i: .130... fivKrL an: Gil. «41. 3.2.51. sub?! : 2.13.... (.49.: I... 3 : 5, 1 Nu , . ”£5.19” .36.»- u .31 . 1.3.5 :3) . $331: “3.5%.. . .35.! lvuuu 3 x ‘ #JWHWIU r: ugivasa, z r Juan-H.“ .IIA. . .; [a I15! ‘3 r P. . .. Jam»... 1mm... .H-S “ u... emu: . i! I? V1! m 1 vol .Ifl‘l S .. t 3 .I . wwwnwmnurzsn..§w§na a. $4.0“: an“; . ‘ . A. 2 ‘0; it (8. ... . umhw .. twigs: a. . 1 1w 1....7! . fig“? . 1nd” angnunn i aiaiill.‘ I JKQC. v . . 3d. .. 2.2.31 ‘ : 7“‘§d.5 ‘ ‘13.)K8r‘ II. . 3.4 .589.“ 9.1. \Q. . 591:..1‘ $ i ,u‘mlr; .. “Wrfifimuflu tidflflxhhd ‘ , xi: 1...: fig. 3' 1| . . ‘ “An .I ‘0 . 4'. 1.0-. . {F161, . .x . :ri‘ ,I..‘s.;:..‘f.,\... }} .. $+u1fiumnst$mwéigéfi Fflflrwan‘mvm »t. ‘ \ 3 THESIS Q ‘ IlllllllllIllillllllllllliIllillill‘llllllllllllllllllllllllll ‘ 3 1293 02060 415 N .28. LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. '_TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE WW REE Y*v 11/00 mnncmmwspu PARADIGMATIC ORIENTATIONS IN HONEE AND PRIVATE SCHOOLING FAMILIES by Christine Pegorraro A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CI'HLD DEVELOPMENT Department of Family and Child Ecology 1999 ABSTRACT PARADIGMATIC ORIENTATIONS IN HOME AND PRIVATE SCHOOLING FAMILIES By Christine Pegorraro Homeschoolers and private schoolers were compared using tools that quantify family dynamics and reflect the reasons that parents chose a non-traditional means of education. The guiding research questions were: 1) Can a link be identified between the choice to homeschool/private school and the family interactional patterns as identified as paradigmatic orientation scores on the Family Regime Assessment Scale, and 2) Are the paradigmatic orientations different in homeschooling versus private schooling households. The frequencies of the paradigmatic orientations indicated a wide range of paradigmatic orientation within both groups. Both groups showed high frequencies of open-type families as well as closed-open and open-random combinations. Closed and synchronous paradigms were the lowest frequencies. There was no discernible difference in paradigmatic orientation between groups. Logistic and multiple regression models, and correlation coefficients were used to search for associations between the reasons for the schooling choice and the paradigmatic orientations. Each of the four paradigms: closed, random, open and synchronous, were examined in relationship to the schooling choice factors from both questionnaires. There was a weak link between the closed paradigm and religion. All other possible relationships between paradigm and schooling choice were found to be insignificant. Copyright by CHRISTINE PEGORRARO 1999 th ur WI Ihi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my husband Benjamin Schull, and my family and friends for their love and understanding. I am very grateful to all my committee members for their collective scholarship and support. Thank you, Dr. Marsha Carolan for your participation on my thesis committee. Special thanks to Drs. Francisco Villarruel and David Imig, for their unwavering support. I am deeply appreciative of the guidance of Dr. Francisco Villarruel, who unfailingly encouraged me to persevere, and Dr. David Imig who inspired me to think of family systems in a captivating and profound way. iv Table of Contents 1. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction Overview Statement of the problem Theoretical approach Conceptual model 2. Literature Review Approaches to the assessment of family interaction Philosophies and orientations in learning and family interactions in homeschools Educational orientations Objectives related to family interaction Educational philosophies Present work on homeschooling and family Paradigmatic Theory Essentialism, control, ideology and the closed paradigm Perennialism, protection, ideology, and the synchronous paradigm Progressivism, closeness, pedagogy, and the Open paradigm Existentialism, self-actualization, pedagogy, and the random paradigm Educational philosophies and paradigmatic theory Demographics of public, private, and homeschools Demographics of homeschools Demographics of private schools Why families choose homeschooling Religious and moral education Academic achievement Social or relational closeness Individualized curriculums Urban violence Special needs Why families choose private school Religious and moral education page huh-v— 0000\I\I 11 ll 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 17 17 19 20 20 20 21 21 Academic achievement Small classrooms/small community Individualized curriculums Lack of discipline and urban violence Special needs Conclusion of Literature Search 3. Methods Participants and design Measure Demographic questionnaire Choices for Educational Placement questionnaire Family Regime Assessment Scale Anonymity/confidentiality Data analysis 4. Results Ethnic background Gender/sex of parent Demographic factors Schooling characteristics Paradigmatic orientation and group membership Paradigmatic orientation in target dimensions Paradigmatic orientation in access dimensions Dimensional orientation by group Overall paradigmatic orientation by group Relationship between schooling choice factors and paradigmatic orientation Qualitative data Quality of education School environment is “too large” Values or religious beliefs Frustration with the “system” Conclusion 6. Chapter 5-Discussion Demographic data Paradigmatic ranges of home and private schooling families Paradigmatic orientation and the reasons for home/private schooling. Qualitative data Limitations of the study vi 22 22 22 23 23 23 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 29 29 29 32 32 34 36 39 51 54 54 54 55 55 57 58 58 59 60 6O Implications for research Implications for educators/public policy Conclusion Appendices A. UCRHS approval B. Letter of consent C. Recruitment letter and survey cover letters D. Demographic scales for home and private schooling families E. Choices for educational placement questionnaire for home and private schooling families F. Family Regime Assessment Scale References vii 61 61 63 64 66 68 70-72 74-79 81-86 88-90 92-96 Index of Tables 12111: 1. Comparison of previous research and family paradigm theory 2. T-Test of demographic differences between groups 3. Frequencies of Paradigmatic Orientations in Home and Private Schooling Households 4. Pearson’s Chi Square of Dimensional Orientation by Group 5. Logistic Regression of Overall Paradigm Score by Group 6. Multiple Regression of Closed Paradigm Score and Ranked Importance of Factors in Making Schooling Choice 7. Multiple Regression of Open Paradigm Score and Ranked Importance of Factors in Making Schooling Choice 8. Multiple Regression of Random Paradigm Score and Ranked Importance of Factors in Making Schooling Choice 9. Multiple Regression of Synchronous Paradigm Score and Ranked Importance of Factors in Making Schooling Choice 10. Correlations of Paradigm Scores and Schooling Choice Factors viii Page 10 33 37 49 49 52 52 52 52 53 7.1 8.1 Index of Figures figures 9. . Ethnic/Racial Background . Gender/Sex of Parent . School Attendance Choices in Homeschooling Families . School Attendance Choices in Private Schooling Families . Overall Paradigmatic Tendencies . Paradigmatic Orientations in Control Dimension . Paradigmatic Orientations in Affect Dimension . Paradigmatic Orientations in Content Dimensions Paradigmatic Orientations in Meaning Dimension 10. Paradigmatic Orientations in Time Dimension 11. Paradigmatic Orientations in Space Dimension 12. Paradigmatic Orientations in Energy Dimension 13. Paradigmatic Orientations in Material Dimension ix Page 30 31 35 35 38 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 T?) at na C l pla eth 192 Im; link One Oriel Chapter I Introduction Glenda: Homeschooling and private schooling is a growing phenomena in the United States. As parents and communities look for alternative ways to enhance the quality of education, enrollment in private and home-based schools is increasing while the numbers of children in conventional public school classrooms are dropping. Approximately 7,711,000 children attend private school (US. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Over 920,000 children nationwide are schooled at home (National Home Education Research Institute, 1998). Children schooled at home have higher levels of academic achievement, lower levels of playground aggression, are less peer dependent and come from a variety of socioeconomic ethnic and religious backgrounds (Ray, 1988; Wartes, 1987; Gladin, 1987; Knowles, 1988). With increasing options for educational settings, the need to explore how this impacts families is of growing concern. The guiding research questions were: 1) Can a link be identified between the choice to homeschool/private school and the paradigmatic orientation scores on the Family Regime Assessment Scale, and 2) are the paradigmatic orientations different in homeschooling households versus private schooling households. StatemenLijhepmblem Private and home education is growing exponentially in popularity. Although private schools have existed for many years, they have not provoked the controversy that the recent growth in homeschooling has ignited. The growth toward alternative schooling is a shift in the social contract that would advocate public schooling almost without exception. The reluctant adjustment to homeschooling/private schooling has been hotly debated; inflamed by issues relating to money: vouchers, tax refiinds, partial programs, and the dubious request of some states that designated public school educators act as overseers or advisors to homeschoolers. As a result, the roles of family support services and school districts have become unclear, creating a breeding ground for misunderstanding and myth. 1 Pr 011 be: the 19C, Elc: aga: Nari ofht acad do n Still r the (3 slow} home there dlfler; aeader re3€ar. dITiarr homes 3"“th Ofimer popula; homer... Private schoolers have been accused of elitism and being responsible for an inevitable breaking of the democratic fiber of society (Free Inquiry, Fall 1992.) Homeschooling has been referred to as a covert operation carried out by the fundamentalist right. to inhibit their children from learning other world views (Michigan State University, State News, 1994; Humanist, 1996; Church and State, 1996). The National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Parent-Teachers Association actively lobby against vouchers and other funding for hOmeschooling in their platforms. In 1988, the National Education Association adopted a resolution calling for more rigorous regulation of homeschooling (Lines, 1996). In spite of the research that has shown social and academic success of homeschoolers in a variety of areas, critics still charge that students do not get as rich an academic and social life as in conventional classrooms. Educators still respond that the evidence for homeschooling, “is not in” (USA Weekend, 1998). In the end, homeschoolers are seen as misfits in society. This is changing as homeschooling has made some legislative gains, and more slowly-some educational credibility. Nonetheless, there is a pervasive image that homeschoolers are merely families who cannot operate within the social norm. Ultimately, there is still a perception that the families who choose to home educate must display different patterns of relating than would “normal” public schooling families. Although academic achievement and demographic data of homeschoolers has been widely researched (Ray. 1992, Wartes, 1987; Gladin, 1987; Knowles, 1988), research on family dynamics or parenting in the homeschooling household is sparse, if nonexistent. In homeschools, household roles and responsibilities may be altered due to the change in structure and environment. Case studies and research reports indicate that the spectrum of interaction styles in homeschooling families is comparable to that of the rest of the population at large. The way to examine family interactional patterns in homeschooling households is to compare homeschoolers versus non-homeschoolers using tools that R 11C emit I650 would quantify family dynamics and reflect the reasons that parents choose a non-traditional means of education. Iheoneticalappmach One theoretical approach that can be applied to enhance the knowledge base regarding the impact of homeschooling on individuals and families is the ecological theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). This theory emphasizes the contextual interrelationships that exist between individuals, families, physical environment, the community and the larger level of cultural norms and values of a society. Each of these levels exert contextual influence on the individual and are embedded within one another. They are labeled the: microsystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and the macrosystem with each one based on a greater level of complexity of influence. Ecosystems theory focuses on the family as the basic unit of analysis (Bubolz & Sontag, 1991). The micro level of the family interacting with the macro level of the environment enables researchers to examine how the family system uses environmental resources to achieve goals. Human Ecology theory is based on assumptions that families interact with multiple environments, that these environments are comprised of distinct physical and sociocultural dimensions, and, that they are interdependent and influence each other. For the purposes of this study, the microsystem is the child being educated, the exosystem is the family, the mesosystem is the community, and the macrosystem is society at large. This research focuses on the exosystem. Parents decide that it is in the best interest of their child to attend a private school or learn at home. In doing so, they have decided that within their family, this is an option that works. Often this is a decision that is met with resistance from the mesosystem and macrosystem. For this reason, it is an enormous commitment to home or private school and it is reasonable to assume that there are deeply held reasons for doing so. Previous research would support that there are some common IE3 the mo Ass hor bec to 1 self beh the Ihec SCH! one mea ten IIIOI reasons for not sending one’s child to public school, but there is nothing to indicate that the family systems all look the same (Frechtling, 1981. Bauch, I992) ConceptuaLmodel It is argued that homeschooling affects all individuals in the family. In an effort to model the impact of homeschooling on interpersonal family dynamics, the Family Regime Assessment Scale (FRAS) was selected to measure the paradigmatic orientation of homeschooling and private schooling families. The parenting version was selected because one parent in each participating household was to fill out the scale in accordance to his/her perceptions of family dynamics. The parenting version of the FRAS is a self-administered assessment scale is based on an ecological model which reflects internal behavior and its impact on other family members (Imig, 1991). The parenting version of the F RAS is an effective tool to observe families because it quantifies paradigmatic family theory (Constantine, 1986; Kantor & Lehr, 1984). Participants can identify goals in a series of individual, related questions. The scale results break down the paradigmatic orientation in eight dimensions of: 1) time, 2) energy, 3) space, 4) material 5) content, 6) meaning, 7) control, and 8) affect. In addition scores are given for overall paradigmatic tendencies 1) closed, 2) random, 3) open, and 4) synchronous. The results will be far more objective than researcher observation. the con rnai dime spac “hat 1984 518161 are jm. lfldhjd Chapter 2 Literature Review | | E i] 'l . . Kantor and Lehr (1975) outlined a method of measuring family interaction focusing on the family in its natural setting. This approach extracts the fundamental processes common to all families and sets up a systematic framework that can be used to analyze all major features of family life. Central to this approach for examining interaction is the documentation and assessment of daily activities of family members. There are eight dimensions of resources that families use according to systems theory. They are: time, space, energy, material, control, affect, content, and