ed. )outhern states 'ere the slo'est, adopting such la's at the turn o% the centur.
&hese la's tpicall re0uired school attendance. &he also provided minimum standards %or
private schools. &hese la's re0uired parents and children to use onl state?approved alternatives
%or %ormal education. &hese la's tpicall had .and still have/ criminal sanctions. MaDoritarian
processes gave birth to these la's, and the 'ere born o% the highest motives.
9onetheless, some people have seen these la's as going too %ar E as invading the rights o%
individuals. -t several points in -merican histor, di%%erent groups have dissented %rom their
re0uirements. &hese challenges have become a test o% the basic constitutional balance bet'een
maDorit rule and individual libert.
Homeschoolers have mounted the most recent o% these challenges. )ome de%end their decision
based on religious %reedom5 others %eel it is a matter o% conscience or privac. )ome %eel
important decisions about the education o% children remain an intimate %amil matter. )ome
have mounted %ormal challenges: 3n the past decade, litigation over the status o% homeschoolers
has erupted in almost ever state.
While much has changed in state and %ederal constitutions since the %ounding, signi%icant
elements remain. &he chie% elements o% both Federalist and -nti%ederalist thought continues to
shape the 'a -mericans deal 'ith the con%lict bet'een maDoritarian goals and checks on the
maDorit 'ill. Compulsor education la's represent the maDorit1s vie' on an e$tremel
important matter. Homeschoolers are asserting their individual rights.
*oes this mean that homeschoolers are isolating themselves %rom the communit and turning
their backs on our democracJ &he discussion o% the thought at the %ounding should make it
clear that our democrac contemplates the assertion o% individual rights 'ithin certain spheres.
9either Federalists nor -nti%ederalists 'anted an un0uali%ied democrac in 'hich the maDorit
'ould prevail at all times and in all places.
3n %act, in most respects homeschoolers resemble the -nti%ederalists. Like the -nti%ederalists,
the are a mi$ed lot. Man tend to be conservative and highl religious, 'hile others are
primaril secular and liberal. -nti%ederalist or homeschooler, liberal or conservative, these
people o%ten demonstrate libertarian tendencies. -lmost all are decentralists in one 'a or
another.
!:
Like the vast numbers o% -nti%ederalists, the vast numbers o% homeschoolers assert their right to
an inner sphere o% conscience and privac, but not %or the sake o% sel%ish individualism. &he
assert it %or the sake o% belonging to a communit o% their o'n choosing.
While the -nti%ederalists %ocused on the state as the communit, their basic principles probabl
'ould have shi%ted as the state gre' more populous. &heir concern over the small number o%
representatives in relation to the population re%lects this possibilit. Homeschoolers share 'ith
the -nti%ederalists a stubborn conviction that each individual must control his o'n destin, that
highl centraliGed, comple$ governments threaten the right to do so. Birtuall all
Homeschoolers, and virtuall all -nti%ederalists 'ould assert a sphere o% individual rights 'here
government should never intrude.
&he %ounders assumed that given individual rights, people 'ill %orm their o'n communities and
'ill voluntaril contribute to the general good. &he eighteenth centur proponents o% individual
rights nonetheless 'ere active supporters o% communit li%e. 3s this also true o% contemporar
homeschoolingJ
-re homeschoolers asserting their individual rights onl to turn into sel%ish isolationistsJ Or are
the contributing to the public debate about educationJ *o the care about the general goodJ
Consider again the 'ords o% *e'e, FWhat the best and 'isest parent 'ants %or his o'n child,
that must the communit 'ant %or all its children.F 6ut 'hat does the 'isest parent 'antJ -nd
does the communit 'ant the precisel the same education %or all childrenJ Or does it 'ant
some diversitJ
3t is unlikel that *e'e 'as urging universal public school attendance. He 'as too dissatis%ied
'ith the tpical public school. While *e'e believed that the communit must collectivel
address education, he remained unhapp 'ith the tpical school o% his da.
- societ is a number o% people held together because the are 'orking along
common lines, in a common spirit, and 'ith common aims. &he common needs
and aims demand a gro'ing interchange o% thought and gro'ing unit o%
smpathetic %eeling. The radical reason that the present school cannot organi6e
itself as a natural social unit is $ecause ;ust this element of common and
productive activit( is a$sent.
#=
&urning to a theme central to his 'ork, *e'e then noted ho' action contributes to the
development o% the spirit needed to achieve a true school communit.
