Research proposal
Ashley4
TheSocialandEducationalOutcomesofHomeschooli.pdf
The Social and Educational Outcomes of Homeschooling
Joseph Murphy
Frank W. Mayborn Chair, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
In this article, we provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the outcomes of homeschooling in
America. We ground the work in an examination of the importance of homeschooling in society in
general and education in particular. We provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the
existing research base on homeschooling. With an eye on methodological weaknesses in the home-
school research, we compile data on what is known about the outcomes of this social movement
and educational reform. We document the impact of homeschooling on the social fabric of the nation
(e.g., families) and the institution of schooling (e.g., student learning outcomes).
In this article, we provide a comprehensive analysis of what is known about the impact of home-
schooling. We begin with a note to explain why the analysis of the impact of this social and
educational reform movement merits our attention. The first part of the article provides a portrait
of the quality of the existing research base. The final sections of the article distill what is known
about the impact of homeschooling across an array of outcomes: the social fabric of the nation,
schools, costs, families, and children. On the last topic, we explore what is known (and how well
it is known) regarding academic achievement, social development, and success after completing
homeschooling.
On the one hand, homeschooling merits attention for what it conveys about the social fabric of
the nation. The study of homeschooling provides important insights on the conservative mosaic
that has been formed in the United States over the last 30 years. Such analysis reveals a good deal
about the tensions between individualism and community, as well as new ways to think about
these social constructs. The study of homeschooling allows us to peer more thoroughly into
the place of religion in the United States at the turn of the twenty-first century. Even more impor-
tant, an examination of homeschooling provides significant insights into the nature of American
families. Perhaps most centrally, the possibilities of movements that attempt to reverse the seg-
mentation of life in America are surfaced. We learn that homeschooling is both an animating force
for and an exemplar of efforts to provide an integrated frame for life in the postmodern world
(Collom and Mitchell 2005; Gaither 2008; Stephens 2001).
As with most social movements of significance, analysis of homeschooling reveals much
about the battle for the moral high ground in the country. As we attend to the history and devel-
opment of homeschooling itself, we learn as much about the ebb and flow of waves of influence
and the shifting pendulum in the area of social ideas and tastes in general (Murphy 2013). In a
Address correspondence to Joseph Murphy, Vanderbilt University, 210B Payne Hall, Box 414, 230 Appleton Place,
Nashville, TN 37023-5721. E-mail: [email protected]
Sociological Spectrum, 34: 244–272, 2014
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0273-2173 print/1521-0707 online
DOI: 10.1080/02732173.2014.895640
similar vein, homeschooling reveals how history is both a product of as well as a platform for
powerful figures to push and pull ideas onto society’s central stage (Gaither 2008). Considerable
insights about the legal workings of the nation are also exposed. Dynamics about social organiz-
ing become visible, especially in getting society to embrace ideas that once seemed anathema.
By studying homeschooling, we accumulate a good deal of knowledge about the evolving role
of government in the affairs of its owners. We track an evolution from government as the
unquestioned mechanism to produce a better society to government as a self-forged and confin-
ing manacle that also has the potential to hinder improvement. In short, a study of homeschool-
ing exposes dynamics that transcend the content of the topic at hand (Cibulka 1991; Gaither
2008; Van Galen 1991).
At the same time, homeschooling merits examination for what it reveals about education and
schooling in America (Ray 2000a). Ongoing and dilemma-based questions about governance
and control play out across its pages in new ways. Much can be learned here about possible
forms of schooling in the twenty-first century, new conceptions and models that were unimagin-
able to the previous generation. Issues of funding and costs lurk in the background of home-
schooling, but nonetheless offer important insights into financing the nation’s most costly and
critical state and local service—and other services as well (Ray and Weller 2003). Labor issues are prevalent in the homeschooling literature but usually cast obliquely. Even so, it is difficult to
overlook the implications for the traditional and deeply rooted notions of civil service in the
nation, especially in light of the prevalence of parallel trends in education (e.g., vouchers, tax
credits, privately managed charter schools) and the larger society. A careful study of home-
schooling produces considerable wisdom on the role of markets and profits in the education
sector (Murphy 1996, 1999). Much can also be gleaned about the linkages between schooling
and social justice by examining homeschooling (Apple 2005; Lubiensky 2000).
We also need to study homeschooling because it is the most robust form of educational
reform in the United States today. The growth of homeschooling in the U.S. has been nothing
short of remarkable, even using the most conservative estimates available. Only 10,000 to
15,000 children were being homeschooled in the 1970s. By 2010, somewhere in the neighbor-
hood of 2 million students were part of this group. Scholars confirm that homeschool enrollment
is now about one-fifth the size of private school enrollment (Belfield 2004b; Isenberg 2007). We
find that almost twice as many youngsters are schooled at home as are educated in conservative
Christian schools (Glanzer 2008). And more children are taught at home (2,000,000) than attend
charter schools (1,500,000) and receive vouchers combined (Apple 2007; Belfield 2004b).
When life cycle numbers are compiled, we discover that 6 to 12 percent of all students will have
been educated at home at some time in their K-12 educational career (Houston 1999; Isenberg
2007).
THE QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH BASE
One of the most stark conclusions one draws when interrogating the scholarly literature on the
impacts of homeschooling is just how thin the empirical knowledge base is on this social phenom-
enon and educational movement. To be sure, the literature exposes a good deal of ideological
bantering as well as some solid conceptual modeling. Homeschoolers have provided a trace of
good reports on how to engage the work of educating a child at home, and fine collections of
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 245
resources to assist in those efforts. But the research cupboard is not well stocked, especially in the
domain of outcomes. This assessment first surfaced as the homeschool movement reached early
adolescency. It was revealed that the entire domain was largely uncharted in a scientific sense (see
Delahooke 1986; Gladin 1987; Groover and Endsley 1988; Knowles 1989; Mayberry 1989;
Schemmer 1985; Taylor 1986a; Williams et al. 1984; Wartes 1987; Wright 1988). More troub-
ling, this same conclusion was consistently reached by scholars, analysts, and policy makers
throughout the 1990s as well (see Dalaimo 1996; Duvall et al. 1997; Hertzel 1997; Houston
1999; Kelley 1991; Knowles et al. 1992; Luebke 1999; Mirochnik and McIntire 1991; Rudner
1999; Van Galen 1991). Even more disheartening, the next generation of reviewers has uncovered
little evidence that the limited empirical evidence deficiency was addressed with much sense of
robustness during the first decade of the twenty-first century (see Cogan 2010; Green and Hoover-
Dempsey 2007; Ice and Hoover-Dempsey 2011; Isenberg 2007; Kunzman 2005, 2009a; Muntes
2006; Nemer 2002; Taylor-Hough 2010).
An Assessment of Research Evidence
As Medlin (2000:118) informs us, the summative narrative of research in homeschooling
parallels the chronicle found in many new domains of study:
no guiding theory, inadequate experimental design, poorly defined research questions, untried and
weak measures, unorthodox treatment and presentation of data, and conclusions based on subjective
judgments. Even a cursory look at the research reveals that many studies are qualitative descriptions of
so few participants that the results cannot be generalized. Many are surveys that rely exclusively on
parental reports but offer no idea of how reliable those reports may be. Many test only home-schooled
children without comparing them to children attending conventional schools, making it very difficult
to know what the results might mean. Further, all home school research is correlational (because
researchers have no way to control the type of schooling children experience), samples are usually
self-selected (because researchers cannot require home schooling families to participate), and how-
ever carefully researchers try to match their home-schooled and traditionally schooled groups, there
are probably still important differences between the two.
Reinforcing many of the points and adding some additional insights, Belfield (2004a:10)
exposes two major problems that plague research that compares the impact of homeschooling
against other types of schooling, especially public schooling.
The first is the common concern over the endogeneity of school choice, that is different types of
families choose the type of school that their children attend, and little can be inferred about the impacts
of schools for students who do not attend them. The second is the need to distinguish the absolute
performance of home-schoolers from the treatment effect of home-schooling. Given the above median
resources of many home-schooling families, academic performance should be even if home-schooling
itself is not differentially effective. Full controls for family background are needed, however, to
identify a treatment effect.
Blok (2004) also reminds us that the body of empirical work on the impacts of homeschooling is
rather thin. Analysts also have pointed out that most of the research that has been undertaken has
been conducted by investigators with a good deal of interest in shaping results into positive stor-
ies, i.e., by advocacy groups whose defined mission is to promote the cause of homeschooling
246 J. MURPHY
(Houston and Toma 2003; Kunzman 2005; Reich 2005). The conclusion at present is that
research on the impacts of homeschooling leaves a good deal to be desired. Most troubling is that
we know almost nothing about the causal links in the homeschool theory of action and their
connections to various outcomes (Ray 2009b).
Much of what we do know about homeschooling is anecdotal in nature (Houston 1999). Stories
of individual children who have demonstrated remarkable achievements in academic competitions
of varied sorts or in higher education are especially prevalent. On the other side of the ledger,
negative stories are sometimes spotlighted to confirm the dangers of homeschooling. Many of
these stories are proof of the impact of homeschooling; however, stories and anecdotes, personal
experiences, and folklore lack the authority of scientific evidence (Stevens 2001; Taylor 1986b).
As we attempt to move beyond anecdotes and stories, we find that rigorous empirical research
on the effects of homeschooling remains scarce (Houston 1999; Stevens 2001). We learn that
studies on homeschooling effects suffer from major, interconnected problems that significantly
limit the degree of certainty we can draw from research reports. Problems with samples and
controls are particularly troublesome. On the first issue, analysts have routinely urged caution
in accepting findings at face value because of the nonrepresentativeness of the samples employed
in almost all homeschool research (Kaseman and Kaseman 1999; Kunzman 2005; Stevens 2001).
Weak sampling frames mean first that samples are almost never drawn on a representative group
of homeschoolers (Houston 1999; Kaseman and Kaseman 1999). Studies employ highly selective
samples (Bauman 2002; Winstanley 2009). Self-selection and sampling bias have been and con-
tinue to be the norm in the study of homeschool effects (Lines 2000a, 2000b; Ray and Wartes
1991). Nonrepresentativeness means, of course, that findings cannot be generalized to the home-
school population. Even in these studies with nonrepresentative samples, return rates often fall
below acceptable standards (Dahlquist et al. 2006; Stevens 2001). We rarely see efforts to exam-
ine nonresponders (Wright 1988). (For good treatments of these problems in context of Rudner’s
[1999] classic study, see Kaseman and Kaseman 1999, and Welner and Welner 1999.)
Concomitantly, researchers are quick to point out that the claimed benefits of homeschooling
rest on shaky ground because studies rarely control for other explanatory variables in the causal
effects equation (Blok 2004; Ray 2000b). Random assignment or other less powerful methods
that can help eliminate alternative explanations for effects are rarely used (Collom 2005;
Kunzman 2005). In particular, analysts decry the absence of controls for socioeconomic variables
such as income, occupation, and education (Dahlquist et al. 2006), previous achievement (Ice et al.
2011), marital status (Burns 1999), and parental support and commitment (Barwegen et al. 2004;
Hertzel 1997). Because these conditions are linked to student learning, they need to be accounted
for in homeschool effects research. Without appropriate controls, it is impossible to establish
whether outcomes are the result of the treatment (i.e., homeschooling) or other factors (e.g.,
family income) (Belfield 2005). Or as Lines (1995:3) nicely penned it, without controls research
does not allow us to ‘‘determine whether the same children would perform better or worse in a public classroom or in a home-schooling arrangement’’ (emphasis in original).
