Professor Jim Hills
March 2003
Ray continued by observing that Adolph Hitler, V.I. Lenin, and Benito Mussolini used schools for perpetrating their base purposes. Martin Luther used schools to teach children the principles set forth in God’s Word. And in America, John Dewey, Horace Mann, and many others “knew that if they were to be able to enculturate, indoctrinate, and mold the thinking and behavior of the next generation then they would have to design and control the curriculum of the schools” (1999, p. 2).
Today a battle rages for the control of the hearts and minds of the children—and it takes place in their education. “Some call for institutional schools to exert even more influence in and control over the lives of children. Contrariwise, others are sounding a clarion call that urges parents to be in charge, knowledgeably and intimately, of their offspring’s education” (Ray, 1999, p. 2).
And the result of that clarion call is homeschooling—regarded, as Goymer (2002) has observed, as “a quiet revolution amidst the storm of education change battering schools.” A result of what many see as the failure of public education, this quiet revolution is sweeping the nation.
Public schools have not always been the way of education in this country. Home and family were once the primary influence and principal method of education in America. But in 1837, Horace Mann established the first public school. 1905 saw John Dewey introducing Socialistic and progressive education into the schools. And in 1963, the courts declared it unconstitutional to read the Bible in public schools. (Ballmann, 1991)
That 1963 decision is seen as the turning point by many. Since the Bible was dismissed from our schools, so were the parents who held to its standards. Public schools in America are not very public any more, claimed Worth (1998). Instead, they are controlled by the associations, boards, and committees over whom the general “public” has little authority. Richman (1994) explained that public schooling is run by a political commission, that the schools are funded by the state’s coercive power of taxation, that students are obtained by compulsory attendance, and that students are taught official doctrine from government-approved schoolteachers.
Boortz (2002) argued, “They are not ‘public schools.’ They are government schools. They are owned and operated by government. Every employee, from the superintendent to the dishwasher in the cafeteria, is a government employee.”
Although parents have little control over the government schools, they are required to pay taxes to fund them. Duffy (1995, p. 236) stated, “Some parents feel that they are prisoners to the system—after paying taxes they cannot afford private schooling, yet the public school is inadequate.”
The taxes on the hard-earned money of the parents seem to pay for an extended day-care system, run by what Duffy (1995) termed as “government nannies.” Whitehead and Bird (1984, p. 125) reported, “Most children are now nurtured to a considerable degree by the state. Moreover, the compulsory nature of the public educational process has the effect of turning students into captive audiences for government-controlled curricula.”
Worth (1998) observed that there is less and less parental involvement in public schools. He attributed this in part to the fact that some parents have abdicated their responsibilities. But many scholars (Worth, Duffy, etc.) agree that this is also due to associations such as the NEA striving to keep parents from the schools. Richman (1994, p. 21) asserted that “public schools have the effect of reducing the influence of the family.” They want parents to encourage their children in homework and attendance, said Richman, but they do not want parents involved in “the big decisions, such as where their children go to school or what type of instruction they should receive” (p. 21). He declared, “What the authorities want from parents is blind support.”
Not only do public schools want blind parental support, but in the meantime they strive to undermine what parents might believe. Gangel (1988) cites an extreme example of this, quoting a Harvard Professor in 1973:
Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you teachers to make all of these sick children well by creating the international children of the future. (p. 131)
Such attitudes lead those like McHugh (1991, p. 6) to declare, “The gradual impairment and loss of parental authority in and influence on the education of our youth is one of the most serious and momentous evils to beset American civilization.”
While many apparently hold warranted concerns over government schools’ methods and ideas, what are the results? “What’s happening in our schools? None dare call it education,” said Stormer (1999). Ballmann (1991, p. 32) declared that if the public school system of today were to be evaluated and given a report card, they would get an “F” in Academics, Morality, Student Self-Image, Discipline, and Patriotism.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education was formed under the Reagan administration to do just that: create a report card for the nation on its education. The product of the 18-month study was entitled A Nation at Risk. It warned that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.” As Ray (1997, p. 4) summarized the report, A Nation at Risk “described America’s government-run schools to be in such an inferior state of being and their students learning so little that it was as if the United States had declared war on itself.”