#!
Most schools %ail. Most
do no more than impart in%ormation. &his th'arts their social ends: Fthe mere absorbing o% %acts
and truths is so e$clusivel individual an a%%air that it tends ver naturall to pass into
40
School and Societ(, p. !# .emphasis added/.
41
Pp. !8??!:.
!;
sel%ishness.F
#<
Part o% the problem is that

the school has been so set apart, so isolated %rom the ordinar conditions and
motives o% li%e, that the place 'here children are sent %or discipline is the one
place in the 'orld 'here it is most di%%icult to get e$perience E the mother o% all
discipline 'orth the name.
#A
*e'e concludes that an ideal home environment would $e the $est school.
##
3% 'e take an e$ample %rom an ideal home, 'here the parent is intelligent enough
to recogniGe 'hat is best %or the child, and is able to suppl 'hat is needed, 'e
%ind the child learning . . . . &here are certain points o% interest and value to him
in the conversation carried on: statements are made, in0uiries arise, topics are
discussed, and the child continuall learns. He states his e$periences, his
misconceptions are corrected. -gain the child participates in the household
occupations, and thereb gets habits o% industr, order, and regard %or the rights
and ideas o% others, and the %undamental habit o% subordinating his activities to
the general interest o% the household.
#8
&his home environment, organiGed and e$tended, 'ould make an ideal school. *e'e believed
schools could be small communities, teaching children ho' to participate in the larger
communit. FranGosa %ailed to account %or this elaboration in *e'e1s thought 'hen she made it
the basis %or her criti0ue o% homeschooling.
&his is not to sa that *e'e 'ould approve 'hole?heartedl o% homeschooling. He 'ould not.
He believed it necessar to do things sstematicall, in a 'a that Fcan be done in most
households onl in a comparativel meager and haphaGard manner.F
#:
*e'e believed the
occupations and relationships o% home are too %e' to allo' the %ull %lo'ering o% the social
enterprise that is education.
#;
3% the choice 'ere bet'een homeschooling and a tpical school
intent onl on imparting in%ormation, ho'ever, it 'ould seem the *e'e 'ould recommend
homeschooling.
42
P. !8.
43
P. !;.
44
P. A#.
45
Pp. A#??A8.
46
P. A8.
47
P. A:.
!>
*e'e sa' the home as the ideal model %or the school, because he sa' schools as divorced %rom
social li%e, and %rom doing. Here *e'e and homeschoolers are in accord. Ket, *e'e hoped
%or re%orm o% schools. Holt, and man homeschoolers, appear to believe that such re%orm is
unattainable, at least in time to serve those 'ho are children no'. *oes this constitute
'ithdra'al %rom the larger public debateJ
&he ans'er is not clear. -s alread noted, FranGosa is among the %irst to attempt a philosophical
criti0ue o% homeschooling, and deserves credit %or the attempt. Ho'ever, as it is %irst, her
analsis re0uires care%ul scrutin. -s she %ocused on the thought o% 4ohn Holt alone, and not
homeschoolers in general,
#>
this discussion 'ill also be limited to Holt. -%ter care%ull checking
her claims about Holt against Holt1s 'ork, it appears that she has seriousl misrepresented him.
Holt 'as %irst a school teacher, 'ith an educational philosoph much like *e'e1s. Like *e'e,
he hoped onl to re%orm schools, b integrating them into the li%e o% the communit. He
despaired, ho'ever, and ultimatel became a clear leader o% a child?directed, largel secular
'ing o% the homeschooling movement. +ven a%ter his death, his in%luence continues among this
group o% homeschoolers.
#"
&o debunk Holt, FranGosa turned to ,ousseau as the archetpical thinker, and attempted to sho'
similarities bet'een Holt and ,ousseau. - more care%ul analsis 'ould %ind that Holt1s thought
resembled that o% *e'e, not ,ousseau. FranGosa apparentl con%used Holt1s ideas about child?
directed education 'ith notions about unrestrained individualistic %reedom. )he is not alone.
Man people, even some homeschoolers, con%use these ideas. )he apparentl also sa' the
communit as some larger sphere than did Holt. 3t ma be that she vie's communit as
coterminous 'ith a local school district. Holt 'ould de%ine it as that circle o% intimates 'ho
kno' and are committed to one another E the -ristotelian de%inition. 3t includes not Dust %amil
members, but neighbors, relatives, %riends and associates 'ith shared goals.