The question aptly raised is whether any cause and effect relationship exists vis-à-vis home school
education. . . . To date, no controlled studies exist that shed significant light on the important question. . . . Until some type of study is conducted, using control and experimental groups, the question likely will be left for speculative—rather than concrete—answers. (Wilhelm and Firman 2009:310–311)
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 247
Other difficulties are visible in the portfolio of research on homeschool outcomes. For
example, in studies of effects on homeschool youngsters comparisons to national norms are
traditional. While not without informative power, this strategy leaves a good deal to be desired
(Welner and Welner 1999). We also very rarely hear from children in homeschool families about
their perceptions of homeschool work and their assessments of outcomes (Mayberry et al. 1995;
Schemmer 1985). Testing conditions in some homes are problematic (Basham et al. 2007).
Practical problems arise in getting information to establish effects (Belfield 2005). For example,
almost all of the data available because children are enrolled in public schools are missing for
homeschool children (Isenberg 2007). There are very few longitudinal studies.
There are significant practical and methodological difficulties in counting these children
(Lines 1991; Belfield 2004a). As Reich (2005) reports, in many places, registration of home-
schooled children (a prerequisite to being counted) is not required. In other places, homeschool
families simply neglect to register when they are required to do so (Bates 1991; Kleist-Tesch
1998; Lines 1999). In still other cases, parents are so opposed to governmental oversight of their
families they refuse to participate in data collection activities, both census and research efforts
(Bates 1991; Collom 2005; Kunzman 2005). Others fail to register because they lack trust in
government agencies (Wartes 1988). Still others fall under provisions that do not require
religious-based homeschoolers to register (Lines 1999). Some families operate as ‘‘private
schools’’ thus again eliminating the registration requirement (Aurini and Davies 2005; Lines
1999). Finally, problems stemming from the nature of the intervention itself—a small population, definitional issues, geographical dispersion, and decentralization to hundreds of thousands of
sites (homes)—make counting (and studying) homeschoolers a difficult task (Belfield 2004a; Collom and Mitchell 2005). All of these conditions lead to production of less-than-satisfying
estimates, ones that are biased downward.
Counting problems also arise from the methods used to arrive at estimates (Mirochnik and
McIntire 1991). For example, researchers often turn to lists of families who have joined home-
school associations to draw estimates. At other times, they rely upon lists of those who purchase
materials from homeschool curriculum providers. However, since some families do not join sup-
port groups and=or purchase from homeschool providers these sources are likely to undercount homeschoolers (Lines 1999). It is also important to remember that there is a lack of uniformity
among states in how and when they collect data on this population (Lines 1999).
More recently, researchers have employed household surveys to arrive at the number of
homeschoolers in the United States. While this approach overcomes many of the problems
inherent in the previously discussed methods, the procedure is not free of problems (Bielick
et al. 2001). In particular, because they are often such a small percentage of school-age children,
very few of them are likely to be included in national household surveys (Wenger and Hodari
2004).
Perhaps the most puzzling finding in the area of homeschooling effects is that almost every
potential domain of impact that defines the intervention from parents’ perspectives is ignored
while researchers chase down data on whether homeschool children can answer two or three
more questions correctly on standardized tests than their public school peers. At the macro level, this is the case because the impacts of homeschooling as a broad social movement are generally
not investigated. A fair amount of conceptual work on the issue of the impact of homeschooling
on the social fabric of the nation is available, especially by those who foresee potential negative
consequences (e.g., Apple 2007; Lubienski 2000; Reich 2005). However, with the exception of
248 J. MURPHY
work from scholars such as Gaither (2008) and Stephens (2001) there is scant guidance in the
literature about how to think about operationalizing and measuring societal impacts.
At the mid level absence of attention to core outcomes occurs because most of the reasons parents provide for homeschooling, i.e., the essential values of the movement (e.g., developing
religious values) are simply ignored (Cizek 1993; Klicka 1995). The goals of building strong
families, preventing the litany of social problems attributed to public education from infecting
children, and learning values are almost never tested in any scientific manner (see Parker
1992, and Ray 2004a for exceptions). If one were to draw a central conclusion from those
who study homeschooling, it would be that the primary goal of this movement is to ratchet
up academic achievement in mathematics and reading. The fact that this is patently inaccurate
seems to escape the attention of most researchers plying their skills in the homeschooling area.
In short, what counts as evidence of success in public schools has de facto become the measure
of progress in homeschools for researchers.
At the micro level, the neglect of outcomes at the heart of the homeschooling community occurs because when scholars focus on academic outcomes, they confine themselves to the most basic
elements of the achievement algorithm (measures of performance on basic skills in two or three
areas, e.g., mathematics and reading). Many of the academic outcomes pursued by homeschooling
families such as learning for understanding, developing habits of inquiry, and learning across con-
tent areas never appear in research studies on the effects of homeschooling (Mayberry et al. 1995).
In short, what Ray and Wartes (1991) refer to as the major agenda of public education has
become the platform for assessing the productivity of homeschools. Other outcomes that are
more important to the homeschool community and to the larger society receive very little empiri-
cal attention (Lines 2000b).
HOMESCHOOLING EFFECTS: BROAD MEASURES
Two well-established pathways can be pursued in examining the impacts of homeschooling.
First, we can turn to the designs developed to assess privatization initiatives in general. For
example, Murphy (1996, 2002) assesses privatization strategies such as homeschooling around
five criteria: efficiency, quality, choice, equity, and community. The second design evaluates
homeschooling on categories of impact (e.g., socialization). We feature the second design
and weave in essential ideas from the privatization pathway as appropriate. We divide the
impact of homeschooling into two major categories: effects on broad measures and effects
on children. The first category includes outcomes in four areas: society writ large, public school-
ing, costs, and family. The second category contains findings on three outcomes: academic
achievement; social development; and post-school success, especially college attendance and
graduation.
Impact on the Social Fabric
A few homeschool analysts, both advocates and those with more skeptical mindsets, have forged
theories of action about the potential effects of home-based education on the social fabric of the
country (Collom and Mitchell 2005). These are often expressed in terms of the common good
and the well being of the democratic state (Apple 2000b; Kunzman 2009a). There seems to
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 249
be consensus on all sides that the homeschooling movement is likely to have an important impact
beyond what happens in individual homes and with specific children (Apple 2000a; Bates 1991;
Riegel 2001). Widespread agreement exists that effects on the public good need to be considered
in assessing the overall impact of homeschooling (Belfield 2005). While we sometimes find
well-developed analyses of the logic of action in the literature, research on the question of
homeschooling’s impact on society writ large is almost nonexistent. Operationalization needed
to begin empirical work is also scarce. We are left, therefore, with an ideologically defined
landscape with little evidence to test claims and counter claims.
It is not our intention in this empirical review to delve into the theories of logic that power
various perspectives on how homeschooling is linked, positively and negatively, to what Apple
(2000a) refers to as the health of the public sphere. Suffice it to say that one side, often anchored
by economists, concludes that community can be built through individualization, freedom of
choice, and market forces (Belfield 2005; Murphy 1996). Analysts here also attempt to cast
doubt on claims by opponents of homeschooling that the common school experience is essential
for the development and maintenance of the public good (Hardenbaugh 2005). They view exit
from public schooling as an attack on public monopoly, not a lack of commitment to the com-
mon good (Murphy 1999, 2002).
Opponents and skeptics see things quite differently. Their theories lead them to the con-
clusion that homeschooling, by failing to grow the social networks in schools that glue society
together, (Apple 2000b; Lubienski 2000; Reich 2005) undermines the public good (Apple
2000a; Luke 2003) and reinforces old and grows new inequalities (Apple 2005). The crux of
the equity argument in terms of homeschooling has been laid out by Lubienski (2000), Apple
(2000a), and others: Making schooling private may enhance educational quality for some but
will surely diminish quality for others. The pathway that leads from homeschooling to inequality
is characterized by reduced concern for and commitment to the larger democratic society by
homeschool parents. According to Apple (2000a), for example, homeschooling is defined by
an anti-democratic logic and impoverishes the public good. For critics, homeschooling repre-
sents a retreat from the public sphere (Riegel 2001). These analysts hold that social justice is
diminished by homeschooling (Apple 2000a; Lubienski 2000).
If we have not been sufficiently clear to this point, we restate critical insights here. Research
provides little evidence about the impact of homeschooling on the larger public sphere. More
accurately, remarkably little attention has been devoted to this important outcome in the home-
school literature. The one study that directs an empirical spotlight to the issue suggests that the
ground on which critics stand may be a little less firm than they believe. Operationalizing the
public good in terms of civic involvement, Smith and Sikkink (1999) conclude that homeschoo-
lers are not isolated, disengaged citizens. Employing regression analysis with NHES data and
providing a strong set of controls, these researchers found that homeschooling families are sig-
nificantly more likely than public school families ‘‘to participate in public life through a broad
range of activities’’ (18). Their assessment is that ‘‘there appears to be something about home-
schooling that increases families’ participation in mostly non-school related civic activities in the
public square’’ (18). Indeed, they conclude
that the challenges, responsibilities and practices that home educators normally entail for their
participants may actually help reinvigorate America’s civic culture and the participation of her
citizens in the public square. (20)
250 J. MURPHY
Impact on Schools
As Wartes (1990) reminded us in the first years of the homeschooling movement, one potential
effect of homeschooling could be its shaping influence on public education, an impact that has
been re-hypothesized for 20 years (Murphy 2013; McKeon 2007; Muntes 2006). The literature
here provides some suggestions and initial clues but little empirical evidence (Bauman 2002;
Lines 2004; Mayberry 1989). Meighan (1995) and others suggest that information from the
homeschooling movement offers important insights about both the overhaul of the public
education system and the reform of individual schools (Cooper and Sureau 2007; Dahlquist
et al. 2006). Similar arguments have been amassed by scholars for the larger field of privatiza-
tion generally (Murphy 1996) and for specific strategies such as vouchers and charter schools
(Murphy, Gilmer, Weise, and Page 1998; Murphy and Shiffman 2002). With homeschooling
in particular, analysts foresee potential impacts in public schools across an array of areas, includ-
ing staffing, curriculum, organizational structure, resources, and so forth (Bauman 2002; Cooper
and Sureau 2007).
Scholars have uncovered a number of pathways by which homeschooling could shape
conventional schooling. Three avenues stand out: withdrawal impacts, lighthouse effects, and
competitive effects. Critics of homeschooling maintain that involved parents one often sees in
the homeschooling movement, pull away from public schools social capital is diminished
(Wilhelm and Firman 2009). Relatedly, a reduced commitment to public education (Dahlquist
et al. 2006; Riegel 2001) and a reduced willingness to support taxes for schools (Apple 2005;
Hill 2000) suggests that homeschooling leads to less financial support for public education
(Apple 2000a; Houston and Toma 2003). In short, critics hold that withdrawal to the home
is accompanied by a reduction of political capital and material resources for public schools
(Riegel 2001).
Other analysts who think about lighthouse effects suggest that the ‘‘good stuff’’ that makes
homeschooling effective will find its way into public education, thus ratcheting up the quality
of conventional schools (Lines 2000b; Luke 2003; Ray 2010)—both individual schools and the system of public education (Mayberry 1993). Here, analysts suggest that homeschooling will
be an incubator of good practices that can be adopted and adapted by public school educators
(Hardenbaugh 2005; Holt 1983). Currently, very little empirical data has been compiled about
the robustness of either the withdrawal or the spillover pathways. Information from other priva-
tization efforts, however, would lead one to be less than sanguine about the power of spillover
effects (Murphy and Shiffman 2002).
