DOI: 10.3726/9781916704664.003.0004
1. Consider homeschooling as a solution to the “education crisis” affecting classrooms at the micro level and the wider community at the macro level.
2. Articulate how teachers might be affected by their teaching experience and how that might influence their homeschooling approaches.
3. Reflect critically on your capacity to be neutral in relation to teachers who are increasingly choosing homeschooling for their children.
There are several important things to learn about why teachers homeschool and how they homeschool from this data. The first is that parents who are teachers are unhappy with the school system. The second is that parents who are teachers are not prepared to let the government tell them what they want to do in their homes. Now, this latter point suggests a strongly anti-establishment approach. While that may be true for some, it’s not true for the majority, and they do not behave in a strongly anti-establishment way. It seems like it’s more about teachers feeling like they are professionals and are trained to know what works for a child, in homeschooling their child, and how they are able to learn. Significantly, none of them saw their choice as any different to choosing another private school and participants (such as Aeleth) noted how they’d tried multiple schools, including private schools, before determining that homeschooling was their only option.
Homeschool is one option available to parents in Australia and in many countries around the world. The practice is illegal in certain countries, such as Germany, and partially legal in others, such as China. In Australia, it is legal and facilitated in the Education Act in each state and territory. It is located in those legislative documents in the same part of the acts as those that deal with private schooling or non-government schooling. To begin, it is worthwhile explaining the Australian education system, its funding and its organisation.
Australia has a long history of education choice. All schools are funded by governments, as such, the difference between “government” and “non-government” schools are largely determined by (1) whether the school can accept extra money in the form of fees, however this point is no longer as clear cut as state schools are increasingly asking parents for money for services because they cannot fund these services on the government funding alone (Rowe, 2025), (2) which level of government provides their funding (state or federal governments), and (3) how they are managed (by the Education Act or at arm’s length through each state or territory’s non-state school accreditation arrangements). Like families in other jurisdictions, Australian families have a “choice” about their schooling. In addition, schools are understood to be operating in a market for education. Homeschooling sits outside of the private/public dynamic. Homeschoolers receive no funding from the government, and the departments that manage their homeschool cohort must find the money to do this work through other sources paid to the department.
We acknowledge that, in spite of being managed at some level by the state and territory government education departments and education acts, homeschoolers operate partially outside of the education market in Australia. Unlike in New Zealand, where families are able to access some funding in the form of a home education supervision allowance (Ministry of Education: Te Tāhuhu o te Matauranga, 2023), outside of specialised funding to cover the costs of children’s special education needs and other National Disability Insurance Scheme priorities, there is no funding available to homeschooling families. The money these families pay in tax that would otherwise go to funding schools is not used, often described as saving the government significant amounts of money (New South Wales. Parliament, 2014). However, we reject the notion that homeschoolers are non-market players, as they participate in the education market through their decision to withdraw their children from schools, in particular, most young people who are homeschooled have been schooled at some point (see Aeleth and Claire), and many participate in the ancillary education services market through co-curricular participation (see Aurini & Davis, 2005). Our participants ran microschools and offered specialised services and advice to homeschoolers (see Madeline, who did that in a paid capacity, and Violet, who was a volunteer homeschooling advocate).
We further argue that homeschoolers are part of the education market because they are participants in the education market, even if withdrawing is a choice. No choice is neutral because all choices influence and have an impact on the wider education market. Schools are funded by the Student Enrolment Census (children who attend school on the day the census is taken); if a family chooses not to send their child to a school, that costs the school funding. Due to Australia’s complex government funding arrangements that pay for almost all the running costs of all schools, government (through state funding arrangements), and non-government schools (through federal funding arrangements), all funding is tied to enrolments, so parents’ choices have a political effect. The effect of this approach is that competition between schools is encouraged to fight for funding and that makes the decision of a student (or that student’s family) to attend a particular school a zero-sum game, in that the money that student attracts is taken out of one school and taken to a different school, or not taken to any school as is the case with the home education cohort.
It is important to note, as Morton (2010) suggested, the choice to homeschool is not “one choice” or “a once and for all choice.” Rather, our participants demonstrated what Morton (2010) noted, that homeschoolers “are not a homogeneous group (in fact it is debatable as to whether the term “group” is appropriate due to their fragmented nature)” (p. 45) and that there is no more one way of doing homeschooling as there is one type of parent who homeschools. However, much of the literature on why families choose homeschooling suggests that there was a change with the pandemic, as Gemma and Claire’s story showed. Prior to the pandemic, there were some common stereotypes about homeschoolers as “social misfits”: either “tree-hugging hippies,” “religious fanatics,” or “hothousing” parents determined that their offspring should achieve academic excellence at an early age” (Morton, 2010, p.46). As early as 2015, English suggested they were related to parenting philosophies.
