2

ca74

2.pdf

Home >Education homework help >2

THE IMPACT OF HOME SCHOOLING REGULATIONS ON EDUCATIONAL ENROLLMENTS

IN THE UNITED STATES

KiMA PAYNE STEWART

Buffalo Island Central School District

RICHARD A . NEELEY

Arkansas State University

Three major investigations were conducted in an effort to deter- mine the impact of home school regulations on educational enrollments in the United States. Home school regulations were obtained from state departments of education and investigated to determine the strength of the accountability measures. Popula- tions representative of the school-age population by state, school enrollment, school non-enrollment, and home school enrollment were collected using 2000 U. S. Census data. The relationship between the strength of the home school regulations and the home school enrollments was examined. Finally, the existence of a discrepant student population was assessed.

Background of the Study Traditional education in America is cur-

rently experiencing many changes that range from the growth of charter schools to voucher systems. In comparison with other recent changes in education, home schooling has received less attention and research than other reform movements. However, home schooUng has the poten- tial for a much larger impact on the current educational system than any of the other recent movements simply because of the sheer number of students involved (Reich, 2002). Current estimates indicate that there are between 1,300,000 and 1,700,000 stu- dents in the United States enrolled in home instruction, or as much as four percent of the total school age population (Beilick, Chandler, & Broghman, 2001). Further, indications are that the home school move- ment has been growing steadily from seven

to fifteen percent annually in recent years (Lines, 1999).

The concept of parents educating their children at home was once a necessity on the American frontier (Galen & Pitman, 1991). Historically, conflict arose between the government's requirement of each state to educate its children and the parents' fun- damental rights to education their own children with the adoption of compulsory attendance laws for those of school age. Compulsory attendance laws in the Unit- ed States promoted the widely accepted theory that one duty of each state is to offer every child educational opportunities which promote intelligence and self suffi- ciency. Less widely accepted, however, was the theory that the state has a duty to insist that every child accept such educa- tional opportunity (Ensign, 1969). The rise of home school popularity has been

354 / Education Vol. 126 No. 2

one of the most significant trends in edu- cation over the past half century and indications are that the home school move- ment may even be becoming a social movement instead of simply an educational alternative (Reich, 2002).

On the heels of harsh criticism of pub- lic schools and public demands for response to a variety of competing agen- das, the most recent wave of reform in education has brought many changes that impact nearly every aspect of the Ameri- can education system. Demands for quality through accountability, standards-based reform, parental choice, and societal inequities have led to magnet schools, high stakes testing, revised professional licen- sure standards, charter schools, and voucher systems. The American educa- tion system has responded with efforts intended to make improvement-oriented change and to submit to close public scruti- ny of its performance (Galen & Pitman, 1991). With the adoption of No Child Left Behind (U. S. Department of Education, 2001), a political platform to improve edu- cational performance nationally, no element of public education has been unaf- fected by this reform movement.

Among the recent trends that may have a marked effect on the education system as a whole is the rapid expansion of home schooling. Typically public schools have recently been subjected to enhanced scruti- ny, which has not transferred to the home school arena. State-level controls over such matters as qualifications of instructors, standards for curriculum, assessment of students, and even compliance with the principle of compulsory attendance appear markedly different from state to state. State

constitutions and statutes are the mecha- nisms by which states control and direct education in their jurisdictions. Prelimi- nary investigation suggested that there is wide variation in the data on home school- ing and the variation may be directly attributable to variation in the language of state regulatory provisions. No research that specifically examined home school enrollments relative to state regulations and school enrollments was found.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to inves-

tigate the educational accountability for home school students contained in the reg- ulatory provisions of the fifty states and the influence of this accountability, if any, on the number of students enrolling in home schooling, as well as students not accounted for in census data. The follow- ing objectives guided the investigation:

1. To categorize home schooling provi- sions in the various states by the strength of the educational account- ability measures.