Fifteen years later, key education reformers, business leaders, and policy makers of the nation issued an education manifesto declaring that we are A Nation Still at Risk:
American 12th graders scored near the bottom on the recent Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS): U.S. students placed 19th out of 21 nations in math and 16th out of 21 in science. Our advanced students did even worse, scoring dead last in physics. …Since 1983, over 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade not even having learned to read at a basic level. Over 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math. Almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the essentials of U.S. history. And those are the young people who complete their senior year. (Center for Education Reform, 1998)
The report card on public schooler’s reading is just as bad. The National Center for Education Statistics published the results from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment of 15-year-olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy, showing that the United States ranked 15th among the 31 participating countries. Not only was this 45 percent behind the reading abilities of Finland, the world leader, but the United States was the lowest scoring of all the English-speaking countries.
Sowell (1993) proclaimed, “It is clear that American educational deficiencies extend far beyond mathematics,” when he reported that one-third of 17-year-old Americans didn’t know that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, half didn’t know who Josef Stalin was, and 30 percent could not locate Britain on a map of Europe. Sowell also cited the scores of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) taken by high school seniors. The composite verbal and quantitative score fell from 980 in 1963 down to 890 in 1980 and 1981. The average verbal and math SAT score in 1990 was at 900, 80 points below 1963. And in 1991 the average SAT verbal score was at an all-time low. (Sowell, 1993, p. 3)
Other scholars, including Richman (1994) pointed out that social scientists Charles Murray and R.J. Herrnstein declared that the SAT grading system had become more lenient over the last thirty years, which would tell us that our high schoolers would really be scoring even lower on the tests their parents took. Richman also pointed to instances of grade inflation, quoting Murray and Herrnstein who stated that by the early 1970s high schoolers were spending all four years in a “weakened academic environment.”
No wonder Ballmann (1991) called public education “the assault on excellence” (p. 29), and Good and Braden (2000) reported that many “concluded that public schools have outlived their usefulness” (p. 4). Ballmann (1991) went on to ask, “Why should the children of America, who live in the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, be sinking to the bottom of the academic barrel? There is no justifiable excuse for the fact that the United States ranks forty-ninth among 158 member nations of the U.N. in its literacy levels” (p. 32).
As A Nation Still at Risk (1998) declared, “Intellectually and morally, America’s educational system is failing far too many people.” For not only do scholars give public education’s academic results an “F” (Ballmann, 1991), but families are saying that the morals of public education deserve an “F” as well (Ray, Klicka).
One area of debate regarding the morals of public schooling has been over sex education. Stormer (p. 23) quoted a 1994 column by Schlafly that stated, “Sex education started coming into public schools about 30 years ago, and became progressively more explicit until many courses include actual demonstrations of how to use contraceptives and pornographic videos to explain the facts of life.” With teachers giving minors more explicit information than just “the birds and the bees,” often without parental knowledge, parents are understandably up in arms.
Apparently giving teens more information has done more harm. As Richman (1994) observed, after years of “allegedly value-free sex education” and condom distribution, teen age pregnancy rates have only risen. In single girls ages 15 to 19 pregnancies per thousand rose from 12.6 in 1950 to 31.6 in 1985, reported Richman (1994). But according to Stormer (1999), school health clinics in many states refer girls to an abortion clinic with no parental permission or notification.
Stormer (1999, p. 24) wrote that students are continually given more and more information about sex, including pro-homosexual stories in the first grade, with textbook titles such as “Daddy’s Roommate” and “Heather Has Two Mommies.” Many parents are shocked to hear that their children are being taught such ideas—but they can’t do much about it. Others don’t care, because it reflects what they think and feel.