Some preliminary data on cooperative relationships are beginning to be woven into a ten-
tative finding. Specifically, some evidence exists that competition from homeschooling is
encouraging public schools to develop new institutional forms (Bauman 2002; Jackson
2007; Mayberry et al. 1995). Noteworthy here has been the creation of new schools to serve
homeschooled children and the development of more flexible public schools that permit home-
schoolers to complete their education in multiple venues, both at home and in public school
(Bauman 2002; Hill 2000; Knowles 1989). Meighan (1995) refers to the latter phenomenon
as flexi-schooling.
Before leaving our discussion of the impact of homeschooling on conventional schools, it
is important to recall that previously enrolled private school children are overrepresented
among homeschoolers (Wartes 1987; Lines 2000b). Thus, as Lines (2004) reminds us, the
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 251
competitive effects of homeschooling are likely to fall heavily on private schools as well as
public schools.
In a similar vein, homeschooling has the potential to influence institutions of higher education
in America (Gaither 2008; Prue 1997; Ray 2005), especially around admissions criteria. At a
minimum, preliminary data suggest that homeschooling is encouraging these institutions to
broaden their admissions procedures (Prue 1997).
Costs
To date, only limited attention has been directed to the costs, or what Cibulka (1991) describes
as the fiscal appeal of homeschooling. As with most everything in homeschooling, both pro-
ponents and opponents have a point of view on the cost issue. Critics see homeschooling as
pulling resources from public school districts, specifically the per pupil allotment that no
longer flows to the coffers of the district (Apple 2007). Supporters, on the other hand, argue
that there are considerable cost savings or a reduced tax burden on taxpayers when children
leave (or decide not to enter) public schools (Belfield 2005; Lyman 1998; Ray & and
2003). Going even further, Wenders and Clements (2007) maintain that homeschooling not
only saves taxpayers money but leads to greater spending on public schools (see also Ray
and Weller 2003).
As with many things in the area of homeschooling, the inside story on ‘‘costs’’ is a little more
complex than it appears at first blush. The issue of what gets counted in the calculations is
especially nettlesome and, as Luebke (1999) reminds us, the true impact depends a good deal
on who you ask and what one considers evidence. However, more so than with other impacts,
meaningful data to inform the discussion are available. The data suggest that the idea that home-
schoolers are taking money out of the pockets of schools (Apple 2005) does not hold up well. On
the theory side here, it is important to remember that public schools enjoy no entitlement to
student enrollment (Wenders and Clements 2007). Indeed, critics of the entitlement perspective
see it as a return to the architecture of public monopoly that dominated education throughout the
twentieth century (Murphy 2006).
On the empirical side, researchers have explored two approaches to the cost impact of home-
schooling. Some reviewers extrapolate tax savings that materialize by not having students in pub-
lic school classrooms. For example, at the state level figures on tax savings have been provided by
Wenders and Clements (2007) in Nevada, Sutton and Bogan (2005) in Florida, Luebke (1999) in
Wisconsin, and Ray and Weller (2003) in Oregon. At the national level, these tax savings have
been calculated at 3.7 to 6.1 billion dollars in 1996–1997 (Ray 1997b) and 4.4 to 9.9 billion
dollars in 2003 (Lips and Feinberg 2008). Other reviewers examine real expenses to uncover
the financial impact of homeschooling on school districts. The two studies that have examined
this issue reveal that in addition to providing tax savings, homeschooling reduces educational
costs for school districts (Thompson 1994; Wenders and Clements 2007).
Other costs that could make homeschooling less of a net gain receive almost no analysis in
the literature, however. Real costs fall on families because of labor income forgone to allow one
parent to remain at home for schooling purposes (Houston and Toma 2003; Parker 1992). Relat-
edly, the cost of tax revenue missed because homeschooling parents elect not to participate in the
paid labor market could be sizeable.
252 J. MURPHY
Impact on Families
Building healthy families is one of the four driving motives for homeschooling. Unfortunately,
there is almost no direct research on the topic. Some indirect evidence surfaces in some of the
case studies of homeschooling. Given its place in the pantheon of motivations for home-based
education, the lack of research is actually a jarring conclusion. Considerable research is needed
to address the oft-stated logic of action that homeschooling (1) prevents the generational gap
between children and their parents; (2) builds healthy relationships among siblings; and (3) estab-
lishes a nurturing family environment, i.e., allows families to knit together strong bonds, includ-
ing successful marriages (Farris and Woodruff 2000; Mayberry 1993; Webb 1989).
Researchers also have been less than diligent and hardly systematic in exploring how home-
schooling impacts the ongoing activities of families. Abundant evidence exists that mothers
assume primary and often near total responsibility for homeschooling work, both in individual
families and in the larger homeschooling support structure (Stevens 2001). The fact that many
parents have reconfigured their lifestyles to engage the task of educating their children is
discussed in the literature but not systematically investigated (Colfax and Colfax 1988). Based
on empirical evidence, three conclusions about family lifestyle changes surface, but again, little
surfaces about the core issue of building relationships, which is not even operationalized in the
literature. First, homeschooling requires a major commitment of time (Aurini and Davies 2005;
Martin 1997; Stevens 2001) and much hard work (Green and Hoover-Dempsey 2007; Kunzman
2009b; Williams et al. 1984). For example, Parker (1992) reported severe time pressures in 11% of his sample and distinct time pressures in another 62%. Second, homeschooling often requires a significant financial sacrifice, primarily the income forgone to keep the mother at home
(Lyman 2000; Stevens 2001), although there is no information on how many of these women
would be full-time homemakers in the absence of homeschooling. Third, homeschooling has
the potential to limit the careers of mothers who do stay at home (Aurini and Davies 2005;
Lyman 2000). Stevens (2001) refers to this as costs to homeschooling mothers in terms of career
opportunities. Or as Perry and Perry (2000) assert, it represents a career change.
Insights about the frustrations and satisfactions that parents experience from homeschooling
are limited (Divoky 1983; Green and Hoover-Dempsey 2007). The most important work was
undertaken by Gladin (1987). On the frustration side of the ledger, Gladin concludes that the
greatest angst arises from the difficult assignment of balancing homemaking and hometeaching
activities. But again, we do not know how this frustration compares to that of mothers balancing
careers and homemaking. Williams and colleagues (1984) also surface the frustration of com-
petence among some homeschooling mothers. On the asset side of the balance book, Gladin
(1987) uncovered factors that cluster into three domains: seeing children develop; spending time
with children, including deepening sibling relations; and taking control and fulfilling God’s
mandate (Klicka 1995; Sheffer 1995). Sheffer (1995) and Williams and associates (1984) add
a fourth domain satisfaction: using homeschooling as an avenue of personal learning and devel-
opment, especially the invigoration of full-time motherhood.
HOMESCHOOLING EFFECTS ON CHILDREN
Our exploration of the effects of homeschooling on children attends to threeoutcomes: academic
achievement, social development, and post-homeschooling success.
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 253
Academic Achievement
A Caveat
To begin with, keystone elements in the debate over the value of homeschooling need to be
thrown open to scrutiny (Hill 2000; Kaseman and Kaseman 1999). Three concerns emerge.
First, analysts from both sides of the homeschooling community (the liberal left minority
and the conservative, evangelical right majority) soundly reject the notion of the primacy of
achievement scores in understanding the impact of homeschooling (Farrenga 1997; Klicka
1995). It is argued that other more important goals (e.g., inculcation of values) should hold
center stage in explorations of whether homeschooling works. Relatedly, many others main-
tain that the door to homeschooling should not open and close in response to test scores.
Homeschooling is a right that transcends test results (Kaseman and Kaseman 1999). The
warrant for homeschooling rests on a higher power, not government-anchored measures of
outcomes. The final concern is that focusing on achievement results puts the burden of proof
for the legitimacy of homeschooling on homeschoolers, rather than those who are opposed to
the practice (Hill 2000). It also pulls homeschools into the orbit of public education. Given our
earlier discussion of the near absence of evaluation of the family-preferred outcomes of
homeschooling, the critique over emphasis on academic achievement merits considerably
more ink.
Lay of the Land
Let us place our concern for the proper place of achievement scores in evaluating home-
schooling in abeyance for the time being. Instead, let us direct the analytic spotlight to what
we know about the academic performance of homeschooled youngsters. One group of scholars
concludes that we know almost nothing about the impact of homeschooling on academic
performance (Lips and Feinberg 2008; Reich, 2005). Their conclusion is based on the fact that
the extant research base lacks the scientific foundations to distill any reliable findings
(Frost and Morris 1988; Reich 2005). Absent comparative data and controlled studies, these
analysts report that firm conclusions cannot be drawn (Dahlquist et al. 2006). That is, the
current research base of descriptive analyses and case studies precludes forming generaliza-
tions about the cognitive growth of homeschooled children. Even when these children test
well, we are unable to establish that the homeschooling intervention is responsible for the
results (Reich 2005).
Other analysts argue, while acknowledging the limitations of the research, that the data are
not available to show that homeschooling is harmful to the academic achievement of children
(Lines 2000a; Luebke 1999). That is, these analysts find that academic test results suggest that
homeschooling students are not disadvantaged by home-based education (Belfield 2005; Blok
2004; Knowles et al. 1992).
Still another cluster of reviewers maintain that the cumulative body of evidence suggests that
real academic benefits flow to homeschool children (Luebke, 1999; Ray & Wartes, 1991). These
analysts hold that indirect evidence signals a positive link between homeschooling and academic
performance (Basham et al. 2007; Ray 1997b).
254 J. MURPHY
Comparisons with National Norms
Analysts who link homeschooling and positive academic achievement almost always com-
pare the performance of homeschooled youngsters to national norms (Collom 2005; Stevens
2001; Wegner and Hodari 2004). These analysts find that homeschool students who take stan-
dardized tests usually do quite well when compared to traditionally-schooled peers as a group
(Calvery et al. 1992; Lines 1991; Ray 2001a; 2001b). For example, Delahooke (1986) compared
homeschool achievement with test norms of private school children. She found similar levels of
performance. Wartes (1987, 1988) reported that homeschoolers scored between the 65th to 68th
percentile on national norms in his studies in Washington. Rakestraw (1988) in a study in
Alabama found that homeschooled children scored about the same as public school students.
Frost (1988) and Frost and Morris (1988) discovered that homeschooled children in Illinois
performed better than public school children in every subject area other than mathematics.
Ray (2001a, 2001b) reached similar conclusions in his landmark 1990 national study, report-
ing that homeschooled children achieved at or above the 80th percentile in all subjects on stan-
dardized tests. Ray’s subsequent investigations (1997b, 2010) reinforced his earlier conclusions.
For example, in his 1997 study (1997b:54)
the students scored, on the average, at the following percentiles on standardized achievement tests:
(a) total reading, 87th, (b) total language, 80th, (c) total math, 82nd, (d) total listening, 85th, (e)
science, 84th, (f) social studies, 85th, (g) study skills, 81st, (h) basic battery (typically, reading,
language, and mathematics), 85th, and (i) complete battery (all subject areas in which student was
tested), 87th.