2. To determine if home school enroll- ments in each state are directly related to the strength of the regulatory provi- sions governing home schooling in each state.

3. To determine if a discrepancy exists between census data of the school-age population and current enrollments of public, private, and home school stu- dents in the United States.

The objective of this descriptive study was to investigate the current status of home schooling in the United States relat-

Home Schooling Regulation Impact on U.S. Enrollment.../ 355

ed to state regulatory requirements. The governing provisions for home schooling of each individual state were investigated and classified according to strength. The regulatory components included the fol- lowing information:

1. What are the home school requirements for this state?

2. What are the curriculum requirements? 3. What are the instructor qualifications? 4. What assessments are required?

Secondly, the relationship between the strength of the regulations and the num- ber of home school students was investigated. This was determined by iden- tifying the school-age population, the enrolled (public and private) school pop- ulation, the home school population, and the unenrolled population by state accord- ing to 2000 U. S. Census data and individual state records. Finally, school enrollments were compared to the most recent census data for school-age children to determine the existence of a discrepant student population.

Data Collection Initially, the school enrollment data

were collected for each state. These data included students enrolled in either public or private schools, students not enrolled in any form of schooling, and students enrolled in home schooling. Secondly, the regulatory provisions governing home schooling of all fifty states were gathered from each state department of education. The data from these documents were need- ed to investigate the areas of accountability of enrollment, curriculum, instructor qual-

ifications, and assessment requirements. Finally, population data from the 2000 U. S. Census were reported and utilized.

To obtain the statutes and the numeri- cal population reporting, intemet sources were used to gather relevant data using online research tools. Study data that could not be found from this search were solicit- ed by mail or telephone from each state's department of education as well as from the United States Department of Education. Data were carefully coded into rubrics so as to provide consistency for reporting and analysis.

Instrumentation The state reguladons pursuant to home

schooling of the fifty states were divided into four categories based upon the amount of regulation imposed on home schooling parents. The Case Survey Technique (Rosenberg, 1968 and Yin, 1994) was used as a tool for quantifying the qualitative information that had been gathered. This method allowed numerical assignments to categories of accountability requirements related to home school regulatory provi- sion, thus allowing a classification to be determined on the basis of weak, low, mod- erate, or high regulations. Each of the fifty states was placed into a quartile as defined by the regulation status derived.

For the areas of enrollment, curriculum, instructor qualifications, and assessment, each state was given a score of '0' if the area was not mentioned in state regula- tions; a score of ' 1 ' if the area was mentioned in the requirements; a score of '2' if the area required reporting or speci- fied qualifications; and a score of ' 3 ' if the area included sanctions, specific assess-

356 / Education Vol. 126 No. 2

ments, or specialized training. After being assigned a score of '0-3' in

each of four areas, a state score total was determined. The strength of the regulato- ry provisions were indicated by the following score totals:

Weak Regulation 0, 1, 2, 3 Low Regulation 4, 5, 6 Moderate Regulation 7, 8, 9 High Regulation 10,11,12

Analysis of the Data The data for each ofthe fifty states were

coded in tables and rubric charts to deter- mine the regulatory status of each state. Simple descriptive statistics (Shannon & Davenport, 2001) were used to classify states according to the strength ofthe home school regulatory provisions. Next, the percent of home school students was cal- culated. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine which strength quar- tiles differed significantly. Finally, state enrollment data and U. S. Census (2000) data were compared in order to determine if a discrepant population of school-age students exists nation-wide.

