This post reviews Rachel E. Coleman, “Ideologues: Pedagogues, Pragmatics: A Case Study of the Homeschool Community in Delaware County, Indiana” (M.A. Thesis: Ball State University, 2010).
Rachel Coleman, a reader of this blog, graciously sent me a copy of her Master’s Thesis she just defended this month at Ball State University. It’s wonderful. In this post I’ll summarize it and stress its main contributions to our knowledge about homeschooling.
Coleman’s thesis consists of three chapters. The first chapter, on the national homeschool movement, I won’t dwell on, for it is mostly a summary of my book, and a good one at that. She prefers Jane Van Galen’s terminology for the two groupings of homeschoolers that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. Hence her title with the terms “Ideologues” and “Pedagogues.” I call them “Closed Communion” and “Open Communion” homeschoolers. Mitchell Stevens calls them “Believers” and “Inclusives.” Stevens and I don’t particularly like Van Galen’s terms because they suggest that only conservative Protestant homeschoolers are ideological and that only more liberal homeschoolers are concerned with pedagogy, but whatever. Since the early 2000s, these two groups have been joined by a group of homeschoolers Coleman calls “pragmatics,” who get into homeschooling not for ideological reasons but for more personal, pragmatic reasons. If you’ve read this blog or my own writing much you’ve heard that before. Coleman summarizes the history of the homeschooling movement as occurring in three phases: early cooperation between conservative Christians and liberal unschooler-types in the 1980s, followed by ideologue dominance as the conservative Protestants took over, followed by an emerging diversification today thanks largely to the internet’s role in facilitating information acquisition and communication between homeschoolers.
One interesting tidbit Coleman throws out in this first chapter is that she has found in her interviews of homeschoolers in Muncie that some who first begin to homeschool for pragmatic reasons are gradually radicalized–turned into ideologues–under the influence of other, more veteran homeschoolers. I’ve seen this myself but never really given it much thought. I’d extend her point and note that there are more than a few examples of mothers who began homeschooling without a religious agenda who are eventually converted to Christianity through the ministration of other homeschooling moms [others, however, are turned off by the overt proselytism with which they must contend once other homeschoolers find out they are not Christian].
Chapter two is where it really gets interesting. Coleman was able to get unique access into the homeschooling community of Delaware County because she was homeschooled herself and because she has for some years been offering Latin, Greek, and history classes to homeschoolers to help her pay for graduate school. Through a careful study of homeschooling networks along with extensive oral histories and immersion in local homeschooling literature, email lists, and so on, chapter 2 explains that everything I and others have written about homeschooling at the national level happened exactly as we said it did in Indiana in general and Delaware County in particular. That may not sound like much, but the chapter itself is a fascinating case study of how a few isolated homeschoolers from very different perspectives came together in the early 1980s to secure homeschooling legal freedom. They did this through a favorable Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation (1985), which found that the Indiana school law’s “instruction equivalent” language applied to homeschooling. Indiana now has the most permissive policy possible for homeschooling, not even requiring registration. Coleman gives the most detailed treatment I’ve ever read of Indiana’s homeschooling history (though a bit more on the court case would have been nice), and a great discussion of the possible numbers of homeschoolers in that state from the 1980s to today.
She then hones in on Delaware County. Muncie, Indiana is in Delaware County. This is very significant, for Muncie is probably the most studied town in America, harkening back to the famous Middletown studies of Robert and Helen Lynd, first published in 1929 and 1937. The Lynds dubbed Muncie a near perfect example of average America and thus generalized about the entire nation from their careful study of this one location. Many, many sociologists have returned to Muncie over the years to do case studies of big trends or themes. Coleman’s thesis fits squarely into this tradition.