In his 2010 study, he found homeschool achievement reported in national percentiles as
follows: (a) total reading, 89th; (b) total language, 84th; (c) total mathematics, 84th; (d) science,
86th; (e) social studies, 84th; and (f) composite, 86th.
In another hallmark national study, Rudner (1999) documented achievement test scores for
homeschoolers between the 76th and 91st percentile across all 12 grades. He noted that home-
schoolers in grades 1 through 4 were a full year above their private and public school peers on
standardized tests and about four years above them in the 8th grade. Parker (1992) followed a
similar approach using reports of homeschooling parents. He found that these parents reported
considerable academic success. Schemmer (1985) calculated growth of homeschool students
from one year to the next. She reported that these students performed well but in some cases
did not achieve 12 months’ growth. In a small-scale study in which growth over time (one sem-
ester) was measured, Duvall and associates (1997, 2004, 2005) found that homeschooled special
needs children demonstrated more growth than public school peers in reading and written lan-
guage and about equal growth in mathematics. Wenger and Hodari (2004) compared the scores
of homeschool recruits into the military against students educated in public and private schools
on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. They found that the homeschoolers performed about the
same as the public school graduates.
Scholars also have compared college entrance examination scores of homeschoolers to
national norms for those tests. Rudner (1999) reported that homeschoolers had a composite
ACT score of 22.8 while the national norm was 21.0, a score that placed homeschooled children
in the 65th percentile of all ACT test takers. In an earlier study, Oliviera and team (1994) found
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 255
no significant differences on ACT scores. Gray (1998) reported a similar conclusion for SAT
scores. In a more sophisticated study (Belfield 2005), investigators found that homeschooled stu-
dents enjoyed a strong advantage over public school peers on the SAT even after controlling for
21 relevant independent variables, with all of the advantage coming from the verbal scores
(Belfield, 2004b). Ray (2004b) also reported that the homeschooled youngsters in his study out-
performed public school colleagues on college entrance examinations. They scored 568 in verbal
and 532 in mathematics on the SAT, compared to averages of 501 and 510, respectively.
Contextual Issues
Researchers have also invested energy in exploring the environmental or background factors
(e.g., family income) on the achievement of homeschooled children. In particular, scholars have
been interested in determining how powerful these contextual variables are in homeschools
vis-à-vis the homes of public school children. Scholars have also been engaged in investigating
the impact of these variables on student achievement within homeschools. To presage the more
detailed analysis that follows, and keeping in mind the state of research in the areas of home-
schooling, the bulk of the evidence to date suggests that in the ‘‘home-school, public-school
comparisons,’’ most of these contextual factors have weaker relationships to academic perfor-
mance than is the case in public schools (Basham et al. 2007; Ray 1997b). The evidence also
suggests that in the ‘‘in homeschool analyses,’’ background factors, by and large, are not signifi-
cant determinants of academic achievement (Collom and Mitchell 2005).
In their treatments of household income, analysts have uncovered two important findings. To begin with, researchers reveal that low-income children in homeschools often achieve at or
above national norms while low-income children in public schools on average score consider-
ably below national norms (Ray 2004b; Ray 2009a). A less pronounced relationship is noted
between family income and student learning in homeschools than in public schools (Blok
2004; Ray 1997b; Wartes 1990). At the same time, although there is some difference of opinion,
it does appear that family income still matters. That is, across homeschools researchers uncover a
significant difference in the cognitive performance of children based on family income (Ray
2010; Rudner 1999). Higher income is associated with higher test scores and the differences
are larger for children in higher grades (Rudner 1999).
Turning to parental education, we arrive at parallel conclusions. Homeschooling appears to damp down the negative effects of low levels of parental education on student performance
(Basham et al. 2007). The children of poorly educated parents score higher on achievement tests
in homeschools than they do in public schools (Basham et al. 2007; Ray 2000b). Looking at the
topic with another lens, Ray (1997b) found that homeschool parents with low levels of education
routinely have children who reach national norms on achievement tests. He provided the follow-
ing data on the issue in his 1997 (1997a:4) study.
For public school students, a parent’s education level does affect their children’s performance. In eighth grade math, public school students whose parents are college graduates score at the 63rd
percentile, whereas students whose parents have less than a high school diploma score at the 28th
percentile. Remarkably, students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school score
a full 55 percentile points higher than public school students from families of comparable
educational backgrounds.
256 J. MURPHY
Rudner (1999:25), in turn, encapsulated his findings as follows:
It is worthy to note that, at every grade level, the mean performance of home school students whose
parents do not have a college degree is much higher than the mean performance of students in public
schools. Their percentiles are mostly in the 65th to 69th percentile range.
Concomitantly, when researchers focus solely on homeschool families, the bulk of the evi-
dence points to only a weak-to-moderate relationship between parents’ educational levels and
measures of academic performance (Collom 2005; Ray 2010; Rudner 1999), although some
researchers and reviewers suggest no relationship (Lines 2000b; Mayberry et al. 1995; Moore
and Moore 1994). For example, in his comprehensive study Rudner (1999) found that home-
school children with college-educated parents performed better in every grade than parents
who had less than a college degree.
Turning to other contextual variables, researchers provide some evidence on the ‘‘public-
homeschool comparison’’ front, but very limited information on the ‘‘across homeschools’’
front. On the first topic, as was the case for income, preliminary evidence suggests that home-
schooling depresses the negative effects of race visible in the public schools (Collom 2005). For example, and remembering the research limitations examined above, Ray (1997a) in his 1997
report found only minimal difference between African American and white students in reading
and mathematics in homeschools, but large differences in scores in those two subjects by race in
public schools. Investigators also have shown that widely seen gender differences in public school achievement scores may be muted by homeschooling. Wartes (1990) was the first scholar
to document this compression in achievement variability by gender. Later studies by Rudner
(1999) and Ray (2010) confirm Wartes’ initial results.
Religion is a critical theme in the homeschool literature, but we know almost nothing about its place in the student achievement equation. Motivations in general are also a critical piece of the homeschooling story, but here too almost no information is available when we explore the chap-
ters on achievement in the book on homeschools. Collom (2005) reported that reading and lan-
guage scores were higher for children in homes that were motivated to homeschool because of
their criticism of public education, while lower scores were recorded for children of parents who
homeschooled for family reasons, although Collom reminds us that the latter finding could be
explained by the high number of special needs children in homes motivated by family needs.
Other contextual variables address conditions in the homeschool program. For example,
Wartes (1990) examined amount of religious content in the homeschool experience. He found no relationship with student achievement. Wartes (1988, 1990) also documented no meaningful
relationship between grade level and academic achievement in homeschools, although Rudner’s (1999) later and more methodologically sophisticated study suggests otherwise, that student cog-
nitive development does vary with grade level in homeschools. Rudner’s (1999) landmark study
also shed some light on a suggestive finding by Parker (1992) of a positive relationship between
length of time homeschooling and student achievement. Rudner (1999) discovered that students who had been schooled at home for their entire schooling experience posted higher achievement
scores than students who had attended public and private schools as well. Ray (2010) and others
have also begun to provide some initial insights on other dimensions of homeschooling and
student achievement. In his most recent comprehensive analysis, he uncovered no differences
in achievement scores between children engaged with full-package curriculums and other
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 257
homeschool students. Wartes’ (1990) work extends this finding to the structure of schooling more generally, as well as to hours of formal schooling. Ray’s (2010) investigation did unearth a posi- tive relationship between money spent on homeschooling and student learning. A number of scho- lars over the last 25 years have explored the link between homeschool parents’ (past or current)
certification as a teacher and student achievement. The consistent conclusion from this work is that no relationship exists between parental certification and student performance on standardized
achievement tests (Basham et al., 2007; Ray, 2010; Wartes, 1990).
The Take-Away Message on Student Achievement
After all the information on student achievement is arrayed and reviewed, a number of key
conclusions can be distilled. First, we know more than some analysts suggest we do. Important
empirically grounded clues are visible and tentative hypotheses are being formed. At the same
time, we know a lot less than advocates of homeschooling would have us believe. Second, a
growing body of evidence reveals how homeschool students are performing academically com-
pared to national norms on standardized tests. Third, a fair amount of suggestive evidence has
been compiled that homeschooling can damp down the effects found in public schools of family
socioeconomic variables. Or as Collom (2003:329) so nicely captures it, ‘‘the two great divides
that public school children face—race and class—are inconsequential for student achievement among home-educated children.’’
For all of the reasons discussed herein, all of the current studies on homeschooling must be
viewed as non-definitive. All of the work in this domain falls considerably short of the standards
of scientific investigation. Experimental designs have never been employed. Quasi-experimental
designs are conspicuous by their absence. Until researchers employ more rigorous research
designs that control for selection bias, claims about academic effects of homeschooling simply
cannot be evaluated. Fourth, we want to revisit our cardinal caveat: there are a number of valid
reasons why it is inappropriate to privilege academic achievement in the algorithm we craft to
assess the impact of homeschooling.
Social Development
The Storyboard
The topic of the social development of children is consistently reported to be a critical outcome
measure of homeschooling, often ranked first in importance but almost never less than second
(Arai 1999; Lyman 2000; Ray and Wartes 1991). Those who are apprehensive about the socia-
lization of homeschool children put forth a theory of action that runs as follows. Schools are a
critical caldron in which important social skills are formed and social norms are learned (Guterson
1992; Kelley 1991). Homeschooling, it is asserted, limits the exchanges by which skills (e.g., con-
flict resolution) and norms (e.g., respect for others) are developed (Gladin 1987; Gorder 1990;
Shyers 1992). As a consequence, a variety of negative outcomes materialize (e.g., poor ability
to cope in larger society). The claim is made that by limiting socialization to the family, children
may be harmed, and that lack of exposure to and interaction with peers at school can negatively
impact social development, including self worth and social skills (Delahooke 1986; Medlin
258 J. MURPHY
2000). The fear is that absent the socializing experiences of traditional schooling, homeschoolers
will not be as socially well adjusted as their conventionally educated peers, and they could
become social misfits (Romanowski 2001; Sheffer 1995). As Guterson (1992: 4) captures the
sentiment, homeschool children could ‘‘be like caterpillars who never become butterflies,
crawling along down the labyrinths of adult life and blinking unhappily at the shrubbery.’’
Embedded in this logic in action are a variety of more specific concerns. A central worry is that
absent traditional schooling, homeschooled children will become socially isolated (Farris and
Woodruff 2000; Gaither 2008; Medlin 2000) and the homeschool movement will produce an
army of social isolates (Delahooke 1986; Gray 1993; Stevens 2001). A number of analysts have
also discussed the concern that too great a reliance on one institution for socialization, such as the
family, could lead to indoctrinization (Apple 2000a, b; Reich 2005). Scholars have expressed
apprehension about the potential negative effects of homeschooling in the area of friendship
development as well (Gray 1993; Knowles and Muchmore 1995; Martin 1997). They sometimes
paint a ‘‘picture of home school students as lonely children who don’t get a chance to interact with
their peers’’ (Dalaimo 1996:15). Critics worry about identity formation (Belfield 2004b).
Generalized angst from some that homeschoolers will not develop needed social skills is present
in the literature (Delahooke 1986; Medlin 2000). Nor, it is argued, will they learn essential social
norms (Arai 1999). Still another often noted worry is that homeschool children will suffer from a
lack of exposure to people from all walks of life and to the diversity of perspectives one finds in
public schools (Lyman 2000; Medlin 1998; Reich 2002), what Romanowski (1991) refers to as
different viewpoints and distinctive ways of life. They may have, it is maintained, a limited
horizon of experience (Kunzman 2009a; Reich 2002). Because of these deficiencies, it is further
asserted, homeschooled graduates may lack the capacity to be productive members of society, to
fit into the real world (Kelley 1991, Knowles and Muchmore 1995). They may struggle to adapt to
the tough realities of life beyond their families, particularly to the competitive culture of the work-
place (Arai 1999). Some analysts worry that these youngsters will be more likely to withdraw
from civic engagements (Apple 2000b; Lubienski 2000; Reich 2002).
Proponents of homeschooling have a different perspective on the social development of
homeschooled children (Farris and Woodruff 2000), and, as we will see below, considerably
more empirical evidence to bolster their position.
Home schooling parents, not surprisingly, disagree on every point. They describe conventional
schools as rigid and authoritarian institutions where passive conformity is rewarded, where peer inter-
actions are too often hostile or derisive or manipulative, and where children must contend with a dis-
piriting ideological and moral climate. Home schooling parents argue that this kind of environment
can stifle children’s individuality and harm their self-esteem. They say it can make children depen-
dent, insecure, or even antisocial. They believe it can undermine their efforts to teach their children
positive values and appropriate behavior. Finally, they insist that it is unlikely to cultivate the kind of
rewarding and supportive relationships that foster healthy personal and moral development. (Medlin
2000:109)
Proponents maintain that a healthy family provides a better caldron in which to brew positive
social development than the public school (Belfield 2004a; Gray 1998; Moore and Moore 1981).
They caution us that the robust portrait of socialization unfolding in America’s schools is some-
what of an illusion (Hill 2000; Holt 1981), carrying as much negative freight as benefits (Farris
and Woodruff 2000; Gorder 1990; Jaycox 2001). Proponents also remind us that there is a good
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 259
deal more to the day than the few hours of ‘‘school time’’ and argue that most homeschoolers are
socially engaged during this extended time (Duvall 2005; Groover and Endsley 1988; Perry and
Perry 2000). Advocates also define ‘‘variety’’ differently, suggesting that what is lost in engage-
ment with peers in school is more than compensated for with abundant contacts with other peers
and adults (Dalaimo 1996; Jaycox 2001). Advocates argue that if the formation of positive social
skills is the goal, then socialization with adults trumps socialization with peers (Farris and
Woodruff 2000; Meighan 1995). They contend that extensive peer socialization, which we have
already seen, is viewed suspiciously by all sides of the homeschool community (Holt 1981;
Moore 1982) as actually likely to be harmful (Boone 2000; Taylor 1986a; Webb 1989).
The Evidence
A number of researchers help us think through the rather messy concept of social development= socialization. One group assists by providing definitions. For example, Brim and Wheeler (cited
in Kelley 1991:2) define socialization as the ‘‘process by which persons acquire the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions that make them more or less able members of society.’’ McNeil (also cited
in Kelley 1991:2), in turn, ‘‘defines socialization as the process by which the child learns the
ways of society and how to best function as a part of it.’’ Another cluster of analysts decompose
socialization into its core elements; they provide frameworks for navigating through the research
examining the impacts of homeschooling on children. Ray (2005), for example, discusses
socialization around three domains: social, emotional, and psychological development. Medlin
(2000:110) also unpacks socialization into three components: ‘‘participat[ion] in daily routines
of one’s communities, acquiring the [needed] rules of behavior and systems of beliefs and
attitudes, and functioning effectively as members of society.’’ Medlin (2000) provides us with
a second framework as well, categorizing socialization as social activity, social influence, and
social experience. Based on the work of pioneers in the field, we present the empirical evidence
on the impact of homeschooling on the social development of children around three constructs:
social engagement, self-esteem, and social skills. Before we begin, however, it is instructive to
remind the reader that the body of research, although larger than in most of the impact domains
of homeschooling, is still relatively small.
Social Engagement
Social engagement as an outcome is assessed in three spheres of the homeschool literature:
engagement of families (parents), engagement of children being homeschooled, and engagement
of homeschooled graduates. We report on homeschool graduates below when we take up the
topic of ‘‘post-homeschool success.’’ We touched on the engagement of homeschool families
in the earlier section on the ‘‘impact on the social fabric,’’ documenting that, in general, home-
school families are at least as involved, if not more involved, civically as the general public
(Isenberg 2002; Ray 2004a; Smith and Sikkink 1999). Here we review what is known about
the socialization impact on children when they are being homeschooled.
We start with the social isolation hypothesis that is batted back and forth by critics and
proponents of homeschooling. Here is what we can comfortably say based on the evidence.
Homeschooling does impact the calculus of interpersonal relationships for homeschoolers, a
260 J. MURPHY
hardly surprising finding given their absence from groups of peers in formal school settings
(Chatham-Carpenter 1994). At the same time, nearly every study conducted to date finds that
these children are not socially isolated (Arai 1999; Ray 2004a; Van Galen 1991). Or as
Chatham-Carpenter (1994) puts it, they are not ‘‘at risk’’ socially when ‘‘riskness’’ is assessed
by the total number of social contacts.
The average homeschool student interacts with a large number of people on a daily basis. He or
she is part of both an extensive and diverse social network (McCulloch et al. 2006; Ray 2009b),
although generally less extensive than the network maintained by the average public school child
(Chatham-Carpenter 1994). Studies reveal that closeness of connections varies by school type,
with public schoolers having more close contacts than homeschoolers (Chatham-Carpenter
1994). Also, not unexpectedly, homeschool students spend more time with siblings and adults
than they do with public school peers (Allie-Carson 1990). Consistent with what we reported
above, homeschooling is likely to restructure the social world of the student, promoting more
mixed-age than same-age engagements (Chatham-Carpenter 1994; Ensign 1997; Ray 2009a).
The basis for peer connections also changes for homeschoolers, from proximity to common inter-
ests. At the same time, fewer peer contacts (i.e., 11 versus 20 for public school youngsters in the
Chatham-Carpenter [1994] study) do not translate into an insufficient number of peer connections
(Chatham-Carpenter 1994; Montgomery 1989). Indeed, studies routinely document robust peer
linkages for homeschoolers (Groover and Endsley 1988; Wartes 1987). Although in short supply,
the data that are available also suggest that homeschooled students are not isolated from cultural
diversity (Medlin 1998). Homeschoolers on average are engaged with persons from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds, ages, religions, and ethnicities (Medlin 1998, 2000).
Researchers help us see that these out-of-home relations are fostered through the social and
civic activities in which homeschool youngsters participate. For the last 30 years, scholars have
documented that homeschoolers are involved in a wide variety of religious, social, sporting,
cocurricular, government, work, educational, and service activities outside the home (Basham
et al. 2007; Montgomery 1989; Tillman 1995). Homeschoolers are engaged at least to the same
extent as their conventionally schooled peers, and often more so (Duvall et al. 2004; Delahooke
1986; Medlin 2000).
Self-Concept
Researchers consistently find that on various measures of self-concept and self-esteem, home-
schoolers score as well as or better than peers in other forms of schooling (Medlin 2000). A line
of analysis also reveals that self-concept and socialization are tightly linked (Romanowski 2001;
Taylor 1986b), connected in a recursive manner. It is generally held that socialization can be
measured by self-concept, or that socialization is a core element in the formation of self-
concept—that self-concept is a reflection of socialization (Kelley 1991; Taylor 1986a). On the definitional front, Kelley (1991) reviews an assortment of meanings for self-concept.
An especially clear and useful definition has been provided by Woolfolk (cited in Kelley
1991:4): ‘‘how people view themselves physically, emotionally, socially, and academically;
all self-perceptions taken together.’’ Another was penned by Taylor (1986a:14): ‘‘a construct
defined as an individual’s perception of himself, of what he perceives others to think of him
and what he himself would wish to be.’’
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 261
Keeping in mind the caveat we have introduced and reinforced about the limited body of high
quality research studies, almost all of the evidence amassed over the last 30 years leads to the
conclusion that homeschoolers do not suffer from poor self-concepts. Their self-concepts are
as strong or stronger than those of their peers in public and private schools (Ray 2009b). Among
the studies and reviews that focus on self-concept, a few are foundational, including the seminal
work of Ray (1997b, 2000c, 2009b) and Medlin (1998, 2000).
One of the early landmark studies was conducted by Taylor (1986a). Using the Piers-Harris
Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSCS), he discovered that the self-concepts of home-
schooled children were significantly higher than those of their peers in public schools. Indeed,
he reported that over half of the home-educated children scored above the 90th percentile on
the composite scale. Only 10% scored below the 50th percentile. Not surprisingly, he also found that the homeschool students performed well on each of the six sub-scales of the
PHCSCS—behavioral, intellectual, physical, anxiety, popularity, and happiness, with some- what lower scores on the popularity scale. Within the homeschool group, he found that socio-
economic status matters. Specifically, higher socioeconomic status was significantly related to
higher self-concept. He also discovered that self-concept decreases for homeschoolers as they
increase in age and by grade. His overall conclusion is that a positive self-concept is a benefit
of homeschooling.
Kitchen’s (1991) analysis, although hampered by limited sample size, supports the findings of
Taylor. Kitchen documented that homeschooled children scored better than conventionally
schooled peers on three of the four dimensions (personal security, academic competence,
familial acceptance) and on the summative dimension of the Self-Esteem Index. The only area
in which they trailed their peers was in the area of peer popularity, the area where homeschoolers
scored the lowest in the Taylor (1986a) study as well. Shyers (1992), as did Taylor, used the
PHCSCS to measure the self-concept of homeschoolers. He concluded that homeschooled chil-
dren and traditionally schooled children scored about the same. Lee (1994) also documented that
homeschooled children did not lag behind other children on a measure of self worth. Using the
Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children, he reported no significant difference between home
and public schooled children in self-esteem. Parker (1992) and Sheffer (1995) also reported posi-
tive self-concept for homeschoolers, although without comparative data.
A moving-forward hypothesis then seems plausible. For a number of reasons, home-based
education appears at least as capable of nurturing self-concept as conventional schools. It is
distinctly possible that homeschoolers perform even better in this area than their peers do in tra-
ditional schools. As Taylor (1986a) and other scholars over the years have consistently pointed
out, critics should be cautious about placing bets against homeschooling on the ‘‘socialization
rationale’’ in general and the ‘‘self-concept rationale’’ in particular.
Social Skills
The third dimension of our social development framework attends to how well homeschool
children develop the social skills essential to the intercourse of life. As revealed above in the
discussion of the socialization storyboard, recurring concern appears in the literature that
because of their isolation, homeschooled children will be stifled socially and will not develop
the skills they need to engage effectively with others. The empirical evidence available to date
262 J. MURPHY
suggests that at a minimum this concern is likely overblown and more likely is without foun-
dation (Dahlquist et al. 2006; Medlin 2000).
To be sure, ‘‘social skills’’ covers a good deal of ground. One aspect is maturity. We learn
from the research that homeschoolers are as mature as or more mature than children in public
schools (Saunders 2010; Smedley 1992). We also discover that they demonstrate good leader-
ship skills (Montgomery 1989) and are rated high on measures of ability to interact with others,
both peers and adults (Wartes, 1987)—communication skills and daily living skills (Ray and Wartes 1991; Smedley 1992; Webb 1989). They do not appear to be socially anxious (Taylor
1986a). Homeschooled children measure well against their peers on indices of confidence,
assuredness, and well-adjustedness (Lee 1994; Tillman 1995). Evidence also reveals that
homeschoolers demonstrate fewer behavioral problems than conventionally schooled peers
(Delahooke 1986; Lee 1994; Shyers 1992). They tend to be trustful and non-cynical in nature
(McCulloch et al. 2006). They are generally a happy group (Taylor 1986a). They score about
the same as conventionally schooled peers on measures of social acceptance (Lee 1994; Webb
1989). Overall, they demonstrate appropriate pro-social behavior and social responsibility
(Shyers 1992; Wartes 1987).
Post-Homeschooling Success: Long-Term Impacts
For a variety of reasons—the general lack of research on homeschooling, the recency of the movement, the difficulty of engaging the work—research on the impacts of homeschooling on ‘‘graduates,’’ or what Knowles and Muchmore (1995) refer to as the long-term effects of
homeschooling, is in very short supply. While there is no shortage of theories on what Galloway
and Sutton (1995) call the ‘‘products’’ of homeschools, little data is available to inform that
discussion. When the data points that have been produced over the last quarter century are com-
piled, the emerging narrative conveys a story of homeschoolers who (1) are reasonably success-
ful adults and (2) are holding their own vis-à-vis conventionally school students (Cochran 1995;
Knowles andMuchmore 1995; Ray 2000a). That narrative as told by Webb (1989) is comprised
of four chapters: further education, employment, social ability, and community engagement. Ray
(2004a) arrays the data in two chapters: general and civic involvement. Cochran (1995), in turn,
packages product data into three broad chapters: employment, education, and social adjustment.
Below, we build from these frameworks, placing post-homeschool graduates into four broad
categories: college preparation, access, and success; employment and military service; civic
engagement; and satisfaction with education and life.
College Preparation, Access, and Success
While more research is available on this post-homeschool outcome than most others, the empiri-
cal portfolio is still relatively thin (Cogan 2010; Saunders 2010). On the issue of preparation, evidence has been generated in two areas: perceptions of significant actors in the chronicle
and test scores. In the first area, when asked, college admission officers have assessed home-
schoolers as being academically and socially prepared to handle the rigors of college life (Prue
1997; Sorey and Duggan 2008), and at least as well prepared as graduates of public high schools
(Jenkins 1998). In the second area, test scores, researchers find that homeschoolers demonstrate
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 263
academic preparedness equal to graduates of public schools on measures of verbal, writing, and
critical thinking skills (Galloway and Sutton 1995; Oliviera et al. 1994). Two investigators have
found that homeschool students score as well as or better than their public school peers on col-
lege entrance examinations, both the ACT and the SAT (Cogan 2010; Ray and Weller 2003).
Early indications are that homeschooled children apply to and are admitted to postsecondary education in proportions similar to their conventionally educated peers (Lips and Feinberg
2008; Ray 1997b). They are enrolling in some of the nation’s most distinguished institutions
of higher education as well (Basham et al. 2007; Gaither 2008; Marean, Ott, and Rush 2005).
So far, the research shows that once enrolled, homeschooled students in colleges and univer-
sities are performing as well as public school graduates (Ray 2009b), remembering that the body
of evidence is small (Cogan 2010; Gray 1998; Prue 1997). As with ‘‘preparedness,’’ the data on
success is of two types, perceptual and harder indicators. On the perceptual side of the ledger, researchers such as Jenkins (1998), Ray (2005), and Sorey and Duggan (2008) reveal that college
admissions officers report that homeschooled youngsters are as successful as (or better than) pub-
lic school graduates. Harder measures of student success also dot the impact literature. Turning
first to earned grades, findings of equivalence are found here as well (Gray 1998; Galloway and
Sutton 1995; Oliviera et al. 1994). The operational hypothesis at this point in time is as follows:
there are ‘‘few if any’’ meaningful differences in retention and academic performance in college
between homeschooled students and peers from public schools (Saunders 2010).
Sutton and Galloway (2000) assessed additional domains of success beyond academic
achievement. They bundled 40 discrete indicators of success into five broad impact categories:
achievement, leadership, professional aptitude, social behavior, and physical activity. They
reported equivalence between homeschoolers and public school graduates on all the additional
four domains. Their interpretation follows:
Implications from the nonsignificant results are mixed for home schools. First and foremost, the fact
that neither the public school nor the private school groups significantly outperformed the home
school group is noteworthy . . .. Conversely, however, the inability of the home school group to out- perform their private and public school counterparts academically suggests that home school students
are not generalizing their exceedingly high K-12 achievement scores to the college level. (143)
Research on postsecondary graduation rates of homeschooled students is very limited. We have
a few empirical starting points (Cogan 2010; Ray 2004b) but no body of evidence.
Success in the Workforce and the Military
We begin our discussion here with a recurring theme: a very thin data base from which to draw
conclusions dominates this impact domain. In one early study, Knowles and Muchmore (1995)
reported that homeschooled adults tended to move into entrepreneurial and professional posi-
tions. In his comprehensive study, Ray (2004a) documented remarkably high levels of satisfac-
tion with their jobs among homeschooled adults, with 61.4 percent being very satisfied and 34.5
percent expressing moderate satisfaction.
We were able to uncover only one robust examination of the success of homeschooled grad-
uates in the military. While the investigators are careful to specify the limitations of their study,
especially in terms of the small and likely nonrepresentative sample of homeschoolers who enter
264 J. MURPHY
the armed services, their conclusions, nonetheless, reflect poorly on homeschoolers. Specifically,
Wenger and Hodari (2004) documented that, compared to public school graduates, homeschoo-
lers: (1) have significantly higher attrition rates; (2) are less likely to enter the military at an
advanced pay grade (a measure of quality); (3) are more likely to be admitted on a waiver
(another measure of quality); (4) are more likely to exit the military for negative reasons; and
(5) are not viewed as high quality at the time they leave the armed forces.
Participation in the Community
Consistent with the findings on socialization of homeschooling youngsters and the social and
civic engagement of their parents (Lines 2000a), available research finds that homeschooled
adults also participate in community-based activities at rates much higher than those found in
the general population (Ray 2005). Two studies in particular open a window on this issue. In
the mid-1990s, Knowles and Muchmore (1995) reported that homeschooled adults were not
disengaged socially or civically. In a comprehensive analysis of the issue a decade later, Ray
(2004a) documented that homeschooled adults were indeed heavily involved in community life
at the local and national levels and were more civically involved than the general population of
adults. He found that compared to public school graduates, homeschooled adults were more
likely to (1) vote; (2) be involved in ongoing community service; (3) be part of an organization;
(4) write, telephone, or sign petitions; and (5) participate in a protest or boycott.
Satisfaction with Education and Life and Economic Benefits
There are some clues in the empirical literature that students who complete their education at
home enjoy higher ‘‘life satisfaction’’ ratings than peers who graduate from public schools
(Basham et al. 2007). In a similar vein, homeschooled children view their homeschooling experi-
ences quite positively (Knowles and Muchmore 1995; Ray 2004a). Again, these data are in line
with the limited findings on satisfaction when students are engaged in the homeschooling experi-
ence (Duvall et al. 1997; Jackson 2007). One good but indirect measure of satisfaction is a will-
ingness and commitment of homeschooled adults to home educate their own children (Webb
1989). Using this measure, we learn that homeschooled adults are very satisfied with education
they received (Meighan 1995; Ray 2004a).
While we know that homeschooling decisions are rarely made on the basis of cost-benefit
calculations, there are no available studies on economic benefits to homeschool graduates
(Aurini and Davies 2005).
CONCLUSION
In this article, we provided an extensive review of what is known about the impact of home-
schooling in the United States. We saw that the homeschooling population has grown substan-
tially over the last 40 years. It has become a central element in the portfolio of privatization
initiatives (e.g., charter schools, vouchers) accompanying the evolution from the institutional
and hierarchical forms of education in the twentieth century to a system of schooling with greater
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 265
emphasis on consumer- and market-oriented infrastructure. We explained how homeschooling is
larger than schooling. Home-based education is also a social movement. It is both the result of
and a contributing factor to the changing dynamics of religion, family, and politics. It has raised
the prominence of evangelical Christian fundamentalism. Homeschooling has helped reposition
the dialogue and action around the role of the family, especially the mother, in the United States.
We also noted how homeschooling both adds to and shapes the rivers of conservative politics.
We investigated the educational outcomes associated with homeschooling. We were careful
to the point of redundancy in exposing the incipient and immature nature of the research on
homeschooling. We reported that for many domains of homeschooling, most especially those
in the family of outcomes, the amount of research is quite limited. We also explained that the
body of work undertaken to date has left a good deal to be desired in terms of methodological
rigor. The overall message is one that at best only allows us to report that research ‘‘suggests’’
certain finings. Existing findings need to be subjected to more scientific study. Given these
limitations, the evidence currently at hand leads us to be cautious about too readily accepting
the claims of homeschool critics that the academic and social well-being of youngsters is harmed
by homeschooling.
AUTHOR NOTES
Joseph Murphy is the Frank W. Mayborn Chair at Vanderbilt University. He works in the area of
school improvement.
REFERENCES
Allie-Carson, J. 1990. ‘‘Structure and Interaction Patterns of Home School Families.’’ Home School Researcher 6(3):11–18.
Apple, M. 2000a. ‘‘Away with All Teachers: The Cultural Politics of Home Schooling.’’ International Studies in
Sociology of Education 10(1):61–80.
Apple, M. 2000b. ‘‘The Cultural Politics of Home Schooling.’’ Peabody Journal of Education 75(1):256–271. Apple, M. 2005. ‘‘Away with All Teachers: The Cultural Politics of Home Schooling.’’ Pp. 75–95 in Home Schooling in
Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Apple, M. 2007. ‘‘Who Needs Teacher Education? Gender, Technology, and the Work of Home Schooling.’’ Teacher
Education Quarterly 34(2):111–130. Arai, B. 1999. ‘‘Homeschooling and the Redefinition of Citizenship.’’ Education Policy Analysis Archives 7(27):1–15.
Aurini, J. and S. Davies. 2005. ‘‘Choice Without Markets: Homeschooling in the Context of Private Education.’’ British
Journal of Sociology of Education 26(4):461–474. Barwegen, L., N. Falciani, S. Putnam, M. Reamer, and E. Stair. 2004. ‘‘Academic Achievement of Homeschool and
Public School Students and Student Perception of Parent Involvement.’’ School Community Journal 14(1):39–58.
Basham, P., J. Merrifield, and C. Hepburn. 2007. ‘‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream.’’ Studies in
Education Policy Series. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Fraser Institute. Bauman, K. 2002. ‘‘Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics.’’ Education Policy Analysis
Archives 10(26):121.
Belfield, C. 2004a. Home-Schooling in the US (Occasional Paper No. 88). New York: National Center for the Study of
Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Belfield, C. 2004b. ‘‘Modeling School Choice: A Comparison of Public, Private-Independent, Private-Religious, and
Home-Schooled Families.’’ Education Policy and Analysis Archives 12(30):1–16.
266 J. MURPHY
Belfield, C. 2005. ‘‘Home Schoolers: How Well Do They Perform on the SAT for College Admissions?’’ Pp. 167–177 in
Home Schooling in Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bielick, S., K. Chandler, and S. Broughman. 2001. ‘‘Homeschooling in the United States: 1999.’’ Education Statistics
Quarterly 3(3):1–13.
Blok, H. 2004. ‘‘Performance in Home Schooling: An Argument Against Compulsory Schooling in the Netherlands.’’
International Review of Education 50(1):39–52.
Boone, J. 2000. ‘‘Homeschool Alumni.’’ Paths of Learning: Options for Families & Communities 3:25–30.
Burns, J. 1999. ‘‘The Correlational Relationship Between Homeschooling Demographics and High Test Scores.’’
Opinion paper: Northeastern State University.
Calvery, R., D. Bell, and C. Vaupel. 1992. ‘‘The Difference in Achievement Between Home Schooled and Public
Schooled Students for Grades Four, Seven, and Ten in Arkansas.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Mid-South Research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Chatham-Carpenter, A. 1994. ‘‘Home Versus Public Schoolers: Differing Social Opportunities.’’ Home School
Researcher 10(1):15–24.
Cibulka, J. 1991. ‘‘State Regulation of Home Schooling: A Policy Analysis.’’ Pp. 101–120 in Homeschooling: Political,
Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives, edited by J. Van Galen and M. Pittman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Cizek, G. 1993. ‘‘The Mismeasure of Home Schooling Effectiveness (A Commentary).’’ Home School Researcher
9(3):1–4.
Cochran, C. 1995. ‘‘The Home School Movement in the U.S.: Georgia as a Test Case, 1979–1984.’’ Doctoral dissertation,
Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Cogan, M. F. 2010. ‘‘Exploring Academic Outcomes of Homeschooled Students.’’ Journal of College Admission
208:18–25.
Colfax, D. and M. Colfax. 1988. Homeschooling for Excellence. New York: Warner Books.
Collom, E. 2005. ‘‘The Ins and Outs of Homeschooling: The Determinants of Parental Motivations and Student
Achievement.’’ Education and Urban Society 37(3):307–335.
Collom, E. and D. Mitchell. 2005. ‘‘Home Schooling as a Social Movement; Identifying the Determinants of
Homeschoolers’ Perceptions.’’ Sociological Spectrum 25(3):273–305.
Cooper, B. S. and J. Sureau. 2007. ‘‘The Politics of Homeschooling: New Developments, New Challenges.’’ Educational
Policy 21(1):110–131. Dahlquist, K., J. York-Barr, and D. D. Hendel. 2006. ‘‘The Choice to Homeschool: Home Educator Perspectives and
School District Options.’’ Journal of School Leadership 16(4):354–385.
Dalaimo, D. 1996. ‘‘Community Home Education: A Case Study of a Public School-Based Home Schooling Program.’’
Educational Research Quarterly 19(4):3–22. Delahooke, M. 1986. ‘‘Home Educated Children’s Social=Emotional Adjustment and Academic Achievement: A
Comparative Study.’’ Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
Divoky, D. 1983. ‘‘The New Pioneers of the Home-Schooling Movement.’’ Phi Delta Kappan 64(6):395–398.
Duvall, S. F. 2005. ‘‘The Effectiveness of Homeschooling Students with Special Needs.’’ Pp. 151–166 in Home Schooling in Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Duvall, S., J. Delquadri, and D. Ward. 2004. ‘‘A Preliminary Investigation of the Effectiveness of Homeschool
Instructional Environments for Students with Attention-Deficit=Hyperactivity Disorder.’’ School Psychology
Review 33(1):140–158. Duvall, S., D. L. Ward, J. Delquadri, and C. Greenwood. 1997. ‘‘An Exploratory Study of Home School Instructional
Environments and Their Effects on the Basic Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities.’’ Education and
Treatment of Children 20(2):150–172. Ensign, J. 1997. Homeschooling Gifted Students: An Introductory Guide for Parents. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children, ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
Farris, M. and S. Woodruff. 2000. ‘‘The Future of Home Schooling.’’ Peabody Journal of Education 75(1=2):233–255.
Frost, G. 1988. ‘‘The Academic Success of Students in Home Schooling.’’ Illinois School Research and Development 24(3):111–117.
Frost, E. and R. Morris. 1988. ‘‘Does Home-Schooling Work? Some Insights for Academic Success.’’ Contemporary
Education 59(4):223–227.
Gaither, M. 2008. Homeschool: An American History. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 267
Galloway, R. and J. Sutton. 1995. ‘‘Home Schooled and Conventionally Schooled High School Graduates: A
Comparison of Aptitude for and Achievement in College English.’’ Home School Researcher 11(1):1–9.
Gladin, E. 1987. ‘‘Home Education: Characteristics of Its Families and Schools.’’ Doctoral dissertation, Bob Jones
University, Greenville, SC.
Glanzer, P. L. 2008. ‘‘Rethinking the Boundaries and Burdens of Parental Authority over Education: A Response to Rob
Reich’s Case Study of Homeschooling.’’ Educational Theory 58(1):1–16.
Gorder, C. 1990. Home Schools: An Alternative. Tempe, AZ: Blue Bird Publishing.
Gray, D. W. 1998. ‘‘A Study of the Academic Achievements of Home-Schooled Students Who Have Matriculated into
Postsecondary Institutions.’’ Doctoral dissertation. Sarasota, FL: University of Sarasota.
Gray, S. 1993. ‘‘Why Some Parents Choose to Home School.’’ Home School Researcher 9(4):1–12.
Green, C. and K. Hoover-Dempsey. 2007. ‘‘Why Do Parents Homeschool? A Systematic Examination of Parental
Involvement.’’ Education and Urban Society 39(2):264–285. Groover, S. and R. Endsley. 1988. ‘‘Family Environment and Attitudes of Homeschoolers and Non-Homeschoolers.’’
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia.
Guterson, D. 1992. Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hardenbaugh, N. 2005. ‘‘Through the Lens of Homeschooling: A Response to Michael Apple and Rob Reich.’’
Pp. 97–108 in Home Schooling in Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hertzel, J. 1997. ‘‘Literacy in the Homeschool Setting.’’ Pp. 61–81 in Literacy: Building on What We Know, edited by
P. H. Dreyer. Claremont, CA: Claremont Reading Co.
Hill, P. 2000. ‘‘Home Schooling and the Future of Public Education.’’ Peabody Journal of Education 75(1=2):20–31.
Holt, J. 1981. Teach Your Own: A Hopeful Path for Education. New York: Delacorte Press.
Holt, J. 1983. ‘‘Schools and Home Schoolers: A Fruitful Partnership.’’ Phi Delta Kappan 64(6):391–394.
Houston, R. 1999. ‘‘The Economic Determinants of Home Education.’’ Doctoral dissertation. Lexington, KY: University
of Kentucky.
Houston, R. and E. Toma. 2003. ‘‘Home Schooling: An Alternative School Choice.’’ Southern Economic Journal
69(4):920–935.
Ice, C. L. and K. V. Hoover-Dempsey. 2011. ‘‘Linking Parental Motivations for Involvement and Student Proximal
Achievement Outcomes in Homeschooling and Public Schooling Settings.’’ Education and Urban Review
43(3):339–369.
Isenberg, E. 2002. Home Schooling: School Choice and Women’s Time Use. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Isenberg, E. 2007. ‘‘What Have We Learned About Homeschooling?’’ Peabody Journal of Education 82(2):387–409.
Jackson, G. 2007. ‘‘Home Education Transitions with Formal Schooling: Student Perspectives.’’ Issues in Educational
Research 17:62–84. Jaycox, R. 2001. Rural Home Schooling and Place-Based Education. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools.
Jenkins, T. 1998. ‘‘The Performance of Home Schooled Students in Community Colleges.’’ Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Texas AandM University – Commerce.
Kaseman, L. and S. Kaseman. 1999. ‘‘HSLDA study: Embarrassing and Dangerous.’’ Home Education Magazine.
Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/164/ja_clmn_tch.html
Kelley, S. 1991. ‘‘Socialization of Home Schooled Children: A Self-Concept Study.’’ Home School Researcher 7(4):1–12.
Kitchen, P. 1991. ‘‘Socialization of Home School Children Versus Conventional School Children.’’ Home School Researcher 7(3):7–13.
Kleist-Tesch, J. M. 1998. ‘‘Homeschoolers and the Public Library.’’ Journal of Youth Services in Libraries
11(3):231–241.
Klicka, C. 1995. The Right Choice: The Incredible Failure of Public Education and the Rising Hope of Home Schooling:
An Academic, Historical, Practical, and Legal Perspective. Gresham, OR: Noble Publishing Associates.
Klugewicz, S. and C. Carraccio. 1999. ‘‘Home Schooled Children: A Pediatric Perspective.’’ Clinical Pediatrics
38(7):407–411.
Knowles, J. G. 1989. ‘‘Cooperating with Home School Parents: A New Agenda for Public Schools?’’ Urban Education
23(4):392–411.
Knowles, J. G. and J. Muchmore. 1995. ‘‘Yep! We’re Grown Up Home-School Kids – And We’re Doing Just Fine,
Thank You.’’ Journal of Research on Christian Education 4(1):35–56.
268 J. MURPHY
Knowles, G., S. Marlow, and J. Muchmore. 1992. ‘‘From Pedagogy to Ideology: Origins and Phases of Home Education
in the United States.’’ American Journal of Education 100:195–235.
Kunzman, R. 2005. Homeschooling in Indiana: A Closer Look. (Education policy brief Volume 3, Number 7).
Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
Kunzman, R. 2009a. ‘‘Understanding Homeschooling: A Better Approach to Regulation.’’ Theory and Research in Education 7(3):311–330.
Kunzman, R. 2009b. Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Lee, W. J. 1994. ‘‘The Socialization of Home-Schooled and Public-Schooled Children.’’ Doctoral dissertation. University
of La Verne, La Verne, CA.
Lines, P. M. 1991. ‘‘Home Instruction: The Size and Growth of the Movement.’’ Pp. 9–42 in Homeschooling: Political,
Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives, edited by J. Van Galen and M. Pittman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Lines, P. M. 1995. Home Schooling (ERIC Digest, Number 95). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, University of Oregon.
Lines, P. M. 1999. Homeschoolers: Estimating Numbers and Growth. Washington, DC: National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment.
Lines, P. M. 2000a. ‘‘Homeschooling Comes of Age.’’ The Public Interest 140:74–85.
Lines, P. M. 2000b. ‘‘When Home Schoolers Go to school: A Partnership Between Families and Schools.’’ Peabody Journal of Education 75(1–2):159–186.
Lines, P. M. 2004. ‘‘Enrolled Home Study Partners with Public Schools.’’ Education Digest 69(6):43–46.
Lips, D. and E. Feinberg. 2008. Homeschooling: A Growing Option in American Education. Washington, DC: Heritage
Foundation.
Lubienski, C. 2000. ‘‘Whither the Common Good? A Critique of Home Schooling.’’ Peabody Journal of Education
75(1=2):207–232.
Luebke, R. V. 1999. Homeschooling in Wisconsin: A Review of Current Issues and Trends. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin
Policy Research Institute.
Luke, C. 2003. ‘‘Home Schooling: Learning from Dissent.’’ Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and
Policy, 25. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/caluke.html
Lyman, L. 1998. ‘‘Homeschooling: Back to the Future?’’ Policy Analysis 294:1–15. Lyman, I. 2000. The Homeschooling Revolution. Amherst, MA: Bench Press International.
Marean, J., M. Ott, and M. Rush. 2005. ‘‘Home Schooled Students and the Ivy League: Gaining Admissions to Highly
Selective Universities in the United States.’’ Pp. 179–197 in Home Schooling in Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Martin, M. 1997. ‘‘Homeschooling: Parents’ Reactions.’’ Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/
ED415984.pdf
Mayberry, M. 1989. ‘‘Characteristics and Attitudes of Families Who Home School.’’ Education and Urban Society
21(1):32–41.
Mayberry, M. 1993. ‘‘Effective Learning Environments in Action: The Case of Home Schools.’’ The School Community
Journal 3(1):61–68.
Mayberry, M., G. Knowles, B. Ray, and S. Marlow. 1995. Home Schooling: Parents as Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press=Sage.
McCulloch, D., S. Slocum, C. Kolegue, and S. Montaudo. 2006. ‘‘Cynicism, Trust, and Internal-External Locus of
Control among Home Educated Students.’’ Academic Leadership 4(4):1–4.
McKeon, C. C. 2007. ‘‘A Mixed Methods Nested Analysis of Homeschooling Styles, Instructional Practices, and
Reading Methodologies.’’ Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.eric.
ed.gov/PDFS/ED504128.pdf
Medlin, R. G. 2000. ‘‘Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization.’’ Peabody Journal of Education 75(1=2):107–123.
Medlin, R. G. 1998. ‘‘For Homeschooled Children, the Social Contacts Are Diverse.’’ Homeschooling Today 7(5):51–52. Meighan, R. 1995. ‘‘Home-Based Education Effectiveness: Research and Some of Its Implications.’’ Educational Review
47(3):275–287.
Mirochnik, D. A. and W. G. McIntire. 1991. Homeschooling: Issues for Administrators. (Occasional Paper Series, No.
12). Orono, ME: University of Maine.
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 269
Montgomery, L. 1989. ‘‘The Effect of Home Schooling on the Leadership Skills of Home Schooled Students.’’ Home School Researcher 5(1):1–10.
Moore, R. 1982. ‘‘Research and Common Sense: Therapies for Our Homes and Schools.’’ Teachers College Record
84(2):355–377.
Moore, R. and D. Moore. 1981. Home Grown Kids: A Practical Handbook for Teaching Your Children at Home. Waco, TX: Word Books.
Moore, R. and D. Moore. 1994. The Successful Homeschool Family Handbook: A Creative and Stress-Free Approach to
Homeschooling. Camas, WA: Moore Foundation. Muntes, G. 2006. ‘‘Do Parental Reasons to Homeschool Vary by Grade? Evidence From the National Household
Educational Survey.’’ Home School Researcher 16(4):11–17.
Murphy, J. 1996. The Privatization of Schooling: Problems and Possibilities. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J. 1999. ‘‘New Consumerism: The Emergence of Market-Oriented Governing Structures for Schools.’’ Pp. 405–
419 in The Handbook of Research on School Administration, edited by J. Murphy and K. S. Louis. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. 2006, December. ‘‘The Evolving Nature of the American High School: A Punctuated Equilibrium Model of
Institutional Change.’’ Leadership and Policy in Schools 5(4):1–39, 285–324. Murphy, J. 2013. ‘‘Exploring the Change in Homeschooling, 1970–2010.’’ Home School Research Journal 29(1):1–15.
Murphy, J., S. Gilmer, R. Weise, and A. Page. 1998. Pathways to Privatization in Education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Murphy, J. and C. Shiffman. 2002. Understanding and Assessing Charter Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Nemer, K. M. 2002. Understudied Education: Toward Building a Homeschooling Research Agenda (Occasional Paper).
New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Oliviera, P. C. M. de, T. G. Watson., and J. P. Sutton. 1994. ‘‘Differences in Critical Thinking Skills among Students
Educated in Public Schools, Christian Schools, and Home Schools.’’ Home School Researcher 10(4):1–8. Parker, R. D. 1992. ‘‘Inside Home Schools: A Portrait of Eighty-Four Texas Families and the Schools in Their Homes.’’
Master’s thesis. Texas Tech University.
Perry, J. and K. Perry. 2000. The Complete Guide to Homeschooling. Los Angeles: Lowell House.
Prue, I. 1997. ‘‘A Nation-Wide Survey of Admissions Personnel’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Experiences with Home
Schooled Applicants.’’ Doctoral dissertation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Rakestraw, J. 1988. ‘‘Home Schooling in Alabama.’’ Home School Researcher 4(4):1–6.
Ray, B. 1997a. Home Education across the United States: Family Characteristics, Student Achievement, and Longitudinal Traits. Salem, OR: Home School National Defense Fund.
Ray, B. 1997b. Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers across America. Salem, OR: NHERI Publications.
Ray, B. 2000a. ‘‘Home Schooling for Individuals’ Gain and Society’s Common Good.’’ Peabody Journal of Education
75(1):272–293.
Ray, B. 2000b. ‘‘Home Schooling: The Ameliorator of Negative Influences on Learning?’’ Peabody Journal of
Education 75(1=2):71–106.
Ray, B. 2001a. Home Education Research Fact Sheet. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.
Ray, B. 2001b. Home Schooling Achievement. Purcellville, VA: National Home Education Research Institute. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/comp2001/HomeSchoolAchievement.pdf
Ray, B. 2004a. Home Educated and Now Adults: Their Community and Civic Involvement, Views about Homeschooling,
and Other Traits. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.
Ray, B. 2004b. ‘‘Homeschoolers on to College: What Research Shows Us.’’ Journal of College Admission 185:5–11. Ray, B. 2005. ‘‘A Homeschool Research Story.’’ Pp. 1–19 in Home Schooling in Full View, edited by B. S. Cooper.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Ray, B. 2009a. Home Education Reason and Research: Common Questions and Research-Based Answers about Home- schooling. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.
Ray, B. 2009b. Research Facts on Homeschooling: General Facts and Trends. Salem, OR: National Home Education
Research Institute.
Ray, B. 2010. ‘‘Academic Achievement and Demographic Traits of Homeschool Students: A Nationwide Study.’’
Academic Leadership Live: The Online Journal 8(1):1–26.
Ray, B. 2011. 2.04 Million Homeschool Students in the United States in 2010. Salem, OR: National Home Education
Research Institute.
270 J. MURPHY
Ray, B. and J. Wartes. 1991. ‘‘The Academic Achievement and Affective Development of Home-Schooled Children.’’
Pp. 43–62 in Homeschooling: Political, Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives, edited by J. Van Galen and
M. Pittman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Ray, B. and N. Weller. 2003. ‘‘Homeschooling: An Overview and Financial Implications for Public Schools.’’ School
Business Affairs 69(5):22–26. Reich, R. 2002. ‘‘The Civic Perils of Homeschooling.’’ Educational Leadership 59(7):56–59.
Reich, R. 2005. ‘‘Why Homeschooling Should Be Regulated.’’ Pp. 109–120 in Home Schooling in Full View, edited by
B. S. Cooper. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Riegel, S. 2001. ‘‘The Home Schooling Movement and the Struggle for Democratic Education.’’ Studies in Political
Economy 65:91–116.
Romanowski, M. 2001. ‘‘Common Arguments about the Strengths and Limitations of Home Schooling.’’ The Clearing
House 75(2):79–83. Rudner, L. 1999. ‘‘Scholastic Achievement and Demographic Characteristics of Home School Students in 1998.’’
Education Policy Analysis Archives 7(8).
Saunders, M. 2010. ‘‘Previously Homeschooled College Freshmen: Their First Year Experiences and Persistence Rates.’’
Journal of College Student Retention 11(1):77–100. Schemmer, B. A. S. 1985. ‘‘Case Studies of Four Families Engaged in Home Education.’’ EdD Dissertation, Ball State
University.
Sheffer, S. 1995. A Sense of Self: Listening to Homeschooled Adolescent Girls. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton=Cook Publishers.
Shyers, L. 1992. ‘‘A Comparison of Social Adjustment Between Home and Traditionally Schooled Students.’’ Home
School Researcher 8(3):1–8.
Smith, C. and D. Sikkink. 1999. ‘‘Is Private School Privatizing?’’ First Things 92:16–20. Retrieved April 8, 2011 from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/articles/smith.html
Sorey, K. and M. Duggan. 2008. ‘‘Homeschoolers Entering Community Colleges: Perceptions of Admission Officers.’’
Journal of College Admission 200:22–28.
Stevens, M. 2001. Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sutton, L. and Y. Bogan. 2005. ‘‘School Choice: The Fiscal Impact of Home Education in Florida.’’ AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice 2(2):5–9. Sutton, L. and R. Galloway. 2000. ‘‘College Success of Students from Three High School Settings.’’ Journal of Research
in Development and Education 33(3):137–146.
Taylor, J. 1986a. ‘‘Self-Concept in Home-Schooling Children.’’ Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University. UMI
Dissertation Services.
Taylor, J. 1986b. ‘‘Self-Concept in Home-Schooling Children.’’ Home School Researcher 2(2):1–3.
Taylor-Hough, D. 2010. ‘‘Are All Homeschooling Methods Created Equal?’’ Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://
www.eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/PDFS/ED510702.pdf
Thompson, J. 1994. ‘‘The Impact of Structural Costs on Home Schooling Decision in Rural and Non-Rural Districts.’’
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, Nashville, TN, March
16–19, 1994.
Tillman, V. D. 1995. ‘‘Home Schoolers, Self Esteem, and Socialization.’’ Home School Researcher 11(3):1–6.
Van Galen, J. 1991. ‘‘Ideologies and Pedagogues: Parents Who Teach Their Children at Home.’’ Pp. 63–76 in Home- schooling: Political, Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives, edited by J. Van Galen and M. Pittman. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Wartes, J. 1987. Report from the 1986 Homeschool Testing and Other Descriptive Information about Washington’s Homeschoolers. WA: Washington Homeschool Research Project.
Wartes, J. 1988. ‘‘The Washington Home School Project: Quantitative Measures for Informing Policy Decisions.’’
Education and Urban Society 21(1):42–51.
Wartes, J. 1990. The Relationship of Selected Input Variables to Academic Achievement among Washington’s Home- schoolers. WA: Washington Homeschool Research Project.
Webb, J. 1989. ‘‘The Outcomes of Home-Based Education: Employment and Other Issues.’’ Educational Review
41(2):121–133.
OUTCOMES OF HOMESCHOOLING 271
Welner, K. and K. M. Welner. 1999. ‘‘Contextualizing Homeschooling Data: A Response to Rudner.’’ Education Policy Analysis Archives 7(13).
Wenders, J. and A. Clements. 2007. ‘‘An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Home and Private Schooling in Nevada.’’
Home School Researcher 17(2):13–35.
Wenger, J. and A. Hodari. 2004. Final Analysis of Evaluation of Homeschool and Challenge Program Recruit. Alexandria, VA: CNA Corp.
Wilhelm, G. and M. Firman. 2009. ‘‘Historical and Contemporary Developments in Home School Education.’’ Journal
of Research on Christian Education 18:303–315. Williams, D., L. M. Arnoldson, and P. Reynolds. 1984. ‘‘Understanding Home Education: Case Studies of Home
Schools.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA, April 23–37.
Winstanley, C. 2009. ‘‘Too Cool for School?: Gifted Children and Homeschooling.’’ Theory and Research in Education 7(3):347–362.
Wright, C. 1988. ‘‘Home School Research: Critique and Suggestions for the Future.’’ Education and Urban Society
21(1):96–113.
272 J. MURPHY
Copyright of Sociological Spectrum is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