6oth *e'e and Holt advocated a child?directed educational philosoph. 6oth believed that the
child should have %reedom to pursue his or her interests. 6oth believed that a child 'ould not
learn i% not interested in the topic at hand. Holt, like *e'e and unlike ,ousseau, believed that
the child should gro' up in the intimate compan o% their %amil, %riends and a true communit.
6oth *e'e and Holt concluded that most schools do not re%lect anthing that resemble a true
communit. 6oth %elt that most schools had become bureaucratic and inept.
8=
Ket FranGosa concluded that Holt, like ,ousseau, advocated a romantic individualism. ,ousseau
48
Some homeschoolers she admires very much. Personal
communication.
49
Future 'orking papers ma address the di%%erences among the various FschoolsF o% homeschooling.
50
)ee the te$t discussion above %or *e'e5 and belo' %or Holt.
!"
'as an isolationist. 3n his philosoph and in his li%e
8!
he believed that the creative individual
should be released %rom the inconvenient burdens societ placed on him. &he child +mile must
go to the countr, to be %ree o% the corrupting in%luence o% civiliGation, even that .or especiall
that/ o% the child1s parents. ,ousseau also sought this %reedom %or himsel%, and liked it best
'hen, in his %inal das, he sought total isolation %rom everone else.
8<
&his vie' pro%oundl
a%%ected ,ousseau1s ideas about the social contract and his notion o% the general 'ill. &he
general 'ill that is to determine the la's %or a societ is one in 'hich completel autonomous
individuals consult their individual consciences, re%raining %rom all communication 'ith each
other.
8A
FranGosa has argued that, like ,ousseau, Holt consistentl sa' the child as a Fnoble savageF and
sa' societ as Funnatural and corrupting.F 6oth, she believed, sa' the Fterrible but true state o%
natureF as FlaisseG %aire individualism.F
-ccording to this criti0ue, Holt came Fto reDect collectivel organiGed e%%orts to re%orm the
nature o% schooling . . . F because he had come to believe that Fpublic li%e and group
association . . . inevitabl led to a totalitarian consensus or social con%lict and disintegration.F
Holt sa' not onl adult societ, but Fthe societ o% children as potentiall corrupt as 'ell.F
8#
FranGosa claims that E
H6 !"><I Holt 'as thoroughl committed to the assumption that the %ull
spectrum o% group associations outside the %amil, %rom the relations bet'een
Fmean?spiritedF %irst graders to the relations bet'een nation states, 'as inevitabl
characteriGed b a collective 'ill to oppress the individual and den his or her
%reedom. . . . there 'as no longer the possibilit o% a good societ capable o%
nurturing its members. 2iven the inevitabilit o% the corruption o% individual
human nature in group association, the onl plausible educational course %or Holt
'as the private alternative o% home schooling.
88
-ccording to FranGosa, Holt advocated sheltering children F%rom social initiation 'ithin a
51
3n li%e, ,ousseau sent his o'n children to a %oundling home. He apparentl chose not to keep track o% them,
and convinced himsel% that the 'ould become decent %armers and tradesmen. He rationaliGed: this 'as the best
choice %or them, because he and his 'i%e1s %amil did not have the resources or the aptitude to raise them properl.
2iven the conditions o% such places in his da, the odds that the ,ousseau babies survived to adulthood are e$tremel
slim.
52
His last 'ork, The Reveries of the Solitar( ,alker, is %ull o% praise o% his isolation %rom all other people.
53
E.g., 4ean?4ac0ues ,ousseau, The Social )ontract, 6ook 33, chapter 333. &he general 'ill can be realiGed so
long as FcitiGens . . . have no communication among themselves.F
54
FranGosa, at pp. !<A, !<8, !<;.
55
FranGosa, p. !<>.
<=
communit o% others,F
8:
including the societ o% children, 'hich she maintains Holt regarded as
Fpotentiall corrupt.F
8;
&o be sure, Holt has moments 'hen he sounds like ,ousseau. For e$ample, he sees a natural
goodness in children: Fchildren are b nature and %rom birth ver curious about the 'orld around
them, and ver energetic, resource%ul, and competent in e$ploring it, %inding out about it, and
mastering it.F
8>
Ho'ever, unlike ,ousseau, Holt believed children learned best through contact
'ith parents and other adults5 and that it 'as important to allo' them to observe others and to
participate in the activities o% the group as soon as each child 'as able. -s Holt put it, Fthe are
born social, it is their nature.F
8"
&his is the opposite o% ,ousseau1s notion that human beings in
their natural, primitive state are completel independent o% one another. 3t reDects ,ousseau1s
idea that the ideal social contract 'ill restore an individualist independence, although in a ne'
%orm.