meaning. These dimensions capture what families are trying to give and receive as they relate to one another (Kantor & Lehr, 1984). Constantine (1986) extended the work of Kantor and Lehr by recognizing four stereotypical types of family systems: closed, open, random and synchronous systems. Goals of families are viewed through four interrelated paradigms (Constantine, 1986). These paradigms are described as closed, random, open, and synchronous. Closed systems are closely related to synchronous systems, whereas random and open systems are the complements to each other. The paradigms parallel the orientations previously found in homeschooling research. A closed family system is primarily structured in its use of the dimensions. This system embraces stability, is family-oriented and believes in absolute truths and unquestionable traditions, which are viewed as permanent. Order is a primary goal in the closed family, since anything other than order would be chaos. Authority is respected and obedience is rewarded. A synchronous family is harmonious, firnctional and feels effortless in their use of all the dimensions. Synchronicity involves timelessness. For the synchronous family, truths are invariant, ultimate and endure forever. There is a transcendent identification of the individual with the group. Like the closed family, the highest goal is following the rules or 5 doing what is right, but in a synchronous family this does not need to be discussed at length because it is simply understood. An open family achieves goals by analyzing and discussing mutual objectives. Life is viewed as a process which integrates past, present, and future. There is great emphasis on mutuality and interdependence. Truth is negotiated, pragmatic, relative, and absolute when decided upon by the whole family. This corresponds closely with the definitions of pedagogy, progressivism, and closeness (Knowles, 1992; Mayberry, 1988; Van Galen, 1988). The random family celebrates individuality in order for each family member to the maximal use of access and target dimensions. The emphasis in a random system is the present. It can be said that the essence of randomness is "carpe diem." Counterdependence is encouraged. Change, innovation, and opposition are necessary for the family to remain in balance. Truth is perceived to be a personal decision which is relative and transient. The random system resembles the open one, but instead of the emphasis being on mutual understanding, it is based on individual fi'eedom. Previous research has indicated that there are four groupings of characteristics present in homeschooling families, these groupings parallel the four identified by paradigmatic family theory. It is reasonable to assume that using paradigmatic family theory, all four paradigms, as well as combinations of paradigms will be represented in the homeschooling population. There is no research that identifies four groupings in the private schooling population, yet their reasons for sending their children to private school ofien mirror the reasons of homeschooling families (F rechtling, 1982), so it is reasonable to assume that this population will also display a wide variety of paradigms. Because of the controversial nature of homeschooling it is logical to compare the parent-educating group to a control group that has chosen a more traditional form of education. Private schools have classrooms and schools structures that closely mirror public schools with some differences, such as smaller class size. Private schools and homeschool have similar ethnic 6 ant sch Ehi obj Ma con tent par; hon curt COD stud item “en lists Hon p OVer SOOC SChQ. SOUR CTeat ”01 rr and socio-economic characteristics. Thus it would seem reasonable to choose private schools as the comparison group. .I. . ...’- A. H... . .H . an.” .H 7"". . .H . ”w H. Four educational philosophies, educational orientations, and family interaction objectives have been repeatedly identified in homeschooling families (Knowles, 1991; Mayberry, 1988; Van Galen, 1988). The findings in each study parallel each other and contain similar tendencies identified and operationalized in family systems theory. The tendencies can be broken down as follows: educational orientations, educational philosophies, objectives for homeschooling as related to family interaction, and family paradigms. Educationamdcmmims- Research has documented two main orientations in the homeschooling educational process: Ideology and Pedagogy (Van Galen, 1986). These curricular approaches were discovered in mass quantity in three separate studies conducted in Oregon and Utah (Mayberry, 1988; Knowles et a1, 1991). The Mayberry study consisted of a two stage research design that included a questionnaire with 154 items mailed to 1,600 home school families throughout the State of Oregon. The families were identified from the registration lists of Oregon's Educational Service Districts, which lists various Oregon home school support groups, and the subscription list of Teaching Home magazine (Mayberry, 1988). Parents who homeschooled for ideological reasons were concerned with having control over the curriculum to ensure that children were exposed to what parents believed was good for them. In addition, they believed that family unity was strengthened by the home school experience. These parents were more conservative in their ideologies, though some were non-traditional. The families mimicked traditional school, even in some cases, creating a schoolroom. The control of the content of a child's education, however, was not relinquished to the institution of public schooling. Pedagogues questioned the ability of public schools to provide educational programs and learning environments conducive to the academic and social development of their children. This group of parents celebrated the individuality and uniqueness of each child's learning style, and they believed that public school standards in terms of academic achievement was too lenient. Some pedagogically oriented parents viewed homeschooling as a natural continuation of the learning process between parent and child that was initiated in infancy (Mayberry & Knowles, 1988). Qbicsmxeimlatcdjgfamtlgunmmm- In a separate, but related study, researchers utilized a variety of data collection approaches including written life history accounts, structured interviews, observations and personal journals (Knowles, 1989). There were four central issues of importance for homeschooling families as related to family interactions: control, protection, self-actualization, and closeness. These four categorizations more closely defined the tendencies of families identified in ideology/pedagogy. Control placed a high value on parental control over children's loyalty, growth and activities. Protection was an emphasis on the children's moral development fi'om perceived divergent societal values. Self-actualization sought to promote individual attention in order to maximize the development of children's unique creativity and potential. Closeness invested itself with the close nature of relationships within the family; these parents see the home school as greatly increasing the interdependence of family members. It is important to note that the two independently conducted studies came up with similar groupings of characteristics for homeschooling families. This implies that an assessment tool that incorporates these four groupings would be effective. Educationalfihflnsophies- Hood (1991) undertook a content analysis of books, magazines, workshop materials and curriculum resources that have been targeted at the homeschooling market in recent years, in order to better understand the educational philosophies of homeschooling families. F our educational philosophies emerged: 1) 8 at in an CU: he enu ChOI scho Onen OVem repea Patac BUHh' amen; essentialism, 2)progressivism, 3) perennialism, and 4) individualism (Hood, 1991). Essentialism was described as being invested in preserving traditional values and a way of life The predictors of success are hard work, obedience and order. Authority and a respect for hierarchy are importance in an essentialist system. Progressivist thought is rooted in the 1870's philosophy of pragmatism, is committed to adaptation, democracy, and growth. Great emphasis is placed on relationships of individuals with each other. Morality and rules are determined by the group. Perennialism is based on the idea of absolute values which are timeless, understood, and exist in all cultures. Perennialist educators advocate the use of one classical curriculum for all students. Traditional ideas such as structured time, order and linear hierarchy are emphasized. Individuality is the trademark of Existential thought. Within this perspective, the emphasis is on the individual rights to enter into authentic relationships with others, to choose their own curricula, and, to avoid labels which stifles creativity. Previous research has indicated that parents have deeply-held reasons for choosing to school their child at home. At times this belief has been expressed as an educational orientation. or a objectives for the homeschool as related to family interaction or an overall philosophy. However it is expressed, the same values and goals emanate repeatedly E l‘ l I I. I l] .I I. . 1 Upon close examination, it appears that there are many parallels between family paradigm theory, educational orientations, objectives for homeschooling as related to family interaction and educational philosophies. Consistently four groupings tend to emerge as important philosophies to the family systems being studied. These groupings are identified in curricular approaches, family objectives, and overall philosophies as related to education. These parallels are further illustrated in Table 1. Insert Table 1 about here 292.229... .9 «M93295 923%.; 2...»... I 939.5. 999..“ 2.. 2.. 99.... .2292. 9.9.9.. .23 29.32 3.99.9932. I 92.0 3.2.9.9.. 3222.2: .23 5.22.999 :9 9.3.2.39 I 9223.32.99.28 2.2.3239. 2.23.. 2.. .9 9.33.. 29.9 2.. 999999.... 9. a. .99» I 99.2.9920 5.9.32.2.» 99 23.2.39 2.22.: 2.. .2. 9992.9 9.3 939.992....9 I 32.22.92.3— 92.992329 .23 92.9.9.2. 2.9.3 9.3 92:92 2.22.2392. I 2.93.3939...— d9..§. M2239. .9 32.2.29: .23 9.3.2.9... .5 SS... - 2.2.2.2929; 99 2.3....EH .......9 .23 2.9.3.. 99959.. 2.999.... 95.59. 3.95. 2: .9 .39 3 92392.9 99m 9222.9 2.9.... 92:99:90 I 999992.99.— 999...» 9.2.92.9 £99.92... :9 993.. a. 5.2.2.. 9.9.3 I 2.9992993 222.9... 999..“ .23 92.9.9999 .2293 9.3.. 99 23.2.2.9 I 998.0 992.9.. 3.2.3.. .23 2.2.2.2992. .292. 9.22.9 .9 929929.... a. .39w I 92.929...— 5329. .23 999399.992. .539.» 9.2.2.9 9. .8239 232...... 9.92.32. 9. a. .39w I .9230 99......» 9.29.2... .23 89.92... :9 99.3.. 2 39.99.9999 I 9.2.3.9229.— .392293... .23 99.2599...» 9.. 9. 232 23.99.9999 I 32.9.2.9»...— 2.2.9.35 92392.9 .9 2.2999 99.9 .8230 299999.292. 9.: 2.. 99:22.5... 9. 2...... 2.23..— . 292.99 399.923... 9.3.2 .. 22.9.. £2.39 9.0.925 .. 999M299..— 29399992... 2.5.2.9.“.9. 99929.. 9.93.9953 29.299999... 2....E9K 9.9 M2..~99.~99r9£9.~ s9\.9.99.299.80 99...: 2.199922% 39929999.” 9.29.99.29.99 329299.23 i3... 8.32.2 98.. :25 53 E99... 2.2.3.3.. 2.23.. .23 293999.. 2.29.... .9 28.39390 I — 939,—. 10 WWWM— One ofthe primary goals of essentialism is the preservation of traditional values and a democratic way of life. Essentialists believe that they know what knowledge and skills are essential for students to acquire in order to be prepared for adult life. An orderly environment is considered to be mandatory. The curriculum tends to be structured and centered on traditional subjects (the 3R5). The homeschool tends to resemble the traditional school. (Hood, 1991). Control as a family unity objective is identified in families who perceive outside influences, such as the state as a challenge to their control. They are committed to maintaining primary influence in their children’s learning activities, growth, development and loyalty (Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). Within the broader characterization of ideology, parents find critical importance in controlling the content of material and lessons their children learned. Having control over the curriculum ensured that the children were exposed to what the parents believed was good for them. Once the curriculum is chose, often ideologists will choose a structure that mimics traditional schools. Many parents even create a schoolroom at home (Van Galen; 1988. Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). The closed paradigm in paradigmatic theory has less permeable boundaries for information. The information that enters the household is filtered. There is an emphasis on obedience, hard work and self-discipline. Closed family systems include a hierarchy (Imig,l992). All four orientations share the commonalties of order, hierarchy and well-defined boundaries. This is not to paint a picture of systems that subscribe to these philosophies as rigid. Most families include these elements at one time or another. In any case, these are the beliefs espoused by these families and it is successful for them. WWW- Perennialism adheres to the existence of absolute values which are timeless and exist in all cultures. Within the homeschooling movement, the most prominent force is in the educational II E v a pl 50 lic Ol'll em “a! eSpc flann Sync throu birel famll} COmm EOOd. philosophies of Charlotte Mason, an English educator. The Charlotte Mason philosophy of education includes a broad literature, music and art-based curriculum and the instructional role of the teacher is downplayed (Hood, 1991). Protection as a family unity objective is identified in parents who are concerned about protecting their children’s moral development and family values from perceived divergent societal values and morality. They believe in the existence of absolute values (Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). Ideology does identify as main goals teaching children specific knowledge and values. Homeschooling is seen as a way to strengthen the family unit. Many ideologically oriented home school parents implement their own philosophy within the teaching environment by seeking out their own topics for curriculum in accordance to what they want their children to learn (Van Galen, 1988; Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). The synchronous paradigm can best be described in its timelessness. Synchronicity espouses absolute values which are not bound by generation or culture. Members of the family self-identify as part of a whole unit before identifying their individuality. Synchronicity includes a quiet, tranquil “knowing” one’s role and purpose while moving through life (Imig, 1992). All four orientations share a strong sense that there is a universe of absolutes, unbound by relativity of circumstance or societal situation. All four also place an emphasis on the family group more strongly than on members as individuals. Each of these orientations are committed to their shared philosophies to the extent that they will protect them for the good of the whole, even at cost of inconvenience of the individual. W- The roots of progressivism trace back to the pragmatic philosophies influenced by evolutionary theory. The focus is on change, adaptation and grth and on interrelationship of individuals and their social and physical environment. Individuals are encouraged to question and 12 challenge established norms and view truth in the context of situations. Norms are developed by the group and may change (Hood, 199 I ). Closeness is subscribed to by parents who feel concerned about the close nature of the relationships within the family itself. Homeschooling is seen as a means to increase the interdependence of the family unit. These families cherish the opportunity to spend their hours in the day together, rather than apart while learning the topics that have been deemed important by the whole group (Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). Pedagogues usually attempt to make their home schools as different from formal school as possible. They define learning in personal individual terms and are concerned with providing their children with positive and nurturing learning experiences. Close parent-child bonding is a primary objective for teaching children at home. Pedagogically oriented parents, sometimes express the need to be with their children during their early years so that the foundations of family unity could be laid (Van Galen, 1988. Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). The open paradigm is best characterized as a democracy. There is an emphasis on the interrelationships within the group. Norms and rules are usually discussed and decided upon by the group. In the same way, values and goals are determined and approved by all members (Imig, 1992). The four orientations all value interdependence within the group structure. The interrelationships serve not only as a support but also as a means for defining important issues. Individuality is acknowledge, but is approved of in terms of how it affects the whole group. Existentialists emphasize the individual and his or her relationship to world and to other people. The curriculum is freely chosen by the individual, and parents often participate in the learning experience by sharing their own individual interests with children. Learning 13 si‘ ex; to l ten Klaj adap famil famil. situations tend to develop spontaneously and expand on the students’ own interests (Hood, 1991). Self-actualization refers to the desire parents have to see their child grow and develop as individuals in the learning process. Parents feel individual attention is needed in order to maximize the development of their child’s unique creativity and potential. The focus in on the individual growth of the child, as opposed to the impact of decisions on the family (Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). In pedagogical families, curricular materials are organized around informal and experiential learning. Pedagogues encourage children to analyze and criticize as opposed to memorizing the material they are learning. They define learning in personal, individual terms, but leave unexamined the limitations on individual freedoms (Van Galen, I988. Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). The random paradigm focuses heavily on individuality. Although there is certainly a group identity, the individual goals are prioritized. The random system is one which adapts easily, indeed often requires change to provide new challenges to the individual family members. The uniqueness of each person is celebrated and emphasized and the family might be defined as a grouping of individuals (Imig, I992). WWW-1t is notable that within the four theories the same tendencies and worldviews emerge. This is consistent with family paradigmatic theory which indicates that the four paradigms can be found in some form in all systems (Constantine, 1986). Ideologies which approximate family paradigmatic theory have been found in separate, unrelated studies. It would seem clear that an examination of the homeschooling population using family paradigm theory would find the four paradigms present in the sample. The fact that the paradigms closely parallel the previous research on homeschooling would indicate that an instrument that quantifies family paradigm theory would be USCfiJl in looking at the homeschooling population, and as a comparison group, the private 14 schooling population. The Family Relational Assessment Scale, (parenting version of the parenting version of the FRAS) is a quantitative, non—positivistic scale appropriate for testing family theory. The advantage of using the parenting version of the parenting version of the F RAS in looking at homeschooling and private schooling families is that the four tendencies/philosophies have been operationalized allowing examination within and between families. According to the US Bureau of the Census there are 54,741,000 children Pre—Kindergarten-12th grade enrolled in school. Approximately 47,030,000 of those children attend public school. A smaller number (7,711,000) attend private school (1997). There is no argument that public school is the dominant educational force in America. Private and homeschools are considered to be “altemative”-other choices from what is the mainstream practice or norm. There is not one particular stereotype that is true of public schools. Urban schools are very different than rural schools and most people accept that there is a diversity of resources, services, and quality of public schools depending on the geographical location and year. In contrast, there are widely-held stereotyped images of private and homeschoolers as usually that of upper-middle class, Caucasian families living in the suburbs. Inarguably, homeschoolers and private schoolers do not display the diversity of public schools, however, the conventional image is not always correct. Dcmogmphiciofhomeschools- Nearly 98% of homeschooling educators are white/Caucasian. Afiican—Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, each comprise less than 1%. Asian Americans account for 1% of the total homeschooling population (Mayberry, et al, 1995). Since the homeschooling usually means that one parent stays home to teach, homeschooling is not commonly found in families that are struggling financially. Homeschooling is primarily a middle class activity, although it has been reported that 15% of surveyed parents operating homeschools on income below $20,000.00 per year (Mayberry, et al, 1995). Finally it is notable that many 15 hc SH thi Ch; uh and hon pnn 49° 10p j HOHfl stud- Pm‘a Pubii amdq indica tests er a1. 19% than J mil}? (' teaChf homeschooling parents do not hold degrees in education or other four—year degrees. A small percentage (10%) have not attended post-secondary school (Mayberry, et al, 1995). One on one instruction and a strong commitment to the homeschool seems to make up for this. Research studies have not found any significant relationship between homeschooled children’s achievement scores and parental educational attainment(Havens, 1991; Ray, 1990,1992, Ray & Wartes, 1991). W— Nearly 78% of all private schooling students are white/Caucasian. 9.2% are African/American, 8% are Hispanic, 4.6% are Asian-American and less than 1% are Native American (US. Department of Education, 1998). As with homeschooling, private education requires a tremendous financial commitment. It is primarily a middle-class phenomenon. 43% of private elementary school students and 49% of private secondary school students come from high income families-defined as the top 20% of all family incomes. There are three primary types of private schools: Catholic, other religious, and non-sectarian. 80% of private schools offer a regular elementary program, and most students who attend private school attend a Catholic school. Indeed, 50% of the nation’s private school students attend a parochial school (US. Department of Education, 1998). Public impression seems to be that expensive private schools offer a more challenging academic curriculum and smaller, individualized classrooms. Hotly debated research has indicated that children who attend private school tend to score higher on standardized tests, in certain subject areas and/or be more likely to attend a graduate degree (Coleman et al, 1982; Hanus & Cookson; 1996; Gamoran, 1996; US Department of Education, 1996). Certainly there is a wide public perception that private schools are more rigorous than public schools. The National Association of Independent schools refers to this perception as a truth (1998), and the National School Boards Association refers to it as a myth (Anderson & Resnick, 1997). Notably this debate continues although private school teachers are less likely to be certified or have obtained a graduate degree. However, as I6 with homeschooling, the class sizes are smaller, and research indicates that small class size produces an improvement in student learning (Anderson & Resnick, 1997). Homeschooling represents a sociological shift back to the earliest learning methods of small multi-age groups. This shift is an enormous deviation from the social contract that espouses present-day public education as fundamentally American. When Americans think of schooling or education, the imagery that springs to mind is an age-grouped classroom of 20-30 children with one teacher for six hours through the course of a morning and afiernoon. Homeschooling generally consists of 1-5 children and one parent. The schedule is not confined to 8am to 3pm. It may or may not be over the course of a September-June school year. Though it is not possible to categorize everyone who makes a decision to homeschool, there are some common reasons/concerns that parents have in making the determination to educate their child at home. These are 1) Religious or moral training 2) Academic Success 3) Social or Relational Closeness 4) Individualized curriculum 5) Urban Violence and 6) Special needs. RfiliginuiandmmLcducaflQn- The teaching of morals in school has garnered much attention in recent years. Arguably, the most vocal homeschoolers are those that homeschool because a growing shift away from the “3 Rs” and toward a holistic curriculum that includes values training. Many parents feel that the responsibility for moral education begins and ends at home. It is clear that a portion of homeschoolers do so for religious reasons. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that over 75% of homeschooling families regularly attend religious services (Ray, 1992). Academiszachimmcm- Academic success is a hotly debated topic amongst educators who are strongly in-favor or deeply opposed to homeschooling. Many studies have shown that homeschoolers score more highly on standardized tests than their public school counterparts. Within homeschooling communities, the research is well-known. 17 Within public education circles, it is presumed that limitations of homeschooling research make the results non-generalizable, invalid or unreliable. The National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the national Parent-Teacher Association have condemned homeschooling in their platforms and adopted resolutions calling for more rigorous regulation (Lines, 1995). One study which looked at curricula for homeschoolers used the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills to look at students achievement. Fifiy randomly selected test scores fi'om twenty-thousand scores showed the homeschooling average to be two to three grade levels above the national norms (Ray, 1988). The Alaska Department of Education found that their homeschooling correspondence students scored more one standard deviation or more above the national average (Ray, 1988). The Australian Department of Education discovered that their correspondence program was also highly successful (1977,1988). Delahooke (1986) noted that reading, mathematics and language scores of a small sample of children were found to be the average of one fiill grade above their actual grade level in all three subjects. Similarly, Wartes (1988) documented Stanford Achievement Test scores of homeschoolers and found them to be in the 68th percentile range in 1986 with 424 students, and in the 65-66th percentile range in 1988 with 873 students (Wartes, 1988) One identified weakness of homeschooling academic studies is that scores are often compared to the national averages of standardized tests. It is suggested that a more accurate comparison would take into consideration socio-economic status (SES) and parental involvement. One study did address the SES question by looking at Iowa Tests of Basic Skills scores for three comparison groups. The three groups were: 1) 58 home-schooled children whose parents indicated that their children would be in a private school if they were not home-schooled compared to the national norms for Catholic school students, 2) 34 home-schooled students of high socio-economic status compared with national norms of other high socio-economic status students, and 3) all 74 students 18 compared to the national norms. In all groups, the average tested grade equivalent scores were higher than the actual school grade level these tested students would have normally been in (Ray, 1988). Wows Anecdotal data indicates that many parents feel that they would like a little more time with their child (Guterson, 1989; Colfax & Colfax, 1988; Wallace, 1983). Some parents are concerned that their child might be lost in a classroom of 20-30 and would prefer that their son/daughter stay home and receive an adult’s undivided attention for an additional year or two. Some parents feel deeply that their child needs another year or two of parental nurturing before setting forth into the world of public school (Mayberry & Knowles, 1989). Socialization is a concern for homeschooling families and a criticism by others. Research has shown that most homeschoolers are involved in many different social situations though they are not in school. Most homeschoolers are involved in athletics, girl/boy scouts, music or dance lessons, and other social groups (Farenga, 1993; Montgomery, 1989). A study of 219 homeschoolers found that 52% of the children participated in 20-30 hours of organized community activities, 40% spent more than 30 hours with peers outside of their families, 67.9% spent 20 to 30+ hours with non-age peers, or children with more than one year age difference outside of the family (W artes, 1987) Self-concept was examined in a study that included 224 home-educated children in grades 4-12. Using the widely accepted Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale, Taylor (1987) found that the self-concept of the homeschooling child was higher than that of his/her public schooling peers on all six subscale scores and one standard deviation higher on the global scale (Delahooke, 1986). Social adjustment was measured in a study including 32 private school children and 28 home schooled children averaging 9 years of age. The outcome showed that both groups scored in the ‘Vvell-adjusted” range. The children in the 19 study fiom the private schools were much more peer oriented than were their homeschooling, independent counterparts. In contrast, Knowles (1991) noted no difference in social interactive skills of 54 adults who had been homeschooled. These adults did not grow up to be social misfits. Instead, they were working in careers that required them to be in contact with others. lndixiduafizcdfiumgulmm- Some parents appreciate the freedom of homeschooling to tailor a curriculum to a child’s particular needs (Mayberry, 1988). Homeschooling affords the luxury of working on phonics in shaving cream on the kitchen floor or “doubling up” today in order to enjoy the picnic and baseball game tomorrow. In a day where teachers are struggling to meet the learning styles of 30 children at one time, homeschooling is place where a child can read to themselves out loud, can slow down if the topic is challenging, and can press on ahead when he/she has achieved mastery. Individual desires of curriculum topics can more easily be honored. Parents know what their child’s interests are and can, for example, ask a child who loves horses to practice diagramming sentences in a passage of “Black Beauty”. Individualized curriculums appear to be particularly important to the family with a gified or special needs child. Unhatuiolcnce- This phenomena has not been discussed in homeschooling research. In some large cities, schools are a place where violence occurs. With the grth of gangs, illicit substances and other violent behavior, perpetrators are younger every year. More and more parents are afraid to send their child to school for fear that the child may be victimized or enticed by the wicked glamour of guns and drugs. This is a small, but growing population of homeschoolers. Speciameeds- A number of parents educate their children in home-based settings because they feel that the child’s special needs are most effectively addressed in an individualized setting. This is true of children with Attention Deficit Disorder because the kitchen table is at times an easier place for the child to stay focused. There is a great deal of curricular freedom to adapt to a multi-modal learning style of the child whose task 20 perseverance is short. Beyond Attention Deficit Disorder, there are a number of children whose special needs could make them targets of social pressure. In addition, it may be difficult for a school to accommodate the needs of a child with severe emotional-behavior disturbances. Chronically ill children may have weakened immune systems and the exposure to weather, other environments, and/or the germs of hundreds of children might put them at risk. In some states, parents of special needs children are denied any resources from the public school system unless the child is completely enrolled in public school. This dance between the special needs community and the public school community has resulted in a great deal of litigation and frustration on both sides. The choice to homeschool or to public school is not always made because it is the family’s preference, but because legal precedent and community response might force them into one or the other (Opuda, 1994). Private education is expensive, when considering that public education is already being paid for. Parents have deeply rooted reasons for choosing this path. In examining the reasons parents choose private school, some recurrent themes have emerged: 1) Religion 2) Academic success 3) Family and staff relations (small community) 4) Individualized pacing of curriculums 5) Urban Violence and perceived lack of discipline in public schools 6) Special needs of student more conducive to small class size(Frechtling & Frankel, 1982; Bauch, 1992). ReligiQuLandeLaLeducatiQn- It is widely known that many people who send their child to private school do so to encourage their religious education. Indeed, when examining the make-up of private schools, only 23% of schools and 15.3% of students are non-sectarian (US. Department of Education, 1998). Religious and moral education is another expectation that parents have of private schools (Frechtling & Frankel, 1982; Bauch, 1992). A majority of private schools in the nation are Catholic and it is expected that the curriculum will reflect a commitment to Christianity through Catholicism. A 21 smaller, but significant bulk of private schools are non-Catholic parochial schools. Growth of Catholic Schools has risen 20% in recent years (Guerra, 1992). It is estimated that 10% of all children are educated in a Christian school (Shanker, 1993). Academigachimmem- Academic reasons are one of the most compelling. Public school and homeschooling is essentially free (though homeschoolers do ofien spend money on curriculums). Private school almost always requires a tuition investment and one Of the primary reasons is because parents desire their children to obtain the best education possible. For many parents, that environment is private school where they feel the curriculum will be accelerated (Frechtling & Frankel, 1982. Maddaus, 1988. Bauch, 1992) SmallflassmomlsmachQmmunity- Some parents feel that public school classrooms are too big and uncontrolled. They like the idea that children who are disruptive to the school community can be more readily expelled. Teachers know the students well because the classrooms are smaller. Most parents feel that there are fewer discipline problems in a private school because the closer relationships that administrators and teachers have with the smaller community (Bauch, 1988. Frechtling & Frankel, 1982). Many parents who send their child to a parochial school feel strongly that their religious community is like an extended family. They perceive a sense of community in their parochial or private school that they did not feel in their public school system. It has been suggested that Catholic schools are seen as more likely than public schools to provide social networks and social cohesiveness based on the notion of a functional community (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987). Indhddualizcdfiumculums- Because classrooms are smaller, the environment can be individualized to a child. There is more freedom to direct a class in a different direction when just one or two students exhibits a need. Parents value the closer relationships that 22 develop between teacher and student and the subsequent affirming and nurturative effect it has on the child (Frechtling & Frankel, 1982, Conway, 1992). WWW— With violence on the uprise in many urban areas, parents are afraid that gang activity and other behavior problems will find its way into their neighborhood and affect their child. Many are disheartened by the idea that any school would have to install metal detectors at their doors-a necessity that has become all too frequent. The classroom in many areas is no longer the safe place it used to be. One solution to this growing problem is for parents to enroll their child in a private school. Because private schools are smaller and have fewer numbers in the classrooms, the adult to student ratio is much higher. Private schools are not legally defined as a right or requirement for children, but as a privilege. This sets up a unique accountability for students. In addition, private schools have the freedom to exercise expulsion as a means of discipline. This is great comfort of parents who feel that public schools cannot offer this same guarantee to control gang activity and school violence. SpeciaLneeds- It is widely known that children who have difficulty with task perseverance or are distractible fare better in a small group. Parents do indicate that small classrooms are more effective in the teaching/learning process. With growing numbers of children who struggle with Attention Deficit Disorder, it seems clear that smaller classrooms best fit their educational needs. Condusinngfll‘immmm Teaching in the home is a viable and preferred option for 920,000 children nationwide (National Home Education Research Institute, 1998). With the magnitude of people involved in homeschooling, it must be recognized as an impacting force in the ecological system of American society. A comparison study should be done in order to look at the paradigmatic differences between groups of families who homeschool and those who don’t. The trend toward charter, private and homeschooling creates unique opportunities to expand the parenting role to “educator”. Clearly, many parents are evolving to adapt to 23 the needs of their children and their individual family by choosing non-traditional school settings. Mainstream education and public opinion are adjusting to the change more slowly. The question then becomes: How do we support families who choose alternative education? It is crucial to understand the role of the school district, and family services in working with these families. In order to do so, we must unlearn the popular misconceptions and understand the complex family dynamics, as well as vastly differing motivations that make up these households. 24 Chapter 3 Methods This research was guided by two main objectives, to: identify the link between the choice to homeschool/private school and the paradigmatic orientation scores on the parenting version of the FRAS, and to compare the paradigmatic orientations of the homeschooling group and the private schooling group. In order to accomplish these objectives, two specific research questions were addressed. I. Do homeschooling and private schooling families fall into a range of paradigmatic orientations? H1 Parents’ responses on the FRAS will reflect a variety of paradigmatic orientations in both the homeschooling and private schooling groups. 2. Do parents choose to enroll their child in homeschool or private school based on their paradigmatic orientation? H2 Parents’ responses on the FRAS will correspond to their reasons for homeschooling or private schooling. E . . l l . The units of analysis were the individual families in Michigan to participate in the study. 1. 30 parents who homeschooled. 2. 30 parents who had enrolled their child in private school. Parents who had children enrolled in private elementary school will be recruited from Holy Cross and Resurrection schools in Lansing, MI. The principals of both schools sent a letter home with students. This letter introduced the purpose of the study and included a section at the bottom where interested parents provided their names and addresses. The letters were sent back to the school and the principals made them available to researchers. All but three of the participating homeschoolers were recruited from the Noah Webster Charter Academy in Ionia, Michigan. The other three participants heard of the study by 25 word of mouth and requested to participate. Beginning in 1996, participant families were contacted by the administration of the Noah Webster Charter Academy. At this time, families indicated if they wished to make their names available to the researchers. Noah Webster Administration forwarded the names of interested parents. Interested families were sent the consent form, the parenting version of the Family Relationship Assessment Scale, a questionnaire to obtain information related to choices for school placement, and a demographic scale to fill out and mail in a pre-addressed stamped envelope. When some surveys were not received within three weeks, a reminder note was sent, along with a second copy of the survey instruments. Upon receipt of the completed surveys, participant families received a thank-you note. The majority of questions asked of participant families were closed-ended questions. Families qualified for the study if they had one or more children registered as an elementary homeschooler, or private schooler at Resurrection School, or Holy Cross school. Measure Participants in the study were asked to complete the parenting version of the FRAS, the demographic scale and the Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire. One parent in each household was asked to fill out the surveys. All parents gave consent to participate in the project. Ihgflcmogmphigqufisflonnaim-The demographic questionnaire was designed by the researcher and included questions to indicate one’s racial/ethnic background, socio-economic status, age, number and gender of children in the home, resident location, and total age and number of residents in the household. In addition, there were two questions which asked parents to indicate all applicable reasons for home/private schooling. There were six possibilities generated from the literature search: religious beliefs, academics, individually-based curriculums, urban violence, special education needs of the child. The other question asked parents to rank in order of importance those same six possibilities. A qualitative survey was incorporated into the demographic scale. The 26 questions related to previous schooling experience and were open-ended: 1) Why are you private/homeschooling? 2) For how long have you private/homeschooled? 3) What do you like best about private/homeschooling? Least? and, 4) How is instructional time divided between parents? IhtLChQimfotfiducatiQnaLElaccmcmflucsfianaim-The Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire was also generated by the researcher. It consisted of 16 questions under five general domains: 1) religion, 2) academic achievement 3) family relationships, 4) creativity, and 5) individuality in curriculum. The questions under each heading asked the participant to denote the level of importance each factor-heading had in the life of parent, the child, and in the decision to home/private school. The questionnaire used a Likert scale format-participants identified whether a factor was important(6) or not important( 1 ). Two previously identified reasons for homeschooling-urban violence and special education needs were not included because they did not appear to correspond with a paradigmatic orientation. IheEanfibLRegimgAssessmenLSmbThe parenting version of the Family Regime Assessment Scale (FRAS) was used to examine family paradigms (Imig, 1991). Participants assigned a “best” answer with a “ten” and assign the other three answers with any other number lower than ten. This indicated their current paradigmatic mode of operation in all eight dimensions: time, space, energy material, control, affect, meaning and content. In this way, the family members rate themselves in their structural dimensions while revealing their paradigmatic formation after identifying their relational behavior. Thus, there is a complete analysis of the family system. The unit of measurement is the family and as family interaction is specifically being examined. this scale was effective in determining the behaviors of families who home/private school. Although individual participant identities were known to the researcher for mailing purposes, respondent’s identities were kept confidential. The surveys are coded and there 27 is no indication of identity except for a number. No questions asked the names of respondents, addresses, or telephone numbers. The survey responses were kept in a file cabinet in the researcher’s home with all thesis-related records. Dataanalxsis This descriptive exploratory study used frequencies to examine the demographic variables. Correlation coefficients were used to search for relationships between variables. In addition, logistic and multiple regression models to explore the relationship between schooling choice and paradigmatic orientation. To accomplish this, education choice were considered to be independent variables in the logistic and multiple regression equations. Independent samples t-tests and Chi square statistics were used to look at group paradigmatic differences. Homeschoolers were compared to private schoolers. The qualitative information was coded for content analysis on the similarities/differences in responses. 28 Chapter 4 Results In this chapter the study is discussed in terms of outcome criteria. The responses obtained from the survey are described within the framework of the study’s three research questions. Individual participants were assured that their identities would be kept confidential. Therefore, the survey findings are phrased generically in terms of “homeschoolers” and “private schoolers”. The survey was coded and data entered using the SPSS for Windows statistical computer software program licensed to Michigan State University. Ethnichackgmund Frequencies and bar charts were made to examine any ethnic/racial differences between groups. Although homeschooling and private schooling cuts across all demographics, this sample primarily consisted of White, non-Hispanic participants. The ethnic/racial breakdown is included in Figure 1. Insert Figure 1 about here dectlsczulflpamm The vast majority of the people who filled out the survey were the mothers. Within the homeschooling community, this was expected due to the fact that it is usually a stay-at-home mom who instructs the children, and would therefore be more likely to fill out the homeschooling scales. Only 1 homeschooling scale was fill out by a father. Within the private schooling population more fathers did fill out the scales (4), but again the vast majority were the mothers. The differences can be clearly seen in Figure 2. Insert Figure 2 about here 29 1:0 3' o b S o E 0 .g 8 a ll. a .9 iii I m ::: g ooooooo vvvvv 29:0“. I 0.22 D 9:20 «2:59. 3:028 39...“. 32.89. 3:02.325: 22$ .0 xomtoucac . N 2:2“. er 3 ON mu an runoa 31 Demographicfactors Independent Samples t-tests were run between the two populations, of homeschooling and private schooling families in order to identify any relationships between schooling choice and demographic variables. From a theoretical standpoint, the socio-economic status and other demographic variables should not determine or change one’s paradigm. Nonetheless, the statistics were run in order to better understand if there were any significant differences in a measurable area between the sample of private schooler and homeschoolers. As indicated in Table 2, the corresponding p-values indicated no significant relationships at the .05 level. in all categories, except income. The Independent Samples t-test showed a significant difference in mean incomes of homeschooling and private schooling families. The homeschoolers reported an average income at the high end of $31,000 to $40,000, whereas the private schoolers indicated that their average income was at the high end of $41,000 to $50,000. This is to be expected since homeschooling usually necessitates one parent staying home all day with the children, therefore precluding an additional income to the household. The average number of children per family in both groups was 3 and most of the parents were in their mid to late thirties. Insert Table 2 about here 5 l l' l . . Homeschoolers and private schoolers have diverse reasons for choosing their alternative school choices. It was helpful to look at the current schooling choices of these families. Frequencies were run to address the questions of previous and present schooling information. It was based on a separate set of questions that asked whether or not there were children attending public, private or homeschool. 