Stormer (p. 25) quoted Sowell as asking, “Does anyone ask himself why it should take years and years to teach schoolchildren so-called ‘sex education’? Obviously, it does not. What takes years and years is to wear down the values they were taught at home…”
Programs such as these that “attempt to re-mold the values, beliefs, and attitudes of school children” are much in debate (Sowell, 1993). And as Sowell pointed out, issues such as secular humanism vs. religious morality, or radical ideologies versus traditional values are legitimate matters of discussion. However, “the more fundamental question is: Who is to decide—and by what right—the values with which children are to be raised? More specifically, who authored outsiders to intrude into family relationships, undermine parental authority, and use brainwashing techniques on children?” (Sowell, p. 66).
McHugh (1991) maintained that, “The spiritual and intellectual influence of parents has been increasingly removed from the classroom, replaced by an ideology, imposed through the organs of the state, which menaces the freedom of our open society” (p. 5). According to Ballmann (1991, p. 20), it is not that our classrooms are godless, but that they have a different god—the god of this world. Ballmann argued that, “Love of God has been substituted with self-centeredness and worldly, antifamily values. Traditional morality is largely ignored, while immorality is condoned.”
These facts lead many to believe that our nation is not only at risk academically, but morally, as well. And, as Klicka (1992) declared,
When the moral backbone of a nation is removed, a nation will surely collapse. The public schools have abandoned the absolute moral values and biblical morality on which our country was founded and have replaced them with the religion of humanism, where man is the measure of all things and values are determined by the individual. Therefore, when the bankrupt philosophy of humanism is adopted, and biblical morality is removed in the public schools, only chaos will reign. (p. 46)
It is in response to the “rising tide of mediocrity,” godless classrooms, and government control that hundreds of thousands of families across the nation have decided to homeschool. “In the wake of massive youth illiteracy, immorality, and rebellion against domestic authority, concerned parents all across America are exercising their right to teach their children at home” (Ballmann, 1991, p. 13). Whether they call it home schooling, homeschooling, home education, home-based education, or home-centered learning, Ray (1997, p. ix) reported that “this age-old practice has experienced a rebirth and taken hold in every state of the Union.” And in the opinon of Lines (quoted by Ray, 1997), homeschoolers “are not abdicating from the American agreement. To the contrary, they are affirming it.”
The reasons for homeschooling are varied, according to Colfax (1988). Some teach their children at home for “very clearly defined political, religious, philosophical, or pedagogical reasons… Some teach their children at home because of what is being taught in the schools, while others choose to homeschool because of what is not being taught” (p. 37).
Parents are unwilling to wait for public schools to change since there children are currently in and affected by them reported Ray (1997). “While many are moving toward private schools, there has also been a quiet, but significant migration to home education” (p. 5).
This quiet movement of homeschooling is as varied as the families who practice it, but they have in common the fact that family is at the core of the education. Interestingly, Ray (2002) found that 95 percent of homeschooling families are headed by a married couple, though 25,000 or more single parent families were homeschooling in 1998.
Webster stated long ago that,
All government originates in families, and if neglected there, it will hardly exist in society… The foundation of all free government and of all social order must be laid in families and in the discipline of youth. The education of youth, [is] an employment of more consequence than making laws and preaching the gospel, because it lays the foundation on which both the law and gospel rest for success.
It would seem that these families who have chosen homeschooling have adopted Webster’s philosophy. Klicka (1992, p. 157) stated that homeschool parents are practicing what has been believed and practiced by cultures for centuries, that “parents, families, and closely-tied social groups should be the ones to transmit culture, beliefs, and literacy with the utmost care and dedication.”
Shumow, Kang, and Lowe (1996) found, “Parent’s involvement in their children’s schooling is found to have a more powerful effect than school choice on both mathematics achievement and school orientation” (p. 88). According to Duffy, most parents care about their children and desire for them to be educated, but while the state assumes the responsibility, many parents tend to forget about sharing their part in the responsibility. Homeschoolers represent the group who has decided to take full responsibility for their children’s education, believing that it is a God-ordained privilege and responsibility to train their children (McHugh, Klicka, Harris).