:=
While Holt did sa at one point that children resembled Ftalented barbariansF he immediatel
added F'ho 'ould reall like to become civiliGed.F He disapproved o% the notion that Fthere 'as
something 'ild and precious in children that had to be preserved against the attacks o% the
'orld . . . .F
:!
O% babies, he said Fbasicall the 'ant to %it in, take part, and do right E that is,
do as 'e do.F
:<
,ousseau, as noted, 'ould remove the child %rom the compan o% adults e$cept
that o% the tutor. Holt 'ould place them 'here the can learn b imitating their parents, older
56
FranGosa, p. !<8.
57
Id. at !<;. Holt did not sa the societ o% children is corrupt5 FranGosa cited a passage 'here he said that F3n
all but a ver %e' o% the schools 3 have taught in, visited, or kno' anthing about, the social li%e o% the children is
mean?spirited, competitive, e$clusive, status seeking, snobbish, %ull o% talk about 'ho 'ent to 'hose birthda part . . .
.F 4ohn Holt, Teach :our Own' . "opeful #ath for Education .9e' Kork: *elacorte Press7)emour La'rence, !">!/
.hereina%ter cited as T:O/, pp. ##??#8.
58
T:O, p. !. FranGosa relied on this 'ork almost e$clusivel, arguing that it marked Holt1s %inal evolution into a
philosoph o% romantic individualism. While 3 0uestion the idea that there is an sharp division in his thought, 3 'ill
rel on the same 'ork as did FranGosa.
59
Holt, p. !#".
60
,ousseau1s Discourse on the Origins of Ine<ualit( elaborates his vie' o% human beings in a state o% nature.
+ach individual goes his or her o'n 'a5 not even %amilies %orm. - man and a 'oman ma come together %or se$, and
a child ma need the assistance o% a mother up to a certain age, but once these needs are %ul%illed, the individuals go
their o'n 'as. Discourse on Ine<ualit(, Part <, second paragraph. &he %undamental purpose o% the social contract is
to restore this condition o% complete independence o% each individual 'ithout returning to the 'oods. Social )ontract,
book !, Chapter B3. ,ousseau believes it ans'ers the 0uestion o% ho' to protect individuals and their goods and
achieve a state 'here Feach one, 'hile uniting 'ith all, nevertheless obes onl himsel% and remains as %ree as be%oreJF
61
Holt, T:O, p. !#;.
62
He added, i% the can1t al'as do it, it is because the lack e$perience, and because their emotions s'eep
them a'a.F P. !#>.
<!
siblings, and a communit o% others.
Holt e$pressl reDected Fthe romantic child?'orshippers H'hoI sa that in %itting children %or the
'orld 'e destro most o% the goodness in them.F
:A
He thought about and approved %irm and
gentle discipline %rom adults in the child1s 'orld.
:#
He gave advice on ho' to sa Fno,F ho' to
teach a bab not to bang on a cello .Holt1s o'n beloved cello/, and ho' to deal 'ith children
'ho are testing adults. Holt had heard criticism like FranGosa1s, that homeschooling %ostered
societal dropouts. He ans'ered, that Ftrue unschooling 'ill help and is helping oung people
%ind 'as to live active, responsible lives in societ, and to %ind 'ork 'orth doing.F
:8
FranGosa rarel moves beond Holt to paint her particular picture o% homeschooling philosoph,
but she does at one point e$tend a second e$ample. )he e$amines a letter to Holt %rom a doctor
in (tah, one 'ho highl valued religion and tradition. 6ased on this letter FranGosa concluded
that Fhome?schooling parents assert o'nership and eminent domain over their children . . . .F
&he parent 'rote, in part:
&he %act that m children e$ist and that 3 am their %ather con%ers upon me . . . b
natural la', an eminent domain, and 'ith that the inescapable original obligation,
and . . . the right . . . to rear and to train them according to the dictates o% m o'n
conscience be%ore 2od5 there%ore, b 'hat la' . . . can 3 be . . . compelled to
allo' that obligation to be %ul%illed b . . . anotherJ
::
-n unsmpathetic interpretation 'ould see this parent as claiming Fo'nershipF
:;
o% his children,
and there%ore treating the child as an obDect rather than a human being. - smpathetic reading
.such as Holt 'ould give/ 'ould see the parent as dening state o'nership o% children. &he
parent is appealing to a higher la' to elevate parental authorit over the state1s.