Other studies have suggested that changes in the educational landscape have led to increased uncertainty, and this uncertainty has led to the rise in homeschooling choice. For these studies, the trend towards home education was driven by the school closures in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to an increase in home education, which can be expected to grow in the future (cf. English, 2021). These studies found parents saw that schooling could happen from home and showed children that learning could be done at home without the ancillary stresses of the classroom, as Tara’s story showed. Significantly, even prior to the pandemic, as both Violet and Aeleth were early adopters, homeschooling from the 2000s, experiences in schools that were unpleasant led to the choice to home educate (English, 2013; 2021a: 2021b; Rothermel, 2003). Research notes that students who identify as having a special educational need (Gemma, Tara, Aeleth) may be more likely to be home educated (Green & Hoover-Dempsey, 2007; Morse & Bell, 2018; Slater, Burton & McKillop, 2022). Studies suggest parents are “forced” to home educate, as our parents relayed, when they have exhausted all other choices available in schools (Aeleth is a particular case in point). In particular, these studies identify many special education needs, with Autism being identified as a key determinant of the choice of homeschooling in several places.
Studies (Slater, Burton & McKillop, 2022) suggest that students who identify as Autistic benefit from the choice to home educate (see also Green & Hoover-Dempsey, 2007; Morse & Bell, 2018). They are more settled, experience better academic success (Lawrence, 2018; Slater, Burton & McKillop, 2022), and have time to visit therapists and specialists that may interfere with learning in the school day (Gribble & English, 2016). Aeleth’s story showed this experience clearly. In addition, they are not “taken out” in a homeschool setting and seen as somehow different or special needs, like they would be if they had to leave a classroom for therapies during the school day. Further, parents who choose to home educate, especially after their child who identifies as Autistic has been schooled for a period of time, also describe greater satisfaction with the experience of home education in comparison to schools (Lawrence, 2018; Slater, Burton & McKillop, 2022).
There is some international research that suggests bullying may contribute to the decision to home educate (e.g., Slater et al., 2022; English, Campbell & Moir, 2023; Green-Hennessy & Mariotti, 2023). However, with this work, bullying is one of a suite of issues a child may face in schools. Claire and Tara both described bullying in their stories. An Australian study conducted by English, Campbell, and Moir (2023) showed that, for the small group of families who participated in their study, bullying had driven them to choose home education. It is important to note that the bullying was associated with other issues, including physical disabilities, social-emotional issues and neurodivergence. As such, while their cohort identified bullying as the main push to homeschool, it cannot be untangled from the other factors parents in the cohort faced in advocating for their children in schools. It is noted that two of the participants in that study were also teachers.
Studies have explored the experiences of children who are home educating, in particular after a period of school, as with the parents in our study, and related these to specific mental health concerns including anxiety (De Wit, Eagles, & Regeer, 2017), drug addiction and abuse (Hodge, Salas- Wright, & Vaughn, 2017), depression (Guterman & Neuman, 2017) and trauma (Lawson & Sibla, 2016). These studies have found that children are more likely to be engaged in their learning, happy and settled in a home education environment (De Wit, Eagles, & Regeer, 2017). In one study from India, specifically concerned with the unschool population, De Wit, Eagles and Regeer (2017) found unschooling to be the only way families had found to restore the lives and happiness of children with mental health conditions. They argued that experiences of anxiety and stress were reduced in India’s unschooled population. Similarly, Gemma, Tara, and Claire all reported their child was much happier and more settled, less stressed and much calmer after the homeschooling experience.
De Wit et al. (2017) also suggest there were significant advantages for unschooled children, especially those who are vulnerable to anxiety, in South and Southeast Asian schooling systems that are characterised by rote learning, frequent high-stakes testing and a note-taking approach to teaching. They suggest the students’ feelings of anxiety and depression are related to being out of control and lacking agency in a schooling system that rewards surface-level knowledge acquisition and a focus on learning that was concerned with the next step, usually a standardised test to determine university entrance, rather than interest-led learning for learning’s sake. They argued that, because the experiences of unschooling facilitated safety and control over their lives, the young people of their study were less anxious and happier than the general school-age population when they were home and not learning at school. These young people’s experience accords with findings from other studies (cf. Riley, 2018; Ricci, 2016; Hodge, Salas-Wright & Vaughn, 2017), which suggest empowerment and agency to choose the learning approach that suits their needs may ameliorate educational issues.