Findings The investigation conducted to catego-

rize home schooling provisions in the various states by strength of the educa- tional accountability measures yielded the following outcome: 13 states were found to have weak regulatory requirements con- cerning home schooling; 17 states were found to have low regulatory requirements concerning home schooling; 13 states were found to have moderate regulatory require-

ments concerning home schooling; and 7 states were found to have high regulatory requirements concerning home schooling. The states, by name and strength assess- ment are shown in Tables 1-4:

The second component of the study sought to determine patterns of enrollments relative to the strength of the regulatory provisions of each state. Using informa- tion provided on the KIDS COUNT intemet site (http://www.aecf.org), a pre- sentation of U. S. Census 2000 Data Online, the school-age enrolled and non- enrolled populations of students ages 5-17 were determined. According to the 2000 Census, the U. S. school-age population was 53,014,072; the enrolled school-age population was 51,324,419; and the non- enrolled school-age population was 1,689,653.

The home school population was more challenging to determine because only 19 ofthe 50 U. S. states collected home school enrollments for the year 2000. In order to determine an estimated enrollment for the remaining 31 states, the percentage of enrollment ofthe 19 responding states was determined by dividing the total school- age population by the home school populations for each of the 19 states. The reporting states were clustered according to the strength of regulations for home schooling and an average was determined. Using this estimation process, a total home school population of 619,438 students was estimated.

The indication of a discrepant, or unac- counted for, population was found by subtracting the enrolled and home school populations from the total school-age pop- ulation. This population totaled 1,070,215

Home Schooling Regulation Impact on U.S. Enrollment.../ 357

Table 1

States Categorized as Having Weak Regulatory Requirements

State Alaska Arizona Delaware Idaho Illinois Indiana Kentucky Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Oklahoma Texas Utah

Enrollment Regulations

1 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1

Curriculum Regulations

0 0 1 1 0 1 1

Instructor Regulations

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assessment Regulations

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2

Table 2

States Categorized as Having Low Regulatory Requirements

State Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Hawaii Kansas Louisiana Maryland Montana Nebraska New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon S. Dakota Wisconsin Wyoming

Enrollment Regulations

2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2

Curriculum Regulations

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 3

Instructor Regulations

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0

Assessment Regulations

3 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 1 0

Total 6 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 6 4 4 6 5 5 6 5

Students. Table 5 reports the national totals for the categories of total school-age pop- ulation, enrolled students, non-enrolled students, home school students, and the

discrepant population; table 6 indicates the same populations by individual state.

In order to determine the relationship between the strength of regulatory statutes

358 / Education Vol. 126 No. 2

Table 3

Slates Categorized as Having Moderaie Regiilaiory Requirements

State Alabama Georgia Iowa Maine Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Rhode Island Tennessee Vermont Washington

Enrollment Regulations

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2

3 3 2 2

Curriculum Regulations

3 1 1 2 3 3

0 2

2 1 3 1

Instructor Regulations

3 2 2 0 0 3

2 2 '

1 2 1 2

Assessment Regulations

0 2 3 2 1 0

2 3

1 3 2 2

Total 9 8 9 7 7 9

7 9

7 9 8 7

Table 4

xyto/ei Categorized as Having High Regulatory Requirements

State Colorado Minnesota North Dakota Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia West Virginia

Enrollment Regulations

3 3

3 2

Curriculum Regulations

3 1

1 3

3 3

Instructor Regulations

1 3

3 2

2 3

Assessment Regulations

3 3

Total 10 10

10 11

11 11

and home school enrollments, the per- centage of discrepant student population was calculated by dividing the discrepant population by the total school-age popu- lation. An analysis of variance of the resulting means between strength quartiles was conducted; the analysis depicted the distribution of means as statistically sig-

nificant at the .002 level. Further, a Scheffe' Multiple Comparison Analysis was conducted and indicated statistically significant (.001) differences between states with weak regulatory status and high regulatory status as well as between mod- erate regulatory status states and high regulatory states. In conclusion, a signif-

Home Schooling Regulation Impact on U.S. Enrollment , , , / 3 5 9

Table 5

Stattis of School-age Children taken from U.S. Census Data in 2000

Age in Years 5 - 17

Total School Age Population

53,014,072

Number Enrolled

51,324,419

Not Enrolled

1,689,653

Home School Enrollment

619,438 Discrepancy

1,070,215

icant difference was found to exist in the percentage of home school enrollment in states with strong regulations versus states with weak regulations. These results are reported in Tables 7 and 8.