&he use o% this particular 0uote is also highl selective and %ails to represent Holt1s %ull vie'. 3n
the same book, Holt 0uoted and Fstrongl recommendedF the %ollo'ing thought e$pressed in a
school pamphlet:
63
T:O, p. !#>. He also reDected the vie' o% Fhard?nosed tpes H'hoI sa that to %it children %or the 'orld 'e
have to beat the badness out o% them.F
64
9ote almost all o% chapter : .FLiving 'ith ChildrenF/ %ocuses on the e$change bet'een children and their
parents, teachers or other adult %riends. For the e$amples in the te$t, see p. !8#, !88 and !8>??8".
65
Holt, T:O, p. ;>.
66
Muoted in FranGosa, at p. !A=, and at Holt, T:O, p. <<??<#.
67
FranGosa interDects this term, not the parent. While Feminent domainF is a legal term denoting o'nership, it
literall re%ers to priorit in interests. &he parent 'as not talking about propert rights, but about priorit in the
authorit o% 2od, man and state, and sa' it in that order.
<<
When schools e$ist apart %rom the communit, the stand as monuments to the
)chool 6oard and their abilit to get bond issues past . . . the create a %urther
segmented and %ragmented societ.
:>
Holt did not reDect communit endeavors. He did not even reDect schools. He reDected schooling
that %ailed to re%lect a true communit.
)ince FranGosa 'rote her criti0ue, a homeschooling advocate o% the Holt school has delivered a
thesis that goes beond Holt in presenting a romanticiGed vie' o% homeschooling. One
homeschooling parent, 'ho also happens to be a public school +nglish teacher, *avid 2uterson,
has 'ritten a book, *amil( 4atters, that spends considerable time debating the %undamental
issue. (nlike Holt, 2uterson enthuses over ,ousseau. He apparentl believes, like ,ousseau,
that the child is naturall good. 2uterson also believes that the best education is one that begins
'ith and nourishes the child1s interest and he seems to think this is also ,ousseauan. He is guilt
o% misreading Emile. For e$ample, +mile is not to see his parents, not to have an books, not to
learn to read, even i% these are things that interest him. 3s 2uterson then guilt o% FranGosa1s
charges o% isolationism and individualismJ 9ot at all.
2uterson devoted an earl chapter to the 0uestion, FWhat about *emocracJF -s he almost
al'as uses dialogue as his literar mode, this chapter describes a conversation taking place on
an all?night %ishing trip 'ith his %riend, salmon gillnetter 6ill McFadden. &he t'o cogentl and
thoroughl argue %or and against homeschooling based upon its impact on the education o% all
children in a democrac. McFadden promotes the ideal o% a common school sstem as the
binding %orce in societ. 2uterson counters that the public school sstem has largel %ailed to
achieve these lo%t goals, and that the real goal is a democratic countr, not democratic schools.
McFadden asserts the necessit %or communit responsibilit %or all children. 2uterson argues
that basic ine0ualities in the 'a 'e do things no' prevent trul democratic results.
:"
*isagree 'ith him or not, one cannot sa that 2uterson is avoiding the educational debate. He
criticiGes public schools 'here children F%all through the cracks,F but he doesn1t sa much about
'hat homeschooling 'ould look like %or these children. 3t seems highl likel that even more
'ould %all through the cracks in a societ that relied entirel on homeschooling. While 2uterson
ackno'ledges that homeschooling is not %or everone, he also seems to think it 'ould solve
man o% the educational problems %acing the nation.
Moreover, a criti0ue o% Holt cannot be e$tended to all homeschoolers. Man homeschoolers
give high priorit to religion in their homeschooling program and tend to %orm communities o%
%aith 'ith others. 3t 'ould be e$tremel di%%icult to determine 'hat proportion o% home
68
Center %or Communit +ducation *evelopment o% the )anta 6arbara Count )chools, as 0uoted in Holt,
T:O, p. AA>.