In one study, Hodge, Salas-Wright and Vaughn (2017), looking at drug use, anxiety and depression in the home-educated population, found the home-educated cohort was less likely to use drugs, be depressed or have anxiety when compared with mainstream schooled populations. Participants in our study, including Gemma, Tara, Aeleth and Claire, reported their child had less anxiety after the period of homeschooling. Their work suggested that the informal networks with others in a community may be conducive to a positive adolescent experience.
They also suggest that, in spite of the heterogeneity of the home-educated population, the different learning approaches to those taken in mainstream schools, and the relationships with parents, may lead to lower levels of anxiety and depression. A relationship was noted in Violet’s and Aeleth’s responses. Significantly, as Ray (2004) noted, “numerous studies, employing various psychological constructs and measures, show that the home educated are developing at least as well, and often better than, those who attend institutional schools” (p. 7).
Further studies have looked at young people who are gifted or twice exceptional and found, in line with other special education needs, that gifted young people who are home educated are more satisfied with their education (Jolly, Matthews, & Nester, 2013), perhaps because they are able to accelerate their learning in line with their needs (Winstanley, 2009). These studies find that the students enjoy benefits from their home education, in particular because they are able to manage their learning (Winstanley, 2009), which, aligned with self-determination theory, is closely linked to academic success and satisfaction (Riley, 2018). These studies find improvements in behaviour and engagement among the gifted home education cohort in contrast with their experiences in mainstream school (Jolley, Matthews & Nester, 2013).
Previous work has tried to classify the choice using categories. Harding and Farrell (2003) have looked at the situation in Australia and found that the motivations to choose home education are generally philosophical. Harding and Farrell (2003) and Harding (2011) argue that home-educating families choose this pathway for a number of reasons. Harding (2011) argued that the reasons people home educate include religious belief, parental responsibility, concerns over quality of teaching, especially around literacy and numeracy; social development; avoidance of bullying and other negative peer experiences; and distance and additional needs. Harding (2011) classified these as decisions based on philosophy, and this is often cited as the main reason parents choose to home educate their children in Australia, as in other countries (cf. Van Galen, 1991; Green & Hoover Dempsey, 2007).
Van Galen’s (1991) work is probably the best known and most cited explanation of homeschooling choice. They argued that there were two groups of families who homeschool: ideologues and pedagogues. Ideologues stand in deep opposition to the notion of a public or mainstream school, so that neither a government nor a non-government mainstream school offering a standardised curriculum would suit their beliefs about what is right for their family or their children. They are said to home educate because (1) they “object to what is being taught” and (2) “to strengthen their relationship with their children” (Van Galen, 1991, pp. 66–67). This group included fundamentalist Christians who wanted their children to be immersed in fundamentalist doctrine, conservative political and social beliefs, and to reinforce their beliefs through their own choices. They tended to report believing that the family is the bedrock of society. In her discussions of this cohort, she noted that most had initially wanted or chosen a private school education for their child but had encountered problems. These problems included: (1) they could not afford to pay the fees, (2) they were unable to open their own private school even though they tried, or (3) they were unsure of the ideological convictions of their children’s teachers. While many fundamentalist religious schools in Australia covenant their teachers to specific religious ideologies, it is difficult to “prove” that they do indeed follow that belief, and there have been issues with schools following that belief in line with the Australian employment law (O’Flaherty, 2023). In this group, in Van Galen’s study, even when other options became available or when the costs became overwhelming, they continued to homeschool, preferring it to any other option available.
Building on the work of Mayberry and Knowles (1989) noted that Christian families who disagreed with the ideological intentions of the curriculum were not alone. Indeed, other, non-religiously aligned families also objected to what they saw as limitations in the curriculum, including that it was “dumbing down” the concepts to which students were exposed, They also objected to the ways schools managed the social experiences of children in the playground, a finding reflected in the work of English et al. (2023) and decided, as with the more recent English study, to home educate in order to preserve their children’s confidence and counteract bullying and other issues. These issues were noted here (Aeleth, Claire, Cathy, and Steph).
Religious parents who were identified as “ideologues” by Van Galen (1991) also had problems with the social experiences of their children in that they did not agree with their children being exposed to the secular children’s ideas in the playground. They also saw their children as persecuted by the secular institution, the secular children, and the secular teachers. It became their responsibility to educate their children in line with their beliefs, and through political engagement (Permoser & Stoeckl, 2021), they enshrined their right to home educate to provide their children with an education in line with their beliefs. Further, it aligned with biblical teachings such as Deuteronomy 6:6–7 and other scripture that supported parents’ roles in the family as Godly and above secular and legal requirements to allow governmental intervention in families, as with schools. Van Galen (1991) noted that home education was a means of “fulfilling God’s general plan for Christian parents and His specific plans for their families” (p. 71). Furthering the political engagement of these families, Marshall and Valle (1996) argued that secular parents also believed they had a right to determine what was appropriate for their children to learn and protect their children from the harmful influences of the playground.