32 e258... 395...: 2.2.5... 2. 8.- 3. 2 3..- .35 958...... .95.. .5533 823...: 2.5.... 2.. 2.. :. 2.. R 3. :33. 55.2.5... 5.5.2 12:33 323...: a... a... my. 9. 2.. :33. .55. .o a? 8535.. 53.5 8:55.. :3: 923-5% 2. . 3.8% 5952. 39:93:... 923.325.. .3 .8.-. I N «3:. 33 Figure 3, shows that the majority of families who homeschool have a high percentage of children in the family who are also homeschooling. Only small percentages of children in these homeschooling families attend public or private school. Figure 4 looks at the private schooling families and is even more dramatic. Of this group the vast majority again are in private school, but non of the private schooling families have any children who attend a homeschool. This would not be surprising, as some private schooling families may choose to have both parents work, and this precludes homeschooling Insert Figures 3 and 4 about here Research Question 1. Do homeschooling and private schooling families fall into a range of paradigmatic orientations? Descriptive data were used to discover whether a range of paradigmatic orientations could be found in the homeschooling population and the private schooling population. Overall paradigms was determined by the frequency and ranking of paradigms self-identified in the scale, hereafier referred to as cluster scores. Each case had an overall score for each paradigm ranging from 0-5 with 5 as the high. A cluster score of Closed-5, Random-1, Open-1, Synchronous-5 would be determined to be a Closed-Synchronous combination because two paradigms were identified to be frequently used within the family. In addition the “tendency” toward open, closed, random, and synchronous paradigms were entered as separate variables. For the example case above, the overall Closed score would be 5, the overall Random score would be 1, the overall Open score would be 1, and the overall Synchronous score would be 5. For the purposes of identifying the different paradigmatic orientations within the two schooling groups, overall paradigmatic combination scores were used. As noted in Table 3 and Figure 5, the frequencies of the overall paradigmatic orientations indicate a range 34 Figure 3 - School Attendance Choices in Homeschooling Families % in Public School I % in Private School 1 l l I % Homeschooled Figure 4 - School Attendance Choices in Private Schooling Families 3 % in Public School 1 I % in Private School 35 within both groups. However, there appears to be a high fiequency of open-type families as well as closed-open and open-random combinations in both groups. Insert Table 3 about here Insert Figure 5 about here Eamdigmatmrientatiminjargemimensions- The frequencies of the paradigmatic orientations were also run by target dimensions. These are the qualitative means through which members’ needs for specific life goals are thematically actualized (Kantor & Lehr, 1975). The target dimensions include: control, affect, content and meaning. This was done to discern if there was a paradigmatic connection in a particular dimension such as meaning, that was hidden in the overall scores. These data are included in Figures 6-9 and discussed in detail below. ContLQl- Traditional thought might imply that a homeschooling “little house on the prairie” type family would be apt to use a primarily closed paradigm in the dimension of control. In fact, the bar chart for the control dimension shows that most families in both groups use primarily closed control. Interestingly enough, the private schooling families listed only three paradigms: closed, open and combination of closed-open. This differs greatly from the wider range of responses displayed by the homeschooling group. Affect; Within the affect dimension, the range of responses was much more limited. A small number of private schooling families identified their affect as primarily closed or combination closed-random. The most oflen cited orientation for private schoolers was combination open-random. All of the homeschoolers fit into three categories: primarily random, primarily open, and combination open-random. The spread was nearly even between the three orientations for the homeschoolers. Contem- The vast majority of homeschoolers use primarily closed content. Other paradigmatic possibilities were selected by homeschoolers and there was a smaller, but substantial group identified as primarily synchronous. The private schooling families 36 mm m n . a S. n . .38. BEEF: .3 ~ n _ e z n u..=8._um 9.3.... 8:25...— e. _ .. n 2 . “5.8.985: .85 .58. Emmioagcazkefi eggeoaec Estes—>885 535.53. :25 53.5..— .385 3.2.2.5.. gig—«=35...— ..a..u>° 3.2.928: w:..ee..um 8.3....— EE «:8: :. 2.2.5520 9.2.5223; .e 3.95:3...— I n 03.... 37 .l/ // nde ncies Figure 5 - Overall Paradigmatic Te indicated primarily synchronous and primarily closed content, though they also indicated a spread of orientations. Meaning- The bar chart for the meaning dimension indicates a difference between the two schooling groups. The homeschooling families-selected primarily open paradigms and it was used more often than in he private schooling groups. Private schoolers selected the open-synchronous combination with the greatest frequency. There was also a grouping in the primarily open paradigm, but not as large as in the homeschooling population. Insert Figures 6-9 about here Bamdigmatimrjentationjnjhmccessdimensions- The access dimensions describe and include the physical aspects of family members’ quest for experience (Kantor & Lehr, 1975). These include: time, space, energy and material. Again, these were pulled out individually in order to uncover any connections between paradigmatic score and group. This data is displayed in Figures 10-13. Iim— The time chart clearly illustrates that private schooling families use primarily the open paradigm. Several groupings can also be seen in the primarily closed and combination closed-open paradigms. Homeschoolers had a more even spread. Primarily closed, primarily open, and combination closed-open were nearly equal with a smaller bar for combination closed-random. Space- The sharing of information and resources, referred to as space, yielded primarily random results for both groups. Open space was also present, as were the combinations for open/random. The spread for random was approximately equivalent with more private schoolers using the random and open paradigms. Energy- Private schoolers indicated primarily open energy with smaller bars noticeable in combination open-random, primarily random, primarily closed, and 39 22.3.3916... a. QESEEfSSaC I mscp.o...u=.»x<.5mc.u I 2.85.553. a. 9.6.82.2...m a :35 I come—U n. .XRB. 32.8....— uc...::.um 3.3....— ....c..D 3:25...— u:..ee._u.o:.e= 5.9.3.5 .9355 :. 9.3.552. 8.8:»...35— .. e 2:”...— 3...: $9.:— o\oe.en {ecém {océv {09.7. {cede "I 93.] 9d 40 Figure 7 - Paradigmatic Orientations in Affect Di G e\ °°. 76 2.0.8.50: 5590\Eoccgumc—U B 838.35%..qu E 88.88%85 n Beneaoiflfiovcam .u 5.5.886 m 9.0..855WB820 a essay—Ego I acacioafi B :25 a 58:5. I 38.0 n. :::—3..— w::2:_um Sgtm 5.9.0 :::—.33 u=__oo._u3:.o= ::. .----.|i , ..... 3...: “2.3. : . : ”.mmm. % I: mumumnmumm ----- ..... HHHHH V/// 5.3%“. in. §. fink. 5.....0 2.2mm $3 \ . :2. £23 w. H : .......... c : H ; . . . . . o . .. $Q.© ..... \Cea— e\om.o_ c\om.c_ o\cm.o_ %.. 5...... 0%.: .......... .. o\o¢.¢N $52 ..... o\o_.VN .......... ..... \ cén ..... o\oe.¢v .35.; o\oe.=m 5.9.9::— .=o.:oU 5 9:55:05 unguafiam - a 9...»..— 42 Figure 9 - Paradigmatic Orientations in Meaning Dimension G c\ «*1 N o\° :::-iiii:32%iiiii§§§§§§§§§ii駧§§§§ " III ling lllll ........... .\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\°\°\.\ qeqqeaqqqqq nnnnnnnnnnn vvvvvvvvv combination closed-random. Homeschoolers showed a more heterogeneous spread. The highest bar was primarily open with combination closed-random and primarily closed. Matcrial— Material showed that homeschoolers and private schoolers tended to use primarily random and primarily closed material. Homeschoolers listed primarily random with the greatest frequency. Private schoolers listed primarily closed with the greatest frequency. Insert Figures 10-13 about here DimensionaLofiemmjoanLgmup- Pearson’s Chi Square statistics were used to explore any relationships between schooling choice and the dimensional orientations. The resulting statistics and corresponding p-values showed no significant relationships between schooling choice and dimensional orientations at the.05 levels as seen in Table 4. Insert Table 4 about here Muhamdjgmafimfienmionbygmup- Logistic Regression models were used to examine overall paradigmatic orientation and its relationship and predictive ability for schooling choice. Overall paradigmatic orientation (overall cluster combinations) was treated as a categorical variable in this mode, where the appropriate dummy variables were generated. The goodness of fit statistics (R2) exposed the model as being weak in terms of overall predicitve ability (.03). The individual beta coefficients for the model were not significantly difi'erent than 0 at the .05 level of significance, indicating no significant relationships between schooling choice and overall paradigmatic orientation. Insert Table 5 about here Research Question 2. Is there a relationship between schooling choice and paradigmatic orientation? 1‘ -. or t0 0‘ . "t in t: to ' . 0 .to o- .1an H't - H The question of whether or not paradigmatic orientation was related to schooling choice was examined by using the ranked Likert questions from the Educational Choice questionnaire and by using the “importance questions” from the demographic 44 Figure 10 - Paradigmatic Orientations in Time Dimension :2: <=§ESS§£U fl EgéySuumo—U I Eecméfiao E EEC % SEES. I 1805 D 3.22:...— u..::.:.um 39;; 5.9.0 :::—5..— uczccgunafio= o\ow.m Ram c\e~..m_ c\o~.o_ $2.3m $.93 {9:6 - o\a=.c_ - o\ec.eN - e\oe.=m 5:335: 8am :_ 2.55:2..0 utensflefian— - : 0.53.— 39.5 103313d 46 5:525:.mmtsgg58555535 B n.c:o.:u=.£\=on3>=ov=§ I zongfio—Egaeu fl v:25.3:.f\.._.5._a~.8c_u B 2.....o.;o...£\=u&<=.8:m~_ B song—.820 m msocc.:o...hm\=uac I a.o..o.:u=>.m>5mc_u E SEES—22.0 I :25 a 58:3. I ..oa0\:.cv=sx%umo_u B 58:35.820 8 gash—95w B vows—U D 3:25...— wzzccsum 89:.5 9.9.0 fem:— 3:_Ea.._ 35.35353— :¢_m:8=_: 318:2 :_ 2.35:0...0 eta—$5.2...— - m— «sawm— o\e=.c o\e=.m {oed- o\o=.n— e\o=.=~ o\e=.m~ {coda wan: ad 48 F: «n. _ Scenic—50 .582... 9...... .8 n N... z. . Eggsafi 3.8.59 90 .m... £5 .50 8. e. . 58.5.5.5 E. 2. . 338.8%...35 tea—a» .. A— aaofl .5.— Umaameaem Ea; =0 9.9.0 .3 23m .582...— =....o>O .3 .8385»: 3...»?— I m 2...... an. S. 3.. S. 2. _ an. _ 2.. . :. _ 8...: I .. _ em... .2. Si. an... 2.... _ 3...: _ 3.... _ .2: _ 2.3.... .5 €823. _ 3.8.22 3.2.“.— ouflfim 25,—. «5:32 _ 23.80 _ .93.: _ .9350 _ _ 9.9.0 .3 5.25.320 3:22.055 .3 9.2.5 20 “23...?— I v 933—. 49 questionnaire to determine whether or not a specific factor was a consideration in making the choice to home or private school and to what degree. The factors examined were: 1) religion, 2) family relationships 3) individually-driven curriculums in the decision to home or private school, and 4) academics. The factors were ranked in order of importance, from least to most important (lto 6). An additional set of questions from the demographic scale addressed the decision to home or private school. Each answer was then coded with a 1-6 level of importance under its own heading (i.e.: importance of academics in making the decision to home or private school.) Urban violence and special education needs were not expected to demonstrate any relationship, since there is no basis to speculate that these would relate to paradigmatic orientation. The paradigmatic orientation scores were entered using the cluster scores for invidual paradigms. It was anticipated that the higher the tendency toward a particular paradigm, the more likely there would be a connection to the reason for schooling choice. Since overall paradigmatic orientation does not address paradigms which were less-frequently used by families, the only way to examine “overall closed-ness” with each schooling choice factor was to use the cluster scores for each individual paradigm. The multiple regression model was used, as the assumptions for logistic regression was not met by these variables. The regression was completed four times with each of the four overall paradigm scores as the dependent variables: 1) overall closed cluster score, 2) overall random cluster score, 3) overall open cluster score and 4) overall synchronous cluster score. Schooling choice factors from the educational placement questionnaire were entered as independent variables. Table 6 shows the multiple regression output for the closed paradigm scores and ranked importance of factors in making the schooling choice. The p-value for religion with the closed paradigm score was .03 and is therefore significant at the .05 level. Theoretically, this is within the combination of possibilities we expected to find. However, the goodness of fit statistic (R2) indicates that very little of 50 the equation is explained by a relationship between these two variables (.13). As evidenced in the other tables, there were no significant relationships found between the open, random or synchronous paradigms and the factors for choosing home or private school. Insert Tables 6-9 about here Each of the categories from the educational choice questionnaire: religion, academic achievement, family relationships, creativity/individual curriculums contained three questions. The questions were: 1) How important is the factor to you as a parent? 2) How important is the factor to your child, and 3) How important was the factor in making the decision to homeschool. These questions were examined for possible associations with individual cluster scores for each of the paradigmatic orientations (overall closed, random, open, and synchronous). Correlation coefficients were used to identify any significant relationships between these variables within each category. The results in Table 10 show that the individual paradigm scores and the schooling choice factors were not highly correlated. The highest correlation coefficient was between importance of creativity to the parent and the closed paradigm, and this correlation score was only .30 Insert Table 10 about here : l° . | In collecting qualitative data, two sets of questions were asked of participants. The first set addressed the parents’ previous experiences in schools. They were phrased, “What is your own previous experience/satisfaction with: public school/private school/homeschool”. These questions were designed to ascertain whether this influenced the schooling choice of parents for their child. The second set addressed the children’s experiences with the various types of schools and was intended to indicate how happy the child was with the schooling choice. These were phrased, “What is your child’s previous experience/satisfaction with public school/private school/homeschools?” 51 S. .n. 2.. 2.3.3333: 3.5....— 8. a...- 8: 328.35 .52... ..........>...... P. an.- n:.- 8.89.33. 8.. n...- S: 8%.. 8.2-.. . 39.. .8 9.5.3. -. 3.2.0 w...3....um 9532 E «.33.... 3 3533.....— toxeam .2... 28m 32.9.533 .3 3.223% 03:32 I a 2......- 3. m... 2.. 3.5.3.33: 2.8.... n... 3.. 8... 2.538.950 38.... £33.33... 3. 8.. a... 3.50.33. 8. n..- S.- 5.»..3. 2.3»-.. . Son .3.— uuug... -. 3.2.0 w...32.um 9......2 E 933...... .3 35:3...— uoxgm 3.... 9.39m 530 3 3.329% 2:23.). I a 0......- 2. e... 5. 2.2.8.3.... .as... n... 3.. 8. 8.2.5.26 8...... 2.3223. 3.. 8.. E. 8.583.. 3.. 8..- .7 8.9.9.. 2.3.»-.. . a3.— .3. 9.3.3... -. 8.2.0 w...3....um wet—«E E .33.... 3 3533...... 13.5.: E... «.35 53.3.3.— Eee=a¢ .3 3.9.9.9.: 0.....32 I b 2.3... E. S.- 5: 2.2.8.3.»: 3.5... E. 3...- 2.- 2.5.3....5 8...... 3.2.22.5. .N. 8..