Coleman describes how early Muncie-area homeschoolers were influenced by John Holt and Raymond Moore and worked together across religious lines. But by the 1990s those lines had hardened considerably. In 1993 the Delaware County Christian Homeschool Association (DCCHA, later changed to DCCHC) was formed, a group I would call “closed communion,” and she calls Ideologue. In 1998 this already exclusively conservative Christian group amended its statement of faith to make it even more exclusive. Some disgruntled homeschoolers left and tried unsuccessfully to found an alternative group, but DCCHC continued to grow until its peak in 2001 with about 300 families in Delaware County, dominating the homeschooling scene and serving as the public face of homeschooling in the county and first contact for families thinking about starting. The DCCHC worked closely with the closed communion statewide Indiana group, which was closely affiliated with HSLDA.
But then came the internet. By 2005 the internet had transformed the way homeschoolers communicated, and especially the way prospective homeschoolers got information. DCCHC’s monopoly was broken. In 2005 the DCCHC disbanded, partly because its key leaders had graduated from homeschooling, partly because the internet took over its functions. As Coleman puts it, the internet has “democratized the flow of information, eliminating the role once played by gatekeepers such as the DCCHC.” (81)
It has also fragmented the homeschooling community in Delaware County. Upon the demise of the DCCHC, many smaller cooperatives and support groups have been formed, often along religious lines. These groups can be difficult find and join by outsiders since they tend to consist of networks of close friends.
At the state level a similar fragmentation has occurred. There are now statewide organizations for homeschoolers that do not require conservative Protestant beliefs. Perhaps because of this, the leading statewide organization and its annual convention have grown even more exclusively Christian in recent years. Coleman notes how over the last few years convention speakers and sessions are talking a lot less about legal issues (no legal sessions at all in 2009) but a lot more about things like Biblical worldviews and Scriptural parenting. So while it is easier now for a non-conservative Protestant homeschooler in Delaware county to get basic homeschooling information and find like-minded families, the increasingly insular Christian homeschoolers still dominate numerically and create an environment that those on the outside often find discriminatory.
Chapter three provides ethnographies of three families: one ideologue, one pedagogue, and one pragmatic. Coleman offers intimate descriptions of a typical day in each household and explains each family’s understanding of homeschooling. This is a really fun chapter to read. The ideologue family, with eight children total, are the classic homeschooling stereotype. They are politically very conservative, fill their days with worksheets inculcating absolute truth about young earth creationism and providential history along with math, reading, music, and foreign language. The children in this family attend a dizzying array of extra-curricular activities as well. The homeschool is clearly a Herculean task, and at its center is an obviously gifted and heroic mom. Coleman’s description echoes some of Rob Kunzman’s observations though, as it seems that sometimes the children do little more than slave away at worksheets and get a jaundiced understanding of much of the world’s knowledge. The household also borders on chaos much of the time, as mom’s attention is torn between babies and a bunch of boys who would rather goof off than fill out their worksheets.
The pedagogue is a real-live unschooler, which is a rare thing to read about in the scholarly literature. Coleman’s description details this mother’s frustration with the homeschooling community’s lack of diversity. It also recounts her struggles to maintain fidelity to her ideals when her children seem uninterested in Latin, math, or reading. The unschooling mom sometimes wavers in her commitment and wonders if she should impose some structure on her children, but she is encouraged to persevere by other unschoolers she talks with at gatherings (some of which are out-of-state).
Finally, the pragmatic family. Coleman had a harder time finding someone in this category who was willing to be a subject of her research. This family has no strong aversion to public education and has participated in one of Indiana’s cyber-charters. Their homeschooling is motivated not by aversion to secularism or to structured curriculum. The parents just wanted more time with their kids. They are Evangelical Christians though. Coleman doesn’t note this, but my own experience leads me to hypothesize that a very large number of families who choose the cybercharter option and who might fit into her “pragmatic” category are committed Christians, only not so conservative as many traditional homeschoolers. Anyway, these last two stories are a real contribution to the literature. Her Ideologue is very similar to some of the families described so well by Rob Kunzman. But he didn’t touch unschoolers or “pragmatics.”