69
*avid 2uterson, *amil( 4atters' ,h( "omeschooling 4akes Sense .Harcourt 6race 4ovanovich, !""</.
<A
schoolers think like 4ohn Holt or *avid 2uterson. &here is a substantial population o%
homeschoolers 'ho %ollo' other leadership. )ome o% this other leadership has a strong
conservative religious base. &he are not seeking to %oster romantic individualism, but to
rede%ine communit.
;=
&his 'ing o% homeschooling has entered the educational debate even
more vigorousl than that represented b Holt or 2uterson.
Perhaps better than %urther analGing the 'ritings o% homeschooling leaders, one should e$amine
'hat rank and %ile homeschoolers actuall do. 3t is not possible to do this accuratel.
,esearchers can onl sample discrete populations o% home schoolers. &he can onl sample
lists5 and homeschoolers get on these lists onl through sel%?selection. With this caveat, it is
possible to look at some o% the surves and %ind intense interest in the li%e o% the communit.
Homeschoolers responding to surves do not bar their children %rom the li%e o% the communit.
Man E including those 'ho belong to the more secular 'ing o% homeschooling E turn to their
churches as a center o% this li%e. ,eligious a%%iliation appears to var 'idel depending on the
homeschooling group sampled, but in all studies it is high. Man surves rel on a religiousl?
oriented organiGation %or developing a sample %rame. 3t should be no surprise that these
particular studies tend to sho' almost universal church a%%iliation.
;!
- stud o% e$perienced
homeschoolers on a list maintained b an organiGation %ounded b 4ohn Holt E probabl the
most secular o% the nation?based homeschooling organiGations E reveals a lo'er level o%
religious a%%iliation, but it is still substantial: ::N indicated an a%%iliation.
;<
One researcher 'ho
attempted to broaden the sample %rame b obtaining several lists, reported church attendance o%
Fever 'eek or more o%tenF %or ;AN o% her respondents, compared to <>N o% respondents to a
national surve.
;A
)urves also sho' that homeshooling children participate in church outh groups, neighborhood
activities, and in scouting. Participation is generall higher than that o% their counterparts in
private schools E and private school student participation is generall higher than public school
70
&he most common criticism against the religious homeschooler is that the and other F%undamentalistsF 'ish
to convert us all. 3n a sense, the charge is that the participate too much in the public debate. - discussion o% this
criticism 'ould re0uire separate treatment, and space and time not available here.
71
Wade +. 2ladin, FHome +ducation: Characteristics o% its Families and )choolsF .unpublished Ph.*.
dissertation, 6ob 4ones (niversit, !">;. 2ladin also %ound 'idespread attendance at church services. He concluded
that the average %amil attends religious services t'o or three times 'eekl.
72
&he largest o% these 'ere Fmainline ProtestantF .Lutheran, 6aptist, Methodist, +piscopalian, Presbterian,
etc./5 <<N 'ere in other churches, including Mormons, 4ehovah1s Witnesses, and lesser kno'n groups, identi%ied, %or
e$ample, as F)el%?,ealiGation Fello'shipsF and F,e%ormed Congregation o% the 2oddess.F Finall, #N said the 'ere
part o% a F)piritual?(nitF movement. )onia O. 2usta%son, F- stud o% home schooling: Parental motivations and
goals,F .unpublished senior thesis, Princeton (niversit, !">;/5 published in part in "ome School Researcher, =7>8, #
E!<..!">>/.
73
Maralee Maberr, FCharacteristics and -ttitudes o% Families Who Home )chool,F Education and Ur$an
Societ(, >%7%8, A<E#! .!">>/.
<#
participation. 3n one stud ">.AN o% the children participated in outh group activities at church.
Home schooled children participated at the same rates as private school counterparts in Dobs and
music lessons or recitals. &he did not participate as much in summer camp, sports activities,
and per%orming groups although the pursued these activities. 3n another stud, parents reported
their children tpicall spent <= to <" hours per month in contact 'ith same?aged children
.'ithin t'o ears o% the same age/.