- o... 3.52.3... .8. .2- 3..- 83.3. 2.3.»... . a3.— ..8 9.3.3.. -. 3.2.0 w...3....um 9.635. e. 933...... .3 3533...... 38.5.: 2... 28m 523...... 38.0 .3 3.39.3: 03.....2 I e 2......- 52 n...- 2..- .... 3.- 2.20 .... a»... ... 2.2.29.0 59...... N...- S. 3.- 3..- 2 2.2.593 5.5.59.0 .22..— $22.90: .... 2. Sr 2.: a .... 2.5.59.0 2. 2..- 2. ....- ..220 .... 2.4 ... 5.23....50 59...... 2. a... 3. fl..- 2 «...—:33. 5.2.5.250 .32.... 22.28.. a. N... a... 2..- .. 5 5.23.250 2.20 S. n..- 2. R.- ... ...... ... 3.2.820 2.5.... 59:... 2 2. r2..- hu.- 2.: u......58< 22.820 2.5.... 86.22.22: 5. S. a..- .... .. ... 32.82... 2...... .....- 2. .....- S. ......o ... a... ... 8.2.... 59...... 2. 8.- a..- ..N. 2 ”...—.532. 5.3.9: .22...— Sa 8. .....- 2. 25.28.. .. ... 5.2.3. ....20 ... 25 n... 2. a... ...- ... 55.96.23. u....o.2.u< 50.....— 2 «@582. S. 3.- n... 2.- 52..o>~.2u< 9.2.92.3. 5.532.230.— m—. z..- N.. 2.- .... 52:96.23. 9.52282. 8.26 ......ng 2...“: 52.2253 22.0 5253— ..08.0 ... .22.... .... «2.2.2.5. 222.... 3.520 w..._2.2um ...... 8.59m 522......— ..o 525.250 I c. 9.2:. 53 This first set of questions (parent’s previous experience) was misinterpreted by most of the sample population to mean, “what is your own experience/satisfaction with schools as a parent?” Because of this misinterpretation, the answers were redundant for both sets of questions. In general, many private schoolers and homeschoolers felt strongly that public schooling failed to meet the needs of their children. Qualilxoflcducation- Seven private schooling parents indicated that their previous experiences with public schools yielded disappointment in academic standards. These comments were also general and indicated “dissatisfaction with academics” or “not as prepared as I should have been for college classes.” Eleven homeschoolers indicated that their previous experiences in public school were inadequate for the standard of academic growth they were seeking. Most comments were general “curriculum is weak. Not satisfied with education. Not enough academic progress”. Several comments were more specific and addressed issues. For example, “Our daughter took driver’s education and was forced to read to some high school children who could not read”. Several parents indicated that their child was bored in school and spend class time socializing, “Our daughter came home from the first week in school saying ‘My school has kindergarten mixed up with preschooll’, “Our son would finish his work too early and bother other children in the class”. Eight homeschoolers responded with general comments to indicate that they were not challenged academically in public school. SchooLemzimnmeszjtmlargeZ- Homeschoolers and private schooling families felt that classes were too large and in some cases out of control. Several in the homeschooling population indicated that there was “no discipline” Two sets of parents indicated that violence and disruptiveness is a problem. One parent indicated that her daughter had been lost in the cracks and passed through the system in the public school before private testing indicated that the child is dyslexic. Several Private Schoolers also indicated that there is a lack of discipline and that classrooms are too large. One private schooling child TCfiJSCd to go back because he was afraid of the bullies at his public school. W— Four homeschooling parents indicated that they were unsatisfied with the values taught by public schools. One indicated that there were values included that were not acceptable to the family and three stated that respect and/or religious training are not included in public schools. One parent said that teachers had focused on her son’s shyness instead of his academic progress. Several private schoolers indicated that there was a “lack of discipline and values”. Ten private schooling parents felt that their child had not had any interaction with public school. Eleven private schooling parents stated there was some positive experience for their child as a public schooler. Six homeschooling parents indicated that their child had never attended public school. Seven homeschooling parents felt that either they or their child had some positive experiences in public school. Emslratmmthjhesxslm- Several parents felt that school systems were uncooperative with their needs. One homeschooling parent indicated that the school was unsupportive when her child went through a traumatic event. Another homeschooler indicated that her school board has a policy of transfen'ng kids from school to school to adjust class sizes. This resulted in all three children being at three different elementary schools and very long bus rides for two of them. Several parents in each group indicated that they felt schools were uncooperative in enforcing discipline with children who bullied or were violent with other kids. Conclusion Parents who have chosen alternative schooling have done so because they felt that their individual family had a need that would be best met by home or private school. Most parents indicated in their qualitative responses that they were satisfied with their choice. In this samwe, there was no evidence to link Family Paradigm theory with the reasons for 55 home or private schooling, and it is clear from looking at the statistics that these families use a variety of paradigmatic orientations in their family interactions. 56 Chapter 5 Discussion This chapter provides a summary and discussion of homeschooling and private schooling in a small sample group in Michigan. Theory would imply that there is a connection between the learning orientations seen in homeschooling and private schooling populations and paradigmatic orientations. Indeed, paradigmatic theory classifies the mechanisms that people use as they make decisions, large or small in their daily lives. This investigation represents an attempt to understand the manifestations of the different paradigmatic orientations within the two subgroups: home and private schoolers and examine the connection between the paradigm and the factors influencing the educational decision. Specifically, this study represents an attempt to address the following questions: 1) Do home and private schoolers represent an array of paradigmatic orientations? and 2) Is there a connection between the reason for home or private schooling and paradigmatic orientation? Either parent of a home or private schooling household was asked to fill in the three questionnaires. A demographic questionnaire, a questionnaire designed to examine the reasons for home and private schooling were developed by the researcher to answer these questions. Paradigmatic orientation was examined using the Family Regime Assessment Scale (See Appendices). This information previously was not available. No agency or individual was able to provide information on family interactions of home and private schoolers, except for anecdotal notes. In addition to descriptive demographic data, frequencies were run to determine whether a range of paradigmatic orientations could be found in the homeschooling population and the private schooling population. Independent samples t-tests and Chi Square statistics were run to examine the paradigmatic orientations by group. Logistic and multiple Regression models and Correlation coefficients were used to explore relationships between parents’ answers on the educational choice questionnaire and the paradigmatic orientations. Qualitative data pertaining to the reasons why parents chose 57 their schooling method was collected in the form of open-ended questions, dealing with the importance of each factor in the life of the child. the parent and in the decision to home or private school. [ l . E This sample tended to represent white, non-Hispanic families whose mean income ranged from $31,000.00 to $50,000.00 per year. Although this is a range of nearly $20,000.00, it is clear that participating families are not living at poverty level. There was a significant difference in the level of income between the groups of homeschoolers and private schoolers. This is to be expected since homeschoolers usually have only one parent working outside the home. Only 5 of the 55 parents who filled out the scale were fathers. Most of the parents completing the scale reported their age as mid to late thirties. The average number of children per family in both groups was 3. E l' . [I l . l l' E .1. Research Question I asked, “Do homeschooling and private schooling families fall into a range of paradigmatic orientations?” The results of the Family Regime Assessment scale were coded and analyzed and compared by group. The fi'equencies of the paradigmatic orientations indicated a range within both groups. There did appear to be a higher frequency of open-type families as well as closed-open and open-random combinations. It is notable that the closed/synchronous paradigms were the lowest frequencies. This is in opposition to the popular caricature of homeschoolers, and to a lesser extent, private schoolers as only traditional, patriarchal systems with rigid boundaries. Access and Target dimensional frequencies yielded the same diversity of paradigms. Control, affect content, meaning, time, space, energy and material contained many different combinations. Control-the dimension that refers to the flexibility of boundary that protects the family and the decision-making process within showed great variety. The private schooling family listed only closed, open and open-closed, but the homeschooling family indicated a wider range of responses. This differs sharply to the “little house on the 58 prairie” type responses that might be expected of homeschoolers. In all the other dimensions when there seemed to be a homogeneity of responses, it was because the two groups tended toward the open/random paradigms and combinations. The differences in paradigmatic orientations by group were found to be insignificant. In other words, both homeschooling and private schooling families self-identified in a range of paradigmatic orientations. The only small differences would seem to be in opposition to popular stereotypes, and ultimately no significant differences between groups could be found. E I. . . . I I E I I . l I. , The determination of whether or not paradigmatic orientation was related to schooling choice was examined by using the “importance” questions from the Demographic and Educational Choice Questionnaires and the paradigmatic orientation scores. The research question was: is there a relationship between the educational choice and the paradigmatic orientation? The factors (religion, academics, individually-based curriculums, family relationships, special education needs and urban violence) were ranked in order of importance. Logistic and multiple regression models, and correlation coefficients were used to search for associations between the factor variables and the paradigmatic orientations. Each of the four paradigms: closed, random, open and synchronous, were examined in relationship to the schooling choice factors from both questionnaires. There was a weak link between the closed paradigm and religion. All other possible relationships between paradigm and schooling choice were found to be insignificant. The results obtained did not provide evidence of a causal relationship between paradigmatic orientation and reasons for homeschooling. Theoretically, the relationship certainly exists, but it is likely that the size of the sample was insufficient to demonstrate the link. Qualitatimdata In general, many private schoolers and homeschoolers felt strongly that public schooling failed to meet the particular needs of their children. The primary concerns were: quality of education, values or religious beliefs, and frustration with environments that seemed too large to address the students and parents uniquely. In each case, families had decided to make the “school system” a smaller place in which to access the services they desired. All of the homeschooling and private schooling parents indicated in their qualitative surveys that they were satisfied with the schooling choice they had made. The primary limitation in this study was the small sample size. Homeschoolers are traditionally harder to recruit than some populations. Some homeschoolers tend to be mistrustfirl of researchers because they are sometimes portrayed in unflattering ways. The lists of people who homeschool is protected by law so it is not possible to acquire names to do a mass mailout. Research on home education tends to be limited to parents who are registered in home schools and trust the researchers (Mayberry et al, 1995). A homeschooling organization such as Noah Webster Charter Academy was very helpful because it brought together many homeschoolers. Even so, it is possible that there are certain characteristics of Noah Webster homeschooling parents that separate them from other homeschoolers. Only 26 homeschoolers volunteered to participate. One problem with the “previous experience” questions on the questionnaire was discovered during coding. There were two separate questions: one asking the parent to describe his/her own personal experience with public, home, and private schooling; and one asking the parent to describe the personal experience of their children with the three types of schooling. Most parents answered the first question by describing their experiences with home, public and private school in their role of parent. In effect they answered the second question addressing the experiences of their children. Upon reaching the question about children’s experiences many parents wrote, “see above”. These 60 questions were originally designed to determine if there was a pattern of dissatisfaction with public schools in the parents’ experiences in school themselves. Naturally, this could not be addressed because the question was not written clearly enough. Another limitation of the study was that the socio-economic status of the participants was unusually high. This is logical because homeschooling implies that the family can be sustained by one income while another parent stays home to homeschool, and private schooling implies that there is enough income to allow for the additional expense of tuition. The final limitation of the study was the homogeneity of ethnicity. Of the 55 participants in the study 48 classified themselves as “White, non-Hispanic”. Although members of minority ethnic groups participate in home and private schooling, this was not reflected in the study. lmplicationsfoueseamh This research provides further proof that homeschooling and private schooling families display a wide variety of interaction styles. There is no discernible difference between the relational patterns of homeschoolers and of private schoolers. Even so, this flies in the face of conventional belief that homeschoolers are misfits or outcasts. Previous research on home and private schooling families has been met with skepticism and incredulity. Relational patterns in a larger subgroup would result in generalizable results, thereby lending credence to the idea that homeschoolers and/or private schoolers operate within the mainstream, rather than the fiinge of society. As the debate over vouchers continues, certainly the response of public educators can be very strongly disapproving of private or home education, insisting that the social skills, academic abilities and multicultural awareness of children suffer. Ultimately, the fire in the debate comes down to money. Public educators often see any dollar toward a voucher as money that belongs to the public school. Home and private schooling parents see every 6] dollar they put toward public education as a dollar that has been taken away from the educational funding of their child. In a system where all of the money for education has traditionally gone to-and has often not been enough to meet the needs of, the public school system; change is difficult at best. It is unlikely that public educators, regardless of the research, will decide that homeschooling or private schooling is as deserving of public funding as traditional public education. In the same vein, it is unlikely that home and private schooling parents will decide that they are not entitled to and would not benefit from tax relief for alternative education. In the end the question is not “Is Public School the Best and only way?”, but “What are the options for my child and our family?” Previous research has shown that children who homeschool do not suffer academically and socially. Global belief systems are learned at home and there is no research to suggest that children who are public schooled are more likely to become multiculturally educated adults. Indeed, it is an odious task to label a family “less concerned with multiculturalism” merely because they believe that homeschooling is best for their child. After all, it could be argued that a child in a homogenous public/private schooling environment may also grow up to be “multiculturally challenged”. With an acceptance of multiple belief systems should come a tolerance. This too, should extend to the homeschooling subculture. Within the existing structures of family support services and the United State Department of Education which ultimately oversees homeschooling, roles have been unclear and often burdensome. This has led to misunderstanding and myth. The modern day traditional classroom is a concept that inarguably works well to educate the minds of children, but is not the only option. Previous research has shown that homeschooling is a valid and successful means of education and this study indicates that the families who choose homeschooling display a colorful range of paradigms, not unlike the rest of the world. 62 Conclusion The goal of the research was to more clearly understand the inner-workings of homeschooling and private schooling families. The numbers of parents who are willing to homeschool and attend private school has shifted so dramatically in recent years that it becomes important to understand the motivations and inner-working of families who choose this alternative. The rapid rise in alternative schooling families creates a need for support services. In order to best meet the needs of these families, they must be understood, not only in terms of academic achievement and demographics, but in the way these family systems interact with their world and each other day to day. 63 APPENDICES 64 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH ON HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER 65 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee an Bunuuumnhho Mtcfltoln Sm Unmm 232 Administration Building EnuzmmiMUMpn MmflJMG 517/355-2180 FAX.5177432-117l m- Umwn Stare Unman- IJEA s mruuaomr Dim flammemkm: USU IS an arr-manna». ”Jar-manta Inset-MIC" MICHIGAN STATE U N l v E R s I T Y October 30. 1996 To; Christine Pegorraro 5840 Cameron Run Terrace A artment #1116 A exandria. Virginia 22303 : RB : -680 RE £1T£E: ggRADIGMATIC ORIENTATIONS OF FAMILIES WHO HOMESCHOOL AND PRIVATE SCHOOL REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: l-C APPROVAL DATE: 10/29/96 The University Committee on Research InvolVing Human Subjects'tucnIHS) reView of this project is complete. I am pleased to aQVISe that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately pretected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. . agerefore. the UCRIHS approved this progect and any reViSions listed ove. RINEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year,.beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a progect b°K°nd one year muSt use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a, project is renewed) to seek update certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete reView. RSVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal_form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the CRIBS Chair, requesting reVised approval and referencing the prOjeCt'S IRE a and t1t18.. Include in your requeSt a description of the change and any reVised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/ CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must nOtit UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems (unexpected side effects. comp aints, etc.) anOlVIng human subjects or (2) changes in.the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subgects than existed when the protocol was preViously reViewed approved. If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contac: us at (517)355-2180 or FAX (Sl7l4 2— 171. tr Sincere avid E. Wright, UCRIHS Chair DEW:bed cc: Frantisco A. Villarruel David Imig 66 APPENDIX B LETTER OF CONSENT 67 Dear Parents: The Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University is intereSted in parents who are homeschooling and private schooling their children. The purpose of the study is to explore choices of parents to homeschool or send their children to private school; and their family relationships. We would like to recruit families to participate in a Study to examine the educational choices of parents and their paradigms. In addition. we would like to examine the results of the quesnonnaircs of the homeschooling parents and the private schooling parents in order to dispel the myth that homeschoolers or private schoolers are all the same. This srudy is being conducted by Christine Pegorraro as part of her requirements for her master’s degree in Child Development. This work will be supervised by Drs. David Imig and Francisco Villarruel of the Department of Family and Child Ecology. . Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and involves filling out a ten question scale on how you get things done in your family day to day, a sixteen-item scale on reasons for your educational choice, and a short demographic survey. The three questionnaires should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. We will include families whose children are being schooled at home or who have enrolled their child in a parochial school. You may decide at any point in time to no longer participate in the study, or choose to Mt answer questions should you nor wish to respond. All of the information that you provide with us will be confidential. You, or any member of your family, will not be referred to by name in any of our files. We will use this information, and the information obtained from others who participate in these interviews, to write a report. In all likelihood, the results will be published. A copy of the publication will be available to you through the homeschooling network or your private parochial school. No names of individuals and schools will be noted. Should you have any questions about this study, please call Ms. Pegorraro collect at (703 )329-4583. or send e-mail at BSCHULLEOD@aol.com. We would appreciate greatly your gang to participate in this project. I agree to participate in the project titled: “Paradigmatic Orientations of Homeschooling/Private Schooling Families”. This research project is being conducted by the Department of, Family and Child Ecology. I understand the nature of the project, the nature of my participation, and that my participation is voluntary and that I can terminate my participation at any time during the course of the project. Name Date Please send completed consent form to Ms. Pegorraro at 5840 Cameron Run Terrace, Apt 1116. Alexandria. VA 22303 in the enclosed pre-addressed. stamped envelope. 68 APPENDIX C RECRUITMENT LETTER AND SURVEY COVER LETTERS 69 Dear Parents, Christine Pegorraro is conducting a research study on the reasons parents choose to send their child to a parochial private school or homeschool. She is looking for a sample of 30 parents fiom different families to participate in the study. She would like to send out a questionnaire to be completed by one parent in every participating family. The questionnaire which collects demographics and educational choices and beliefs, takes approximately 30 minutes. Ms. Pegorraro would code the results which would remain completely anonymous. Once the study is complete, the results of the study will be made available to any interested participants. This research is part of the requirements for her masters work in Child Development at MSU. All of her work is screened by her three-member faculty committee thereby assuring us of work done in a professional manner. Please consider taking part in this worthwhile project. If non-English speaking parents would like to take part in this study. children are more than welcome to act as interpreters for their parents. Please fill out the bottom of this paper if you can help. Thank you, in advance, for your help and support of this project. Sincerely, Principal CHILD DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE- MS. PEGORRARO WILL BE CONTACTING YOU BY PHONE TO SET UP A TIME TO MAIL YOU THE QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE SCHOOL OR MS. PEGORRARO DIRECTLY (THE SCHOOL OFFICE HAS HER PHONE NUMBER). NAME (please print) phone Yes, our family would be willing to take part in this study. 70 Dear Participants. I received your names from the adminiStration at Noah Webster Charter Academy. Thank you so much for your interest in this study. I appreciate your willingness to participate. Please fill out the enclosed consent form and questionnaires: 1. The Parenting version ofthe Family Relationship Assessment Scale 2. The Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire . The Demographic Questionnaire. b: 4. Consent F orrn When you have completed these, please send them in the enclosed pre-addressed, stamped envelopes to: C hrisrine Pegorraro 5840 Cameron Run Terrace Apartment 1116 Alexandria. VA 22303 If you have any questions. do not hesitate to call Ms. Pegorraro collect at (703)329-4583, or e-mail her at BSCHULLEOD@aoI.com Thank you, in advance, for your participation. 71 Dear Participants. I received your names from the the participation forms you filled out and returned to Holy Cross Elementary School. Thank you so much for your interest in this study. I appreciate your willingness to participate. Please fill out the enclosed consent form and queStionnaires: 1. The Parenting version of the F amily Relationship Assessment Scale I) . The Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire b) . The Demographic Questionnaire. 1:. . Consent F orrn When you have completed these. please send them in the enclosed pre-addressed. stamped envelopes to: Christine Pegorraro 5840 Cameron Run Terrace Apartment 1116 Alexandria. VA 22303 If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call Ms. Pegorraro collect at t 703 )329-4583, or e-mail her at BSCHULLEOD@aol.com Thank you. in advance. for your participation. 72 APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHIC SCALES FOR HOME AND PRIVATE SCHOOLING FANIILIES 73 Demographic Scale for Homeschooling Families Date: Ethnicity I. What is your racial/ethnic background? __African-American/Black _Hispanic/Latino _Asian American _Native American __White, non-Hispanic 2. What city/county do you live in? 3. How many children are in your family? What are their ages and genders? 4. How many children are schooling in the home? If different than above. please indicate. 5. How old are you? 6. What is your gender? 74 7. What is your household role? _.\’lother _Father 8. How is instructional time divided between you and your spouse when it comes to your child’s schoolwork? a. Is there one parent who is the primary instructor? If yes. are you the primary instructor? b. Do you and the other parent divide and teach the subject material? If yes. please explain. c. Is subject/curriculum material chosen collaboratively between you and your spouse? If yes. please explain. 9. What is your own previous experience/satisfaction with: public school? private school? homeschools? 10. What is your child’s previous experience/satisfaction with: public school? private school? homeschools? 11. Why did you decide to enroll your child in homeschool? Check all that apply. _Religious beliefs _Academics _Family Relationships _lndividually based Curriculums _Urban Violence _Special Education Needs of Child _Other (please explain) 12. Please rank in order of importance the reasons why you decided to homeschool. You may leave those that do not apply blank. lsmost important. _Religious beliefs _Academics _Family Relationships _lndividually based Curriculums _Urban Violence _Special Education Needs of Child _Other 13. Check household income range that most closely approximates your gross annual income Less than 510.000.00 $10,000.00-820.000.00 $21,000.00-S30.000.00 S31.000.00-$40.000.00 “1,000.00-850300.00 $51,000.00-560.000.00 over $61,000.00 76 Demographic Questionnaire for Private Schooling Families Date: E l . . I. What is your racial/ethnic background? _African-American/Black _Hispanic/Latino _.-\sian American _Native American _White. non-Hispanic 2. What city/county do you live in? 3. How many children are in your family? What are their ages and genders? 4. How many children are attending private school? If different than above. please indicate. 77 5. How old are you? 6. What is your gender? 7. What is your household role? _Mother _Father 8. How is instructional time divided between you and your spouse when it comes to your child’s schoolwork? a. Is there one parent who is the primary instructor? If yes. are you the primary instructor? b. Do you and the other parent divide and work on subject material? If yes. please explain. 9. What is your own previous experience/satisfaction with: public school? private school? homeschools? 10. What is your child’s previous experience/satisfaction with: public school? private school? homeschools? 78 11. Why did you decide to enroll your child in private school? Check all that apply. Religious beliefs _Academics _Family Relationships _Individually based Curriculums _Urban Violence _Special Education Needs of Child 12. Please rank in order of importance the reasons why you decided to enroll your child in private school. You may leave those that do not apply blank. l=most important. Religious beliefs _Academics _Family Relationships _Individually based Curriculums _Urban Violence _Special Education Needs of Child 13. Check household income range that most closely approximates your gross annual income _Less than $10,000.00 _510.000.00-$20.000.00 _321.000.00-$30.000.00 _831.000.00-S40.000.00 _S41.000.00-$50.000.00 _551.000.00-$60.000.00 __over 561.000.00 79 APPENDIX E CHOICES FOR EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES FOR HOME AND PRIVATE SCHOOLING FANIILIES 80 Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire for Homeschooling Families Religion 1. How do you define religion? 2. How important is religion in your life? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 3. How important is religion in the life of your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 ................... 6 not very important important 4. How important was religion in making the decision to homeschool? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 2. Academic Achievement 5. How important is academic achievement to you as a parent? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 6. How important is academic achievement in the life of your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 81 7. How important was academic achievement in making the decision to homeschool? l .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 3. Family Relationships 8. How important is family closeness to you as a parent? l .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 9. How important is family closeness to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 10. How important was family closeness in making the decision to homeschool? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 4. Creativity/Individual Curriculums 11. How important is creativity to you as a parent? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 ................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 12. How important is creativity to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 ..................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 82 13. How important was creativity in making the decision to homeschool? l .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 14. How important is a child-driven cum'culum to you as a parent? I .................... 2 .................... 3 ................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 15. How important is a child-driven cum'culum to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 ..................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 16. How important was a child—driven curriculum in making the decision to homeschool? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 83 Choices for Educational Placement Questionnaire for Private Schooling Families Religion 1. How do you define religion? 2. How important is religion in your life? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 3. How important is religion in the life of your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 ................... 6 not very important important 4. How important was religion in making the decision to enroll your child in private school? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 2. Academic Achievement 5. How important is academic achievement to you as a parent? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 6. How important is academic achievement in the life of your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 84 7. How important was academic achievement in making the decision to enroll your child in private school? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 3. Family Relationships 8. How important is family closeness to you as a parent? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 9. How important is family closeness to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 10. How important was family closeness in making the decision to enroll your child in private school? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 4. Creativity/Individual Curriculums 11. How important is creativity to you as a parent? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 ................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 12. How important is creativity to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 ..................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 85 13. How important was creativity in making the decision to enroll your child in private school? I .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 14. How important is a child-driven cum'culum to you as a parent? 1 .................... 23 ................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 15. How important is a child-driven curriculum to your child? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 ..................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 16. How important was a child-driven curriculum in making the decision to enroll your child in private school? 1 .................... 2 .................... 3 .................... 4 .................... 5 .................... 6 not very important important 86 APPENDIX E FAMILY REGIME ASSESSMENT SCALE 87 THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON PAGES 7 AND 8 WILL HELP Us UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING. THERE ARE NO “CORRECT" OR "RIGHT 5. WRONG" ANSWERS. THE DIFFERENT CHOICES DESCRIBED IN EACH OUESTION ARE JUST DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT THE TL'SK OF RAISING CHILDREN. IN ORDER To MORE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN A PARTICULAR WAY. FIRST - EACH QUESTION (I- I O) HAS FOUR CHOICES (A-D). SELECT THE CHOICE IA-D) THAT BEST TELLS US HOW YOU As A PARENT INTERACTS WITH YOUR CHILD. P IV TH I SECOND - FROM THE THREE REMAINING STATEMENTS. SELECT THE CHOICE THAT um BEST DESCRIBES YOU AS A PARENT. IN COMPARISON TO THE I O. GIVE THIS NEXT CHOICE A VALUE RANOING FROM 0 TO 9. A 9 IS ABOUT THE SAME As A IO. A VALUE OF S SAYS THAT THIS CHOICE HAPPENS ABOUT HALF AS OFTEN As A VALUE OF IO. A VALUE OF I OR 0 Is A CHOICE THAT IS NOT LIKE YOU AS A PARENT. THIRD - CONTINUE ASSICNING VALUES RANGING FROM 0 TO 9 FOR THE TWO REMAINING CHOICES. FOURTH - MAKE SURE THAT FOR EACH QUESTION (I- I 0) ALL 4 BOXES (A-D) ARE FILLED-IN AND THAT THE VALUE OF I0 IS USED ONLY ONCE PER QUESTION ( I - I 0). THE VALUES OF 0-9 MAY BE REPEATED ANY NUMBER OF TIMES. THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATES HOW WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ANSWER THE PARENTtNO QUESTIONS FOUND ON PAGES 7 AND 5. EXAMPLE AS A PARENT. HOW DO YOU GENERALLY COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR CHILD? VALUE A - IN A DIRECT. FACTUAL AND "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS” NANNER 7 B - IN A DIPLOMATIC. TACTmL. AND ACCEPRND NANNEN (0 C - Li A QUESTION”. ENCADIND AND CHALLENDIND MANNER 2 D -IN A HUMONOUS. WITTY AND FUNNY NANNEN Z N“ PLEASE NOTE........ ALL BoxES MUSTBE FILLED AND THERECAN BEGIN-TONE l 0 . "1'4? PLEASE USE THIS WAY OF RECORDING YOUR ANSWERS FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A PARENT. THANK Youl 88 7 I- HOW DO YOU GET YOUR CHILD TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE- A ' M" CHILD JUST KNOWS WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE 5 HOW TO Do IT WITHOUT 39"“ TOLD e - ST TELLJNG HY CHILD WHAT NEEDS To GET DONE 5 HOW TO DO IT C - MY CHILD DOES WHAT THEY THINN NEEDS TO GET DONE 6 HOW TO DO IT O - BY US DISCUSSING 6. AGREEING WHAT NEEDS To GET DONE 5. HOW To 00 '1' Z - HOW DO YOU GENERALLY SHOW YOUR CARE. LOVE. AFFECTION AND SUPPORT FOR YOUR CHILD? VALUE A - IN AN EMOTIONALLY SHARED, INTIMATE 6. EXPRESSIVE MANNER B - IN A PRIVATE. FORMAL 5. RESERVED HANNER C - IN A SPONTANEOUS. PLAYFUL 5 INDIVIDUALIZED HANNER D - IN A UNSPOHEN MANNER - MY CHILD JUST KNOWS THAT I CARE 3 - AS A PARENT. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO TEACH TO YOUR CHILD AS TO WHAT Is MOST IMPORTANT IN LIFE? V”: A - WHILE CARING FOR YOUR FAMILY - DO WHAT'S BEST FOR YOUR SELF B - IF YOU SACRIFICE 6. CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY. YOUR FAMILY WILL SACRIFICE 6- CARE FOR YOU C - BY HAVING CONFIDENCE. PATIENCE & FAITH IN THE FAMILY EVERYTHING WILL TURN OUT FOR THE BEST FOR EVERYONE O - BY SEING ADAPTASLE AND USING OUR DIFFERENCES. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. AS A FAMILY WE CAN Do WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR ALL OF US 4 - HOW DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILD TO MAKE SENSE OUT-OF-LIFE? VIM-u: A - BY GETTING IDEAS FROM OTHERS & DOING WHAT IS PRACTICAL B - BY GENERALLY RELYING ON THEMSELVES 5 THEIR OWN IDEAS C - BY USING WHAT HAS PROVEN OVER TIME TO BE CORRECT 5 RELIABLE D - BY DESERVING 5 USTENING THEY WILL COME To NNOW WHAT MANES SENSF. 5 e As YOU GO AEOUT HELPING YOUR CHILD TO GROW UP. VIN-U! WHAT EMPHASIS DO YOU PLACE ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS? A ' THAT HY CHILD CAN MAKE SENSE OUT'O"UFE IN AN $CURAY£ 5 RWSTIC WAY B - THAT HY CHILD HAS A SENSE OF MEANING 5 PURPOSE IN UFE C - THAT MY CHILD FEELS CARED FOR. SUPPORTED AND LOVED D - THAT MY CHILD NNOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING DONE THE THINGS IN LIFE THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO GET DONE 89 5 ' TIME CAN BE USED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. IN WHAT WAY DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILD TO USE TIME? “L“ A - IM A 7%.“ MANNER 6. CAN BE CHANGED A3 NEEDED 3 - IN A PLANNED. ORDERED ANo SCHEDULED HANNER 2‘. ~ IN A SPONTANEOUS HANNER & CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER CCMES ALONG D - THEY ..UST SEEN TO KNOW 5 UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE TIME BEST 7- HOW DO YOU HANDLE YOUR CHILD'S QUESTIONS AND IDEAs? VALUE A - NO IDEAS ARE TDD SILLY OR EXTREME. IT'S ON TO ASA ANY QUESTIONS OR TO SAY ANYTHING - NO MATTER WHAT a - CERTAIN TOPICS ARE HARDLY EVER DISCUSSED 6 QUESTIONS ARE ExPECTED TD aE ASNED IN A RESPECTFUL NANNER c - WITHIN REASON. HOST IDEAS 5. QUESTIONS ARE OK TO DISCUSS. SUT DIFFERENCES 5. CONFLICT MUST SE SETTLED D - THERE IS NO REAL REASON OR NEED TO LEN QUESTIONS OR TO DISCUSS -DEAS - WE ALL KNOW IS UNDERSTAND IN THE SAME WAY 8 - HOW HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD TO USE THEIR EFFORT 8. VALu ENERGY AS THEY GO ABOUT LIFE? ‘ A - IN A STEADT. CONSISTENT AND CONSERVATIVE MANNER B - IN A DYNAMIC. ENTHUSIASTIC AND VIGQROUS HANNER C - IN A PEACEFUL. CALM AND SERENE HAMMER D - IN A I'LDDBLE. ADAPTIVE AND EASY GOING MANNER 9 - WHAT HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD ABOUT THE V VALUE OF POSSESSION: 5. BELONGINos? “‘ A - THINGS ARE VALUED BECAUSE THE FAMILY WORILS HARD FDR THEM - THEY HAvE VALUE BECAUSE IT TANES EFFORT TO GET THEM B - THINGS AREN'T WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN LIFE - IT‘S OtPERIENCING AND LIVING LIFE THAT IS IMPORTANT - THINGS OFTEN JUST GET IN THE WAY C - THINGS ARE USEFUL IN UTE BECAUSE YOU CAN USE THEN TO GET OTHER THINGS DONE 5. TO MARE UFE MORE CONVENIENT D - THINGS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THEIR BEAUTY 5 MEANING - THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED & BE IIEPT AS PERFECT AS POSSIBLE IO - IN HELPING YOUR CHILD TO GRow-UP. VALU WHAT EMPHASIS HAVE PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS? ‘ A - HOW TO RELATE TO THE WORLD OF MATERIAL PDSSESSIONS & SELQNGINGS 3 - THE NEED TO PUT EFFORT INTO WHAT YOU DO .5 HOW BEST TO DO IT I l C - THE IHPORTANCE OF TIME 8. HOW BEST TO USE IT I 3 ~ THE HPORTANCE QF QUESTIONS. IDEAS S INFO-NATION IN LIFE 90 £4) R no. 0.. REFERENCES 91 References Anderson, K A. & Resnick, M. J (1997) WWII MW. Alexandria VA: National School Board Association BauchJ’. A. (1992). WWW Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. 1992. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346595). Bronfenbrenner. U. (1979). IheEcologILoflhnmanjexelopmcm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bubolz, M & Sontag, S. (1993) Human Ecology Theory SQumbflQkfiflfamily W. New York: Plenum Press Coleman J. ,Hofi‘er, S. &Kilgore, S (1982) HighschQQlehiflflncnmhlifi. Catholigandpnxatischoolmmpared. New York: Basic Books Co‘ema" 1- & “Offer. 5. (1987). Ruhliganiprixatmhooimmpactfl mmmunitics New York: Basic Books. Colfax, D. and Colfax, M. (1988). Homeschoolingjomxcellence. New York: Warner Books. Conway, G. (1992). SmalLscalEandsclmoLculturemmxperiencmfmixam SQhQQlS. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED376996). Constantine, L. L. (1986) WWW therapy. New York: Guilford Publications Inc. Delahooke, M M (1986) Homuducatedflldrensmallemotmahdmstmcnt WWW. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. Divoky, D. (1983). The new pioneers of the home-schooling movement. Bhi WW 395-398. Farenga, P. (1993). How to get an education at home. W. New York: Oxford Village Press. Frechtling,J. A &Frankel, S M (I983). AsumesLofMomgcmeDLCQumy I.'I .II-I “.00" IIII.'-IIII IIII.‘ I00.l.~.-o. Rockville, MI). Montgomery County Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED234483). 92 Gamoran, A. (1996). Student achievement In public magnet, public comprehensive and private city high schools. Educaflnnflaluatiomandfiofiwmm L8, 1- 18. Gladin, E. W. (1987, May). HomeEducationJhaLactensticscflnsfamihmnd SQhQle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bob Jones University. Greenville, SC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED301925). Guterson.D- (1992). EamilsLManersJMhiLhomcschoolingmakessense. New York: Harcourt Brace J ovanovich Publishers. Haas, T. (1995). Antisocial studies? BhiladclphiaMagazinfiLSQ95. Hanus, J. J. & Cookson, P. W. ,J.r (l996)ChQQsmg_S_chQQISL_¥Qu£h£I§_and Americancducation. Washington, DC: American University Press. Havens, J E 1991 Astudmflpamnjducanmlexelsamhesuelammcademic achimmemamonghcmmhocledmldren Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptists Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX. Homeschooling. (1994, February 16). MichingtatEUniminLStmNems. Editorial. Hood, M. E. (1991). Contemporary philosophical influences on the home schooling movement. HomiSchoolReseatchetLlfl). 1-8. Imig, D. R, Pate, S. M. ”Mitchell M M. ,David, D A ”Pegorraro C. ,Barton, E. R. ,Meloy, S., Villarruel, F A, Hoedel, J. ,Phillips, R. G., Buthelezi, S. & T. G. Bayes (1996) BatadigtnangfamilsLsystemuheompphcanonsandms 58th Annual Conference, National Council on Family Relations, Education & Enrichment Section, Kansas City, MO Imig, D R (1994). AMetthMQgiLchassessingstmcturalzbehaidotal msalrgnmflmiamlxsystemmameasumflfamim. 24th Annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology Preconference Workshop, National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference. November, Minneapolis, MN. Imig, D. R. (1993). BmhmhncsLdmlcctIcsandfamilutmcmne. 23rd Annual Theory Constuction and Research Methodology Preconference Workshop. National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference. November, Baltimore, MD. Imig, D. R. (1993). Family stress: paradigms and perceptions. Eamilyficience W 125-136. 93 Imig, D. R. (1992). Extendmgjhedimensionalmechamsmsnflpatadigmancfamfly systemslhm. 22nd Annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop. National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference. November, Orlando, FL. Imig, D. R & Phillips, R. G (1992). Operationalizing paradigmatic family theory the Family Regime Assessment Scale. WM), 21 7- 234. Imig, D. R. (1992). WWW. Paper presented at the National Conference on Family Relations. November, Orlando, FL. Imig, D. R. (1986) Family process paradigms: A means for facilitating conceptual synthesis In home economics. HQmEECQanIQLEQmmLZ. 3-4 Imig, D. R (1992). Family process theory: extending the concept of dimensronal mechanisms. IhemisLlQumamfllheoDLinflomcEconomichfl). 19- 30. Kantor, D. & Lehr. W. (1975). hisideJhefamilthowaLdaJheoDLofifamily palms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Knowles, J. G. (1988) The context of home schooling In the United States EducanmandllrbaILSocIetyLZJflLS-LS Knowles, J G (1991) W W Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Knowles, J. G, Mayberry, M, & Ray, B. D. (1991, December 24). An Il‘l I IIII‘ III 'I L: .IL 0 ‘1II -I cl. i- I'Igot"III' .'II I I I. ‘0 «OI-l'o ‘I ‘ I IIIII‘III_I‘II "Hal 'HI.(U.S. Department of Education Field Initiated Research Project Grant #RI 17E90220). Knowles, J. G. (1992) From Pedagogy to Ideology: Origins and phases of home education In the United States, 1970-1990 WW2), 195- 235. Lines, P. (1982). State regulation of private education. WM 1 19-123. Lines, P. ( I995). Hch_SQhQQling (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED381849). Mayberry, M, (1988). Why home schooling? A profile of four categories of home schoolers. HomESchooLReseatcheLAfl). 7-14. 94 Mayberry, M. & Knowles, J. G. (1989). Family unity objectives of parents who teach their children: ideological and pedagogical orientations to home schooling. Urban Review. 2114}, 209-225 Mayberry, M, Knowles, J. G, Ray, B, & Marlow, S. Homeschoolingmaremaas educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Montgomery, L. R. (1989). The effect of home schooling on the leadership skills of home schooled students. Homesghflolfimamhcnflll. 7-14. National Association of Independent Schools. Choosing the right school. [Online] Available http://secure.resultsdirect.com/nais/publications/index.cfm, February 20, 1999. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). W [995-26. United States Department of Education. Rakestraw, J. F. (1988). Home schooling in Alabama. HmniSQhQQLficscamhfl, 51(4), 1-6. Ray,B D (1990). Ammmmmmmmmmm Wm. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ray,B D (1992) W W Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ray,B. D. (1992). Hmemwmmmuammmnmmmmm anhimmanandmlichaIm Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Sharp, D. (1997). Is home schooling good for America? Your kids’ education is at stake. W March 16, 1997. Taylor, J W, 5th. (1986). Self-concept in home-schooling children. HQmLLSQhQQl Resemhmzm 1-3- US. Bureau of the Census. (1997). W l . . E | . Van Galen, J A. (1988) Ideology, curriculum, and pedagogy In home education Educationandilrbanfiocietyjlfl). 52- 63 Wallace, N. (1983). BetteuthchoolflnefamIbLsdeclaranonchdependm New York: Larson Publications. Homeschool Research Project. Wartes, J. (1988). Summary of two reports from the Washington Home School Research Project, 1987. WWW), 1-4. Wartes, J. (1990) The Washington Home School Project: Quantitative measures for informing policy decision. Educanmandllnbamsggmmaflfl). 42- 51 Wartes,] (1990).Iherelationsh1p_ofiselectedjnpumdahles_to_academic WWW Woodinville, WA. Washington Homeschool Research Project. 96