I’d like to mention one final point about Coleman’s study that she doesn’t really emphasize, but it’s there in her evidence. Coleman interviewed several public school leaders, and while some of them were fairly positive about homeschooling, two noted that in their experience, it was often the problem kids who turned to homeschooling to avoid having to stay in school. She also mentioned how the pragmatic mom recalled not being “particularly impressed with the results” (119) of homeschooling she saw when she was a resident director at a Christian college. Coleman notes that her study focuses entirely on the homeschoolers who are networked. There are likely some in Delaware county whose children are not experiencing the rich educations being provided by the three families she profiles here. Given that Indiana has zero accountability for homeschooling, it could easily be the case that both the excellent homeschooling chronicled in this chapter and the impoverished “homeschooling” alluded to by the school leaders are happening in Muncie. We need some scholarly study of these hidden homeschoolers as well.
Overall this was a beautifully crafted thesis that ably summarized the scholarly literature and added to it with a case study of one county’s homeschooling politics and three fine ethnographies of different kinds of homeschoolers. Many sociologists have taken issue with the Lynds’ assertion that Muncie well represents average America. If it ever did (which is debatable) it clearly doesn’t today. But for the demographic that tends to choose homeschooling in large numbers, very conservative white Protestants, Muncie is a great representative, and Coleman’s study does it proud.
“Coleman doesn’t note this, but my own experience leads me to hypothesize that a very large number of families who choose the cybercharter option and who might fit into her “pragmatic” category are committed Christians, only not so conservative as many traditional homeschoolers.”
Perhaps this is because evangelical protestants who would like to homeschool pragmatically have a built-in starting point in the form of church networks. Through religious networks, which likely already contain homeschoolers, they can more easily find curricula, advice, and plug into the (closed-communion) homeschool network.
Evangelical protestants who would be inclined to homeschool for pragmatic reasons thus have much lower costs in beginning homeschooling, which could explain any relative dominance among pragmatics.
You write: “Given that Indiana has zero accountability for homeschooling, it could easily be the case that both the excellent homeschooling chronicled in this chapter and the impoverished “homeschooling” alluded to by the school leaders are happening in Muncie. We need some scholarly study of these hidden homeschoolers as well.”
And then what? I fear an implication that homeschooling should be regulated by the state. The state has proven itself to be unable to educate a significant number of the students entrusted to its schools. When education fails, whether in school or at home, what are we to do? I don’t see an answer, do you?
“Hidden homeschoolers” feels much more full of connotation than we usually get from you, and your casual word choice here surprised me.
Also, given that public school accountability has produced a 1/3 failure-to-graduate rate (1/2 in schools with “minority majorities”), it could easily be the case that both excellent schooling and impoverished schooling are happening in Muncie and beyond. We need some scholarly study of these hidden school failures as well. Perhaps those responsible for the school failures should be accountable to homeschool moms across the country. As long as the homeschool moms continue in their unpaid capacity and without the assistance of taxpayer money, we could be sure there was no conflict of interest, and we’d likely see some innovation.
Why in the WORLD would we want government schools responsible for anyone ELSE?
Win and Homeschooling Granny:
The government is also in charge of the military and building roads and operating libraries and on and on. Your entire philosophy seems to be built on “the government is a failure, so it shouldn’t be allowed to regulate homeschoolers.” Wait, what?
Every child in this country has a right to an education. You can disagree with me if you like, but I’m fairly certain that a vast majority of Americans would side with me on that. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that every child has the opportunity to get such an education. That is the only way to ensure that EVERY child has such an opportunity – if we let private business or individual families do it, children fall through the cracks, just as they did in this country a hundred years ago. Whether or not they fail or succeed, that is their responsibility.
Therefore, it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that everyone who says they are going to “homeschool” their children actually do so. If families are not actually teaching their children, especially if they are not even attempting to do so, as in some cases, they should be required to return their children to public school. How hard is it to understand this?
Finally, instead of pointing at the government and saying they fail in educating children, why not work toward helping them succeed? That seems more productive.