Only 6 percent of homeschooling fathers and 15 percent of homeschooling mothers are certified teachers, Ray (1997) reported, while 32 percent of homeschooling parents had earned bachelor’s degrees. Interestingly, Ray (2002) found little or no relationship between the education level of the parents and the academic achievement of the children. Ballmann (1991) asserted, “If you are a responsible, loving, and concerned parent, you not only qualify to raise your child but to teach him as well” (pp. 19-20).
In a survey conducted by Knowles of homeschooled adults, 96 percent said they would want to be educated at home if they had it to do over again. “Many mentioned the strong relationship it engendered with their parents while others talked about the self-directed curriculum and individualized pace that a flexible program of home schooling permitted” (Swanbrow, 1993).
Homeschoolers across a nation also share the belief in freedom in education. That freedom represents the freedom to teach whatever they believe, and for a large percentage of homeschoolers, faith is an important part of their education. Duffy argued that though the United States has no government-dictated religion, it does have government-dictated belief systems, “courtesy of the government schools.” She said, “It is impossible to educate without working within some value-laden system, yet we cannot agree on a common set of values” (p. 251). According to Duffy, homeschoolers are choosing not only separation of church and state, but separation of school and state.
While homeschooling parents continue to pay taxes that pay for the public education of others’ children, Ray (2003) reported that each home-educated student saves taxpayers an average of at least $7,100 each year. Homeschoolers are often criticized for withdrawing their children from local schools and thus reducing the funding made available, but in so doing they are actually saving the state money. And interestingly, homeschoolers spend a median of only $450 for home education per child per year, including textbooks, field trips, etc.
Not only are homeschoolers free to choose what they teach their children, but they are free to choose the amount of time devoted to each subject. A typical public school student spends approximately 1,100 hours a year at the school, but only twenty percent, or 220 hours, are spent “on task,” according to Colfax (1988).
In contrast, the homeschooled child who spends only two hours a day, seven days a week, year-round, on basics alone, logs over three times as many hours ‘on-task’ in a given year than does his public school counterpart. Moreover, unlike the public school child, whose day is largely taken up by non-task activities, the homeschooled child has ample time left each day to take part in other activities—athletics, art, history, etc.—without having to sacrifice other interests… (Colfax, 1988, p. 46)
The opportunity homeschooling provides to spend extra time on schoolwork has produced many homeschoolers who graduate at age fifteen and enter college at sixteen. And as homeschoolers are able to take advantage of special programs in their extra time, they are receiving a more varied and in-depth education.
Ray’s (2003) research found that homeschool parents are more active civically than public school parents. But the same may be said for their children. Take for example TeenPact, an organization begun by homeschooling father Tim Echols in 1994. Weeklong classes are held by and for homeschooled teens at state capitols, to teach students about the political process. Many of these homeschoolers go on to become interns and aids to politicians. And homeschoolers across the nation are campaigning for their favorite conservative candidates. The whole process provides more of a civics lesson than could ever be obtained through books or in the classroom.
As Richman (1994) observed, homeschoolers realize that children learn all the time and that “the apparent separation of life’s activities into learning and non-learning is self-defeating” (p. 92). He asked, “What is the point of making education compulsory when it is inevitable?” This “inevitable” learning homeschoolers are achieving is giving them adult responsibilities, helping them to face the world and make a difference according to their convictions.
The “how” and even the “why” of home education is as varied as the number of homeschool families across the nation, but the results are unified. Ballmann (p. xi) believed that, “Home-schooled children are healthier kids, with a better understanding of their studies, greater respect for their elders, greater social skills, and a better outlook on life than their age-mates in the public or even the private schools.”
But the biggest question is always, does it work academically? Research answers with a resounding “yes.” What is the homeschool report card? According to most, it’s an “A+.” Ray (1997) reported the results of a nationwide study of home educated students’ standard achievement test results. Homeschoolers scored in the 85th percentile in the basic battery, and 87th percentile in the complete battery, compared to the nationwide average for public schoolers of the 50th percentile.
