原文: Should Homeschooling be Illegal?

The California Court of Appeals recently decided a case which could have a major impact on the legality of homeschooling in California, and perhaps all over the U.S. The ruling involved the statutes that mandate - quite reasonably - that all children in California be taught only by persons with the state teaching credentials to do so.

The problem is that most homeschoolers are parents with no real training or credentials. Then that's illegal!, the court ruled, thus jeopardizing the status of most of the 166,000 homeschooled children in that state.

"California courts have held that...parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," said the ruling. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws." If adopted nationally, it could signal the end of homeschooling in this country

I think we all can agree that teaching is so important it shouldn't be left to amateurs and that children deserve the finest quality instruction we as a society can provide them. Additionally, this is a very important issue because it touches on an essential conflict: the proper role of the government in children's education and upbringing versus parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit.

Let's delve into this fascinating dispute a little deeper.


I have cared for about 10 families who homeschooled their kids (at least for a while). Here are two that exemplify why this is such a difficult issue for me to reconcile.

The Morgans were a wonderful, loving, and talented family. Both parents were accomplished professionals, but the mom decided to drop out and homeschool their three kids until college. She seemed to be gifted at it. They would tell me of field trips, of studying at their own pace, of how interesting and fun she made everything. After school hours, they had rich social lives and, they told me, didn't miss being around their pals during the day (which was my big concern). All three kids went on to excellent colleges and, to my eye, seemed like well-adjusted, accomplished kids.

The Beckers were a very close knit, very religious family. They were quite suspicious of the outside world (myself included), full of sin and temptation and false prophets as it was. They worried mightily at the corrupting influence of the school environment on their kids. So they chose to homeschool their four children. As far as I could tell, much of their curriculum was focused on religious teachings and values. "Really," the mother once confided in me, "I have no use for science and they only really need as much arithmetic as it takes to know how to pay their bills." The family pretty much did everything together or with their church group, and purposely kept the children isolated from their peers. One of the kids did eventually go to a junior college; the others joined the family business.


Those two families explain why I'm so ambivalent about homeschooling. On one hand, if parents are themselves talented and choose to homeschool for the "right" reasons (e.g., to instill a love of learning, to share the family experience, to promote emotional closeness. because they feel they can do a better job of it), I've seen homeschooling succeed magnificently.

On the other hand, if it's done for the "wrong" (at least in my biased opinion) reasons (e.g., because of paranoia about exposure to the real world, to limit the child's knowledge to a few narrow precepts, to avoid outside social interactions), then I've seen homeschooling stunt the socioemotional, academic, and intellectual growth of children who, in my opinion, desperately could have used a "parentectomy" during the day to allow them to transcend their parents' narrow views and ambitions.


In 2003, there were approximately 1.1 million homeschooled kids in the U.S. The reasons parent gave for homeschooling included concern about the school environment (31%), to provide religious and moral instruction (30%), dissatisfaction with the academic instruction of schools (16%), and the child has special needs (14%). What (I hope you are asking) do studies tell us about the functioning of these kids?

Surprisingly, there has been very little research but that which has been done tends to look more like the Morgans than the Beckers. For example, their average math and reading scores were in the top quarter. (These data, however, are questioned because the test was voluntary, meaning that perhaps only high functioning homeschooled kids agreed to be tested.) Those that apply to college tend to have higher SAT and ACT scores than the traditionally schooled.


Excuse me, so where's the problem here? Aside from the legal question of instruction by a licensed professional (no small matter), here are the arguments of homeschooling detractors:

• The children are being denied important socialization experiences.
  
• The academic quality is often incomplete, excluding important subjects (like the Beckers and science).
  
• The parents often advocate an extreme religious or social agenda.
  
• It diverts much-needed money from the public schools.
  
• The "parallel society" of the homeschool is incompatible with the state interest in social cohesion and harmony (as the judge in the California case wrote: . "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.").

So, was the court correct? Shouldn't all kids be taught by credentialed teachers? If we open the door for just anybody to teach our children, how can we ensure they are not exploited by incompetents and zealots, as some have surely been?

I've tried, as best I can, to lay out the complexity of this issue and my own mixed feelings, based on my history with the Morgans and the Beckers. Still - and with some misgivings - I've decided that homeschooling should not be illegal, that it is more often than not a good experience for children, and that parents should have the right to responsibly take on the education of their kids if they so choose.

I want to emphasize the word "responsibly." Each state has its own standards (some are tight, others abysmally lax) on what that must be taught. Parents need to be held accountable if their homeschooled kids can't cut it educationally.

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in its citizens' educations, but so too do parents have the right to raise their children without interference if that state interest is not in some way significantly violated. Until I see data to prove otherwise, I don't think homeschooling meets that threshold.

Tight regulations on home schooling - yes. Courses on how to teach for homeschooling parents - better still. An outright ban of homeschooling - not justified.

译文: 在家上学违法吗？

加州上诉法院近日审理了一宗案子，此案对于加州甚至全美在家上学的合法性具有重要影响。该判决颁发了一条法令，要求全加州的小孩在家上学只能由具有国家教师证书的人员来教授。

 

问题是绝大多数在家学习的老师都是未经过真正培训，也没有证书的父母。法庭规定这样是非法的！这样全加州166万在家上学的小孩大多数都会被危及到。

判决写到：“加州法院裁定……父母没有让孩子在家里上学的权利”。“父母有义务监督他们的孩子，确保他们在法律条令下得到教育。”如果这在全国被采用的话，就标志着国内孩子在家上学历史的终结。

我认为我们都承认教育是很重要的，不应该让外行来实行；孩子应该得到我们社会所能提供给他们的最好的教育。此外，这是一个非常重要的问题，因为它涉及一个最根本的矛盾：政府在孩子的教育培养中的适当角色与父母们自以为对的，去栽培孩子的权利，二者相冲突。

让我们更深层次一点来探究这个吸引人的争论。

我调查过大约10个让孩子在家上学（至少暂时是）的家庭。这儿举2个例子来说明为何对于我去调停是一件非常困难的事。

摩根一家是一个美好，充满爱，有才能的家庭。父母都是有成就的专家，但母亲决定退回家教育他们的三个孩子直到大学。她似乎在这方面是天才。他们乐于告诉我他们的实地考察旅行，按自己的步调学习，妈妈让事情变得如何有乐趣。还告诉我，在上完课后，他们有丰富的社会生活，并没有失去身边的朋友（这是我最关注的）。三个孩子都考上了很好的大学，在我的眼里，他们是适应力强、善于社交的孩子。

贝克斯一家是个组织非常紧密的，虔诚的宗教性家庭。他们相当凝惧外面的世界（包括我在内），觉得外面充满犯罪和诱惑以及虚伪的预言。他们非常担心学校环境让孩子们变得道德败坏，所以就关起门来在家教育四个孩子。我尽量告诉他们，他们的课程着重于宗教教义和价值观。“真的吗？”母亲还曾相信我：“科学没什么用，孩子们只需要懂得算术能知道怎样去付款就可以了。”这个家庭经常一起做事或与他们的教会集体一起，故意将孩子孤立于其他同龄人。其中一个孩子最后去上了一所大专；其余的参与家里的生意。

这两个家庭解释了我为何对于在家上学是如此矛盾。一方面，如果父母有才能并有“正当”理由（比如灌培养对学习的喜爱，分享家庭体验，促进情感的紧密。因为他们觉得自己能做得更好。）选择让孩子在家上学。我曾见过在家教育取得巨大成功的。

另一方面，这也可能由于“错误”的理由（如因为怕面对现实世界的偏执狂，而将孩子的知识限制在很狭窄的几个方面，以避免与外界社会的交流）。然后我发现，这样的家庭教育阻碍了孩子社会情感、学术及智力的发展。以我看来，这些孩子本来应该在白天有一个“撇开父母”的机会，允许他们去超越父母狭隘的视野和抱负。

2003年，美国大约有110万在家上学的孩子。父母之所以让孩子在家学习的理由包括担忧学校的环境（占31%），提供宗教和道德教育（占30%），不满于学校的理论教学（占16%），孩子有特殊需要（占14%）。关于这些孩子的状态，研究又告诉了我们些什么？（我希望你会这样问）

令人吃惊的是，至今还只有很少的研究，但至少已经起步，并且比起贝克斯这种家庭而言，研究似乎更倾向于摩根此类家庭。例如，他们的数学和阅读平均分就排在前四分之一。（这些数据是有疑问的，因为测验是自愿的，意味着可能只有优秀的在家上学的孩子参与了测试。）那些进入了大学的孩子就比传统学习的孩子在SAT和ACT有更高的分数。

很抱歉！那么问题又在哪儿呢？暂且不论要由持教师证书来教学的法律性问题（不是小事啊！），我们来看看关于批评在家上学的观点：

• 孩子缺少重要的社会活动经验。
  
• 除了重要的学科外（如贝克斯家的宗教以及科学），理论水平通常不足。
  
• 父母通常通常拥护一种极端的宗教或社会事宜。
  
• 将急需的资金从公立学校中转移了出来。
  
• 在家上学中的“平行社会”与国家所感兴趣的社会凝聚力及和谐不相容（就像加州法院的判决中所写的：“教育系统的一个首要目的就是培养在校学生的公民意识、爱国精神和对于国家的忠诚，是作为一种公共福利的。”）。

如此，法院就是正确的？所有的孩子都应该由持证书的老师来教？如果我们打开了人人都能对孩子教学的大门，我们又怎么来保证教学不会由无能者或狂热份子主导？这是事实存在的。

我已经尽我所能去处理这个问题和我自己建立在摩根一家及贝克斯一家经历之上的混乱情绪的复杂性。带着一些忧虑，我任然觉得在家上学不该是违法的，对于孩子来说，这多半不是一种好的经历。如果父母这样选择的话，也应该有尽责担负起孩子教学的权利。

我想强调“尽责”这个词。每个州对于必须教学的内容都有它自己的标准（一些要求比较严格，一些又非常松懈）。如果孩子们不能在教学中学到应有的，家长们理应收到追究。

是的，这个州对于它公民的教育有着令人瞩目的兴趣。不过即使这样，父母也有在不受干扰的情况下培养孩子的权利，如果联邦州不将其视为值得注意的一种违反的话。我认为在家上学不应该遭遇这种门槛，除非我见到有数据从其它方面来证明。

是的，这是对于在家上学的严厉规定。这是对于孩子在家上学的父母怎样教学做到更好的途径。一个直接的、不公平的，对于在家上学的禁令。