Who should pay for it. Should people be bothered.

We have to appreciate the effort of Rob Reich of Stanford, because he has collected the major misunderstandings of home schooling in one well written article.

There is a claim that not enough is known about the home schooled.  About a similar remark about some other groups, such as chess players, or school teachers, one might ask when is enough known?

Setting: A hotel in the Florida Keys during hurricane season.
Persona: Humphrey Bogart, burnt out war hero and hotel keeper.
              Ernest, well dressed professor, stranded by an impending hurricane.

Humphrey ....so what you want is more?

Ernest       That's right.  ...Pause... That's what I want. More.

And it is reasonable for Ernest to want more.  Focused on topic in his line of work, it is admirable.  The only questions are: Who should pay for it, and should people be bothered.

Rob Reich's logical ommission.

So... Because regulation is expensive, there should be some perceived problem with home schooling in order to justify regulating the home schooling. 

Rob Reich does not point to any perceived problems.  He does postulate novel arguments as purposes of education, these are the citizenship argument, that education should produce good citizens and the liberty argument, that "ethically servile" citizens should not be produced. 

We won't go into the performance of the public school system in this post. That there is no evidence whatsoever that home schooling produces inadequate or "ethically servile" citizens, at least none produced.  Rob would have to fill in this hole in the logical chain and then justify the cost to members of the public.

Home school is mainstream???

Home schooling is not close to mainstream.  It is at best a persistent group of subcultures.  You will search in vain for numbers of home schoolers at anywhere close to fifty percent.  The very idea is silly.  One supposes that Rob Reich mis-wrote in his paper.

Public Education is Quite Recent.

So... There were those who were puzzled by what is true on the surface of the matter: that for the most part, parents directing education of their children has been the practice for thousands of years.  One hardly knows how to respond.  The tendency of states to regulate education dates back to about 1850, starting in Massachusetts and spreading about to other states.

Tell me where the error is.

Rob Reich at Stanford has misconceptions.

Robert Reich at Stanford,( not the former labor secretary), put out a paper on the regulation of home schooling.  It was an interesting paper of it's type, covering by far the majority of the common errors.  Look at it.

It relies on points held by him as common notions which are not common notions in fact.  He should be commended for setting them out plainly.

We home school in the Ithaca,  New York area and so are interested in the topic.  And it is a concern that documents like this will be translated into policy where they can inconvenience or damage people with limited resources.

Assumptions of common ground where no common ground exists:

1. That home education is “recent”.
2. That homeschooling has gone mainstream in the United States.
3. That there is a perceived problem with home education.
4. That little is known about home education.
5. That the cost of regulation is inconsiderable.
6. That value pluralism is a good, or should be taught to children.
7. That history is kind to people whose governments regulate education substantially.