Rachel, I spent MANY years working to try to help public education work for children. I was a true believer. I became totally disenchanted with the system’s inability and lack of desire to change or truly serve children over the course of years. Many, if not the MAJORITY of homeschoolers, are refugees from this position. To keep doing the same thing with poor results is just ridiculous. (I mean REALLY, a 50% grad rate in urban schools? And homeschoolers should be accountable to the people running that system? Give me a BREAK).
To sentence all children to a failing educational system because some might fall through the cracks is brutal and totalitarian. Do we need some way to help children who fall through the cracks? Can’t argue with that. But I DO argue with the idea that government, with it’s failed educational ideas, has ANY right to interfere with families in this arena.
It is PARENTS’ responsibility to educate their children.
And by the way, many homeschoolers do not actively teach their children, because they find they learn so much better that way. How is the government going to come into my home and understand THAT? It took my mom about three years to figure it out, and she went from thinking it was terrible to being our biggest advocate. During years of my not teaching them and their not attending school, they read great books, did scientific exploration, played music, did volunteer work, studied history, learned to speak foreign languages (um, fluently), and made art. Most school officials cannot even figure out what I am talking about when I explain this — and I am going to be ok with their regulating me? I don’t think so. My oldest kids are successful college students working to make their communities a better place after all this “not teaching them.”
You have a very holier-than-thou attitude. Homeschoolers have not come to their point of view casually. Many have done much reading, research and consideration to get out of the mainstream box that presumes compulsory education and government schools as the default, when they are really relatively new. Perhaps you should do a bit more research about how homeschooling actually WORKS and how people come to their decision to homeschool, as well as how it fits into their overall philosophies, which are far from uniform.
To quote some of your words back to you in consideration of schools’ dismal records: If schools are not actually teaching their students, especially if they are not even attempting to do so, they should be required to return their children to their families. How hard is it to understand this?
That is how YOUR tone sounded to ME.
Check out John Taylor Gatto, former teacher of the year in NYC.
And please realize that homeschoolers, once they become homeschoolers, have their hands full protecting their rights from folks who misunderstand home education. While it would be nice for me to tackle school reform as well, I already spent years doing that, and I have to focus on protecting families’ abilities to not participate in a failing system. Before I became a homeschooler, I, too, presumed that the two were the same thing or more related than they are. But they can’t be. Schools aren’t interested in change. Families change their homeschooling day-by-day, week-by-week, year-by-year.
Rachel,
The U.S. Constitution determines the military as one of the roles of the federal government. Education is not included in that role. Further research into the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms may be helpful to you (as it was to me) re: the proper jurisdiction of the government vs. the proper jurisdiction of the home and/or church.
As a former teacher and a current homeschool parent my perspective may be different from some. The premise that the government has more interest in educating children then parents is false. There is an obligation for both to educate children. The government has a legal obligation. The parents have a moral obligation. Beyond that, parents do want their children to succeed though the definition of success varies.
Children are educated in both homeschooling and public/private schools.
The bigger factor is the value families place on education. As a teacher for 10 years and a homeschool parent for 11 years, successfully educated students come from families who place a priority on education.
It is rare that a homeschool parent does not put a significant amount of time and resources in schooling their children. Why do so many not trust that parents, many of whom have been educated by public schools, would not have the skills to properly educate their children?
Many make the decision on the premise that they cannot do a worse job than the current public school system and with less grief. The amount of time spent on non-academics lead many to home school.
If we want to reduce the number of children who are home schooled, fix the reasons that we opt out of the system.
Like many government problems it comes down to money. Currently we pay the same taxes and receive no public education service. That is fair since we opted out. If homeschooling was suddenly abolished, the schools would have to absorb over a million more students. After the recent cuts to education budgets, there are not enough resources even if there was the will to change the law.
Finally, many states do have standards and guidelines for home schoolers. Accountability enforced in those states to a higher degree than in public schools. Home school programs are terminated if the family does not comply. Schools and teachers are rarely held to the same standard.
Thanks for your personal marvelous posting on home schooling! I truly enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author. I will remember to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back someday. I want to encourage yourself to continue your great job on the importance of education, have a nice morning!