Van Galen’s (1991) work suggested the other group of parents choosing homeschooling were what they termed pedagogues . This group were said to be homeschooling “for pedagogical reasons” (Van Galen, 1991, p. 71). They were critical of schools “not so much [because] the schools teach heresy, but that schools teach whatever they teach ineptly” (Van Galen, 1991, p. 71). Significantly for this book, in this category, Van Galen (1991) found many of the “pedagogues” were also teachers or parents who noted they had a research (either formal or informal) interest in the art and science of pedagogy. At the very least, most of the parents in this cohort had read widely on child development, with many becoming involved in child-rearing-focused organisations, including the La Leche League (Van Galen, 1991). These families reportedly believed in personal responsibility, and without using the term, demonstrated a strong belief in the responsibility bestowed on them by their role as parents and by their parenting work.
It is probably unsurprising to the reader that the teachers did not homeschool in the same ways they taught school. For the majority of our participants (n = 11), there was no attempt to meet the curriculum for the age level of their child, and it would be pointless to even try, as they saw their teaching experience as not being very relevant to their homeschooling. However, participants (n = 9) described how the experience of homeschooling had affected their teaching. Aeleth stated, “it gave me the confidence, I suppose, to go to sort of thumb my nose a bit at the – the school system, I guess.” Sassy described her approach to reporting, not homeschooling, as constructing educator dialogue that is commonly used throughout the teaching community. She, and others (n = 8) described how their teaching credentials had allowed them to speak the school like language (of departments of education, of teaching and learning and of pedagogy and curriculum)
and, as such, were able to fly under the radar. However, their extensive knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy, outside of meeting regulatory burdens, did not appear to be of much value in the prosecution of education in their homeschools. For Tara it made her think about the differences between education and schools. Tara stated:
Re-creating school at home is rarely a good idea. We have been conditioned to believe that school is the bees knees, the way children learn and what has to be done to succeed in life. It takes time to de-school and to learn to trust in learning.
Similarly, Aeleth noted that, for her, “the biggest thing for me, once we started home, schooling was letting go of being a teacher.” Participants (n = 9) described how they could not stomach the ways schools were teaching now. For example, Claire spoke for those participants who mentioned not being able to go back to mainstream, Claire was teaching special education, and her partner was a teacher in a distance education school, when she said:
Both my husband and I, and we went back to face-to-face teaching. And then we both desperately tried to get into [distance education schools], because we needed a full-time job that paid properly but we just couldn’t stomach what’s going on in face-to-face schools. So – since I homeschooled, I really don’t think I could – certainly not mainstream. I’m a special ed teacher, yeah. And I find at least what we’re doing in special education is a lot more student focused and so I’m okay with that. I – I would feel like a fraud to be in a mainstream class, and I still do have to teach mainstream classes … It’s a fine line we tread. It’s – what’s the terminology I used? yeah, I think it’s selling my soul to teach in mainstream schools, because I just – I feel like a fraud. I’m doing something I don’t believe in. My heart’s not there. And even now, even what I’m doing it. I’m working in special needs. I’m working online with kids who are at home. Still, the curriculum – it’s so screwed and the way we have to teach it, and all of the extra bits they tack on to the real task of teaching is just annoying distractions from the real focus which is meant to be the students.
Claire’s experience was mirrored in other participants’ experiences. Tara talked about the differences between homeschooling and mainstream. She stated:
I find what I do in the classroom is hugely prescribed by the Australian Curriculum and assessment driven. Often there is no time to explore things deeply or ironically, we explore things too deeply and the children lose interest. If I tried to replicate school at home, I’m certain I would have a fair bit of resistance.
Tara’s response supported those of other participants. There were strong alignments with reports of realising how squashed and limiting the curriculum was (Catherine) or, as Violet’s anecdote above shows, how incapable teachers are of meeting the students where they are and meeting them and their needs every day. Others talked about how inauthentic the experience was and how bored both teachers and students were (Madeline, Sian, Cathy). Aeleth talked about the power imbalance and how that impacted students’ experiences, which Lisa described as limiting their capacity to be creative and entrepreneurial. The result was that, for all the teachers, there was no way to return to the career they loved outside of alternative offerings (Catherine, Violet, Sassy), online (Claire), or relief (Steph).
In the following chapter, we will begin to explore the teachers’ experiences of their choice to homeschool.
There are some study points to consