Hello, , from NHERI.

It is intriguing to watch scholars - whether legal, educational, sociological, or psychological - make their appeals to reason to their colleagues, or whomever will read their journal articles, when their arguments are weak or built on a theoretical framework of little substance. It is then amazing when they have no empirical evidence to support certain outlandish claims. Martha Fineman does both of these things in her article entitled, "Taking children's interests seriously." [note 1]

She mentions that arguments about who should control the education of children has revolved around parental rights versus State interests in children's education. Fineman then emphasizes that children's rights must also be considered. Problematically, she never gives solid theoretical reason for why. She does not tell the reader whether God said so, 51% of Americans believe so, that simply she thinks psychologists imply so in order for children to become self-actualized or autonomous (two concepts she discusses), or that her privately-developed religions says so. Further, she points out that the interests of the parents, State, and children might be at odds with one another.

The writer clearly implies that the State can be trusted, on average, more than parents to offer social and economic mobility to their children. She offers no data to support this claim. Fineman avers, "Allowing some [parents and/or children] to opt out the public system today is reconstituting a new reality of segregation and neglect in many urban areas." She offers no empirical evidence to support this claim. Further, Fineman claims that in state-funded school voucher programs, "Children's interests are pushed to the background ..." but offers no data, no research, to support this claim.

The scholar's angst is revealed by the following statement: "Indeed, the lessons of the past regarding private schools and segregation are seemingly ignored when children are removed from the public school system and the state's purview." Again, Fineman offers no data to support this implied ominous claim of harm to society and children being caused by schooling run privately rather than by the State. Finally, she connects a concern with some (implied) research and data when she writes the following: "For example, Dwyer (1998) has exposed the ways in which private Christian schools instill sexist beliefs into children and pressure young girls into traditional patriarchal roles rather than professional careers ..." It is here that Fineman finally makes it real clear that her worldview is probably something that is antagonistic to a Christian one, at least a "conservative" or "primitive" one.

What is Fineman's solution? It is, in essence, to give the State primary and final authority over the education of the child. In her mind, the State must have control. Private education - whether in conventional schools or home-based education - must be stomped out of existence. Fineman writes, without empirical evidence, without data, to support her claims, the following:

    The total absence of regulation over what and how children are taught leaves the child vulnerable to gaining a sub-par or nonexistent education from which they may never recover. Moreover, the risk that parents or private schools unfairly impose hierarchical or oppressive beliefs on their children is magnified by the absence of state oversight or the application of any particular educational standards.

Fineman did not bother to mention the drop-out, illiteracy, or incarceration rates amongst graduates of State K-12 schools in America and whether these rates are any better than those for adults who attended private schools or homeschooling. [note 2]

Although Fineman did not clearly lay out her theoretical framework - or her worldview - early in the article, she did in the end. She wants State education to reign supreme and to abolish private education, all education that is not controlled by the State. Here worldview of statism is abundantly clear here:

     Perhaps the more appropriate suggestion for our current educational dilemma is that public education should be mandatory and universal. Parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children: we must struggle together to define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals. Perhaps when parents could not buy their children's way out of a public system, they would begin to buy into the idea that we should all be concerned with every child's opportunities, not just with those of our own.

The general public should take note that more scholars than they might think - without data, without empirical evidence, and without clearly making known their presuppositions or theoretical frameworks - are recommending the abolition of private education and desire the State to reign supreme in the teaching, training, and indoctrination of children and youth in the United States.

Those who care about how scholars' work is used to inform policy and law should be supporting scholars who use a solid worldview and present firm evidence to support claims.

--Brian D. Ray, Ph.D.
National Home Education Research Institute
http://nheri.org/
 
P.S. Please feel free to send us your questions about homeschooling and we will try to answer them in upcoming messages.

If you would like to tangibly support our work reporting on think tanks, professors at university schools of education, court decisions, doing research, collecting research, disseminating research, and helping homeschool families around the world, please see "Two ways to help" below.

Two ways to help:
1. Send a check to: NHERI, PO Box 13939, Salem OR 97309 (using a check puts the largest percent of your gift to work at NHERI)
2. Donate online.

NHERI, PO Box 13939, Salem OR 97309, USA

Notes:

1.      Fineman, Martha Albertson. (2009). Taking children's interests seriously. In Martha Albertson Fineman & Karen Worthington (Eds.), What is right for children? The competing paradigms of religion and human rights, pp. 229-237. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

2.      See, e.g., Home education reason and research by Dr. Brian Ray.