;#
3n a highl intensive anthropological stud o% the 'a children learn in a homeschooling %amil,
Mar -nn Pitman %ound a pervasive communitarian li%estle. Pitman 'as studing Fne' ageF
%amilies 'ho avoided traditional religious a%%iliations. )he could not avoid commenting on the
li%e o% the communit. For e$ample, she reports that her observations 'ere unobtrusive E a
goal sought b most anthropologists. Her reason is revealing: all individuals, including hersel%,
blended into FHaI stead movement o% like?minded people in and out o% the area H'hich 'asI . . .
part o% and %acilitated b the communit net'ork.F
;8
6esides her comment on the e$tended
communit, she noted scouting activities, much interaction among siblings, and a reading club.
&here is ample evidence that homeschooling parents also %orm communities o% their o'n. Once
a ear, the Holt -ssociates1 ne'sletter, 5rowing ,ithout Schooling provides a director o%
homeschooling organiGations. -t least one organiGation e$ists in ever state, and in some, as
man as != or !8 regional organiGations e$ist. 6esides these, there are small neighborhood
support groups. Finall, man parents %orm FschoolsF E places 'hich provide a center %or
group activities to the homeschooling %amilies 'ho Doin.
-lmost all o% these various organiGations publish ne'sletters or emplo other vigorous methods
%or communication .such as phone trees/. 9e'sletters sho' active interest in the broader
communit. )tate legislation is a %re0uent topic. Man homeschoolers use ne'sletters to
coordinate lobbing activities in their state legislatures. Homeschooling leaders 'rite letters to
the editors o% the local ne'spapers, attend con%erences on education and other contemporar
issues, and keep in touch 'ith state and local communit leaders. &here are also doGens o%
nation?based organiGations that support net'orks o% homeschoolers in various 'as, allo'ing
them to %ind and talk to each other nation'ide.
&he language o% their ne'sletters sho's an interest in participating in the li%e o% a communit
'ider than a %amil. Headings o% stories .most contributed b readers/ %rom an issue o% 5rowing
,ithout Schooling, %ounded b Holt, reveal an interest in contributing to the general good b
helping others in various 'as. &itles reveal some o% this: F,eaching Out to College
Pro%essors,F FWhat &eachers Can Learn %rom Homeschoolers,F FHo' )upport 2roups +volve,F
74
-ll o% these e$amples are %rom a revie' o% the literature b 6rain *. ,a and 4ohn Wartes, F&he -cademic
-chievement and -%%ective *evelopment o% Home?)chooled Children,F in Ban 2alen and Pitman, pp. #AE:<, at 8<
E8:.
75
FCulture -c0uisition in an 3ntentional -merican Communit: - )ingle Case,F in Ban 2alen L Pitman, pp. ;;
E";, at >!.
<8
F,emaining Connected.F
;:
&he subDect matter reveals interest in li%e beond the %amil.
9e'sletters discuss the 'isdom .or lack o% it/ o% state testing re0uirements, the problems 'ith
tests, ho' children learn, ho' to help children 'ith handicaps, ho' to deal 'ith the bureaucrac
E all intended to be shared b one parent 'ith another. 3n short, these people are Doiners. &he
participate in the debate over education. Man are eager to help others understand education as
the have come to understand it.
&hese homeschooling %amilies are people 'ho are e$ercising their individual rights to %orm
closer ties 'ithin their immediate %amilies and communities. Homeschoolers are tremendousl
loal as %amil members. &he are suspicious o% television and other less intimate in%luences.
&he eat as a %amil, the socialiGe as a %amil, the attend church as a %amil, the become
members o% an e$tended religious communit.
&he also become members o% an e$tended homeschooling communit. Man are reinventing
the idea o% school on their o'n terms. &hat is, man do bring their children together %or a part o%
the time, to share in certain o% the educational activities planned %or their children. -lthough
the have turned their backs on a 'ide?spread and hallo'ed practice o% sending children to a
school located in a particular building, adhering to a particular schedule and program, the have
not turned their backs on the broader social contract as understood at the time o% the Founding.
&here ma be homeschooling %amilies 'ho remain insular and reDect the li%e o% the communit.
&he 'ould not be present at homeschooling meetings, nor respond to surves. 6ut this is
speculation. &he conclusion o% this paper is based on the activities o% those homeschoolers 'ho
at least participate in homeschooling organiGations.
Like the -nti%ederalists, these homeschoolers are asserting their historic individual rights so that
the ma %orm more meaning%ul bonds 'ith %amil and communit. 3n doing so, the are not
abdicating %rom the -merican agreement. &o the contrar, the are a%%irming it.
76
&hese are selected headlines %rom 5rowing ,ithout Schooling no. 0?.