Conclusions Objective 1 of this study was to cate-

gorize home schooling provisions in each state by the strength of the educational accountability measure. For the purpose of this study, 13 states were deemed to have weak regulatory provisions for home schooling, 17 states were determined to have a low regulatory status, 13 states were determined to have moderate regulations, and 7 states were determined to have high regulations for home school education.

Objective 2 of this study was to deter- mine the school-age population and school enrollment for all fifty states and to estab- lish if a relationship exists between the strength of the home school governing reg- ulations and the home school enrollments. The relationship between the discrepant student population and home school enroll- ment indicated that states with the lowest regulatory strength have the highest per- centage of discrepant student population. The discrepant student population is small- er in high regulatory states. Additionally, in states having the highest regulatory sta- tus, the percentage of home school

enrollment was proportionately larger. Objective 3 of this study was to deter-

mine the existence of a discrepant population of educationally unaccounted for children, ages 5 -17, in the United States by comparing the national school-age pop- ulation and the school enrollment (including home, public, and private stu- dents). An unaccounted for national population of 1,070,215 school-age chil- dren was identified in this study.

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. There are no consistencies in the regu- lations governing home school education across America.

2. Accountability for home school edu- cation is not increasing accordingly with public school accountability in the Unit- ed States.

3. Discrepant school-age population sta- tistics are not only a likely result of poor reporting, or non-reporting, of home schooled children, but also the possi- ble result of school-age children not attending any school.

The findings and conclusions of this study indicate that there are issues that lend themselves to further study and consider- ation including the establishment of a national system of accountability for edu-