The results of a study by Rudner (1999) showed that 25 percent of homeschooled students are “enrolled one or more grades above their age-level public and private school peers.” He also found that the median scores of homeschooled students taking the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) were between the 82nd and the 92nd percentile in reading, and reached the 85th percentile in math. The overall score for homeschoolers fell between the 75th and 85th percentiles. Private school students’ scores ranged from the 65th to the 75th percentile, while the public school students remained at the 50th percentile.
Ray (2002, p. 52) also reported the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores of hundreds of K-12 homeschoolers in the state of Washington showing consistent high scores, with the median at 67th percentile, well above the national average of 50th percentile.
Not only do homeschoolers have an A+ report card while being homeschooled, but they continue on to achieve great heights. In the Scholastic Aptitude (SAT) test, homeschool graduates achieve higher success than their public school peers. Ray (2002, p. 69) recorded the SAT scores of over 5,000 homeschooled graduates in the 1999-2000 school year, who scored an average of 1100, while the national average was 1011. After homeschooling, 69 percent of home educated students go on to postsecondary education according to Ray (1997, p. 83), and 31 percent move straight into employment (compared to the United States general public, of which 71 percent go on to postsecondary education while 29 percent go into employment).
Ray (2002, p. 70) told of a nationwide survey of college admissions personnel conducted by Prue revealing that “home schoolers are academically, emotionally, and socially prepared to succeed in college.” And according to Ray, most colleges are now welcoming—indeed, preferring—homeschooled applicants. Especially after the top three contestants in the 2000 National Spelling Bee were home educated, and the twelve-year-old second place winner of the 2000 Geography Bee was also a homeschooler (Thomas, 2000).
Patrick Henry College is the newest evidence of homeschoolers at college. Founded by homeschool father Dr. Michael Farris, it is a college with 98 percent homeschoolers in attendance. The average SAT score for PHC’s 2002 incoming class was 1300 (Moore, 2002). The college’s attendees include Matthew du Mée, who distinguished himself as a homeschool student by scoring a perfect 1600 on the SAT test (Patrick Henry College, 2001).
It has been displayed that homeschooling gets an A on the report card for academics. But how does it compare to public schools in the area of morals? Considering that homeschooling enables parents to instill their own beliefs into their children’s hearts and minds, without having to “unschool” them of what they heard at school, homeschooling is bound to come out on top in morals where families are concerned.
Homeschooling provides “real world” experiences for students (Colfax, 1988), and the opportunity to “socialize” with not only their own age-mates, but their parents, adults, and youth of all ages. While many critics ask, “What about socialization?” Smedlay (1992) reported that home educated children were “more mature and better socialized than those who are sent to school.” Farris and Woodruff (2000) even claimed that homeschoolers would logically make more committed and responsible marriage partners due to “the philosophy and the practice in which they have been immersed.”
Harris nicely summed up the benefits of homeschooling thus:
Home schooling does allow you to know where your kids are, every hour of the day. They are involved in wholesome, real-life activities. They’re studying and growing. They’re even changing their world for the better. They’re taking their first steps toward financial independence and reaching out for the first time to the world beyond our shores. That’s where they are. They’re at home. And that is very good for the family. (House, 1988, p. 229)
And it is because homeschooling is very good for the family that families across the nation are joining this quiet revolution. An estimated 1.5 to 1.9 million children were home educated during 2001-2002 in the U.S. (Ray, 2003), and the growth rate is 7 to 15 percent per year. But Klicka (1992) predicted that “the homeschool movement will likely exert influence in society that is disproportionate to its size.” And since home school families have 83 percent more children than average (Ray, 1997), the next generation may show an even faster growth rate, as homeschool graduates begin to homeschool their own children. Though quiet, this revolution of homeschooling will be silent no more.
Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Agatha Christie, Stonewall Jackson, Pearl S. Buck, Charlie Chaplin, Woodrow Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Edison, C.S. Lewis, Charles Dickens, Wolfgang Mozart, and Felix Mendelssohn are just a few of the names in the homeschool hall of fame. And Klicka (1992, p. 157) forecasted, “This list of famous home schoolers is just beginning.”
The failure of the public school system has caused a rise in homeschooling. And this revolution will have a profound impact on our nation. As Ray (1997, p. 102) prophesied, “The lives of the home educated in decades to come and the heritage that they bequeath to their children may inscribe a sweeping, indelible, and immeasurable mark on the 21st-century of America.”
References
Boortz, N. (2002, September 17). Brainwashing 101. World Net Daily. Retrieved February 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28957
Center for Education Reform. (1998, April 30). A nation still at risk: An education manifesto. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://edreform.com/pubs/manifest.htm
Colfax, D. & M. (1988). Homeschooling for excellence. New York: Warner Books.
Duffy, C. (1995). Government nannies: The cradle-to-grave agenda of goals 2000 and outcome based education. Oregon: Noble Publishing.
Farris, M. P. & Woodruff, S. A. (2000, June). The future of home schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 233-255, pg 249.
Gee, R. (2002, January 21). Compulsory government education: Origins and solutions. Strike the Root. Retrieved January 14, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Gee/gee8.html
Good, T. L., & Braden, J. S. (2000). The great school debate: choice, vouchers, and charters. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
House, H. W. (Ed.) (1988). Schooling choices: An examination of private, public, and home education. Oregon: Multnomah Press.
Klicka, C. J. (1992). Home school: The right choice: The incredible failure of public education and the rising hope of home schooling. Oregon: Noble Publishing Associates.
Moore, A. (2002, May 10). “Brave new schools: College rejected for teaching creationism.” World Net Daily. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27572
Nash, R. H. (1991). The closing of the American heart: What’s really wrong with America’s schools. Texas: Word Publishing.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
Patrick Henry College. (2001, July 3.) Media Release. “Homeschool student with perfect SAT score wins full scholarship to attend Patrick Henry College.” Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/010703media.asp
Ray, B. D., Ph.D. (1997). Strengths of their own: Home schoolers across America. Oregon: NHERI Publications.
Ray, B. D., Ph.D. (2002). Worldwide guide to homeschooling. Tennessee: Broadman & Holman.
Ray, B. D., Ph.D. (2003). Homeschooling research. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.hslda.org/research/faq.asp
Richman, S. (1994). Separating school & state: How to liberate America’s families. Virginia: The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Rudner, L. M. (1999). “Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998.” Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
Shumow, L., & Kang, K., & Lowe-Vandell, D. (1996). School choice, family characteristics and home-school relations: Contributors to school achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 459.
Smedlay, T.C. (1992). “Socialization of home school children,” Home School Researcher, 8.
Sowell, T. (1993). Inside American education: The decline, the deception, the dogmas. New York: The Free Press.
Stormer, J. A. (1999). None dare call it education. Missouri: Liberty Bell Press.
Swanbrow, D. (1993, April 12). Study: Home-educated children not disadvantaged. The University Record. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Apr12_93/16.htm
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001, December.) Outcomes of learning: Results from the 2000 program for international student assessment of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. NCES 2002–115. Washington, DC: 2001. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002115.pdf
Thomas, C. (2000, June 6). The Holland sentinel. “More kids coming home to quality schooling.” Retrieved February 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/060600/opi_cal.html
Webster, Noah. (1967). Noah Webster’s first edition of an American dictionary of the English language. San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education.
Whitehead, J. W., & Bird, W. R. (1984). Home education and constitutional liberties: The historical and constitutional arguments in support of home instruction. The Rutherford Institute Report, Volume 2. Illinois: Crossway Books.
Worth, F. (1998). “Reasons to homeschool.” Retrieved March 3, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.hsu.edu/faculty/worthf/why.html