360 / Education Vol. 126 No. 2

Table 6

Enrollments by Individual States

State AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NY

Total School Age Population

827,790 143,315 984,793 498,863

6,766,444 801,814 618,523 142,740

2,695,797 1,573,797

217,139 270,971

2,367,441 1,150,139

544,509 523,162 728,302 902,844 230,219

1,001,976 1,101,119 1,922,933

958,551 571,199

1,056,913 175,111 333,052 365,194

Number Enrolled

797,759 137,432 938,073 480,019

6,557,372 771,764 606,083 137,785

2,601,474 1,523,671

210,810 259,948

2,293,098 1,102,097

531,081 508,125 703,533 874,179 223,947 977,194

1,074,720 1,872,901

935,267 550,594

1,018,008 168,806 323,555 347,323

Not Enrolled

30,031 5,883

46,720 18,844

209,072 30,050 12,440 4,955

94,323 50,126 6,329

11,023 74,343 48,042 13,428 15,037 24,769 28,665 6,272

24,782 26,399 50,032 23,284 20,605 38,905 6,305 9,497

17,871

Home School Enrollment

9,106 1,576

10,833 11,038 94,730 14,433 8,659 1,912

37,196 17,312 3,040 2,981

26,042 12,652 5,990 7,324 8,011

12,640 2,532

14,028 12,112 1,953

14,634 10,053 3,168 2,537 4,706 4,017

Discrepancy 20,925 4,307

35,887 7,806

114,342 15,617 3,781 3,043

57,127 32,814 3,289 8,042

48,301 35,390 7,438 7,713

16,758 16,025 3,740

10,754 14,287 48,079

8,950 10,552 35,737 3,768 4,791

13,854

Home Schooling Regulation Impact on U.S. Enrollment.../ 361

Table 6 continued

NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

233,455 1,523,392

378,433 3,446,844 1,425,169

121,805 2,131,969

655,329 622,194

2,193,472 184,374 745,750 151,702

1,023,873 4,263,628

507,537 113,594

1,276,575 1,117,057

300,362 1,025,784

97,124

226,780 1,487,100

362,495 3,358,136 1,371,788

117,952 2,068,422

634,244 595,155

2,125,515 179,470 722,505 146,021 988,495

4,113,582 490,077 110,407

1,240,132 1,076,270

289,607 999,397 94,251

6,675 36,292 15,938 88,708 53,381 3,853

63,547 21,085 27,039 67,957 4,904

23,245 5,681

35,378 150,046

17,460 3,187

36,443 40,787 10,755 26,387 2,873

3,232 2,920 5,858

16,965 15,677 3,298

39,482 7,209 8,711

39,482 2,028

13,424 2,662

11,263 46,900

5,583 1,747

14,323 12,283 5,407

19,837 1,962

3,443 33,372 10,080 71,743 37,704

555 40,095 13,876 18,328 28,475 2,876 9,821 3,019

24,115 103,146 11,877 1,440

22,120 28,504 5,348 6,550

911

cational quality, the ethnicity and specific age group categories of home schooled children and the discrepant population, a national tracking method for highly mobile students, and an accurate method of col- lecting and reporting the home school population.

References Beilick, S., Chandler, K., & Broughman, S. (2001,

July 31). Momeschooling in the United States: 1999. (NCES 2001-033). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Ensign, F. (1969). Compulsory school attendance and child labor. New York: Arno Press and the New York Times.

Galen J. & Pitman, M. (1991). Home schooling: Political, historical, and pedagogical perspec- tives. NJ: Ablex.

Kids Count Census Data Online, Retrieved April 7, 2004 from http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/aec- census. cgi?action=profileresults&area=05S

Lines, P. (1999). Homeschoolers: Estimating num- bers and growth. A paper presented to United States Department of Education, National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, Washington, DE. Retrieved on November 2, 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/ offices/OERI/SAI/homeschool/

No Child Left Behind. (2001). U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Jessup, Mary- land: ED Pubs.

Reich, R. (2002, April). The civic perils of home- schooling. Educational Leadership 59(1), 56-59.

362 / Education Vol. 126 No. 2

Table 7

Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Discrepant Population

Percentage of Discrepant Population

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

.001

.002

.003

.000

5.992

Significance

.002

Table 8

Scheffe 'Multiple Comparison Analysis of Percentage of Discrepant Population

(I) Quartile 1

(J) Quartile 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4

2 3

Mean Difference

• 0 0 7 8 8 7 .002930

*.O11386 *-.007887 -.004957 .003499

-.002390 .004957 .008456

*-.0I1386 -.003499 -.008456

Standard Error

.0024698

.0026293

.0031426

.0024698

.0030105

.0026923

.0024698

.0031426

.0030105

.0031426

Sig .025 .744 .009 .025 .272 .718 .744 .272 .079 .009 .718 .079

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Upper .000720

-.004700 .002267 -.05054

-.012124 -.005236 -.010560 -.002210 -.000663 -.020505 -.012235 -.017576

.015054

.010560

.020505 -.000720 .002210 .012235 .004700 .012124 .017576

-.002267 .005236 .000663

*p<.05.

Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analy-

sis. NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Shannon, D. & Davenport, M. (2001). Using SPSS

to solve statistical problems. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Home Schooling Regulation Impact on U.S. Enrollment .../363

Kima Payne Stewart Buffalo Island Central School District Dr. Stewart is an elementary school administrator, Federal Programs Coordinator,

and grant writer for Buffalo Island Central Schools. She is a practitioner of site-based decision-making and site-based budgeting as well as curriculum alignment and student assessment. Her research focuses on various topics related to accountability and gift- ed education. Dr. Stewart may be reached via e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at 870-486-2212.

Richard A. Neeley Arkansas State University Dr. Neeley is a professor and Program Director of Communication Disorders at

Arkansas State University. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in the CD Program, including normal language acquisition as well as diagnosis and treatment of language disorders in children. His research interests cover a wide variety of topics concerning the delivery of speech-language pathology services in early intervention set- tings and public schools. Dr. Neeley may be contacted via e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 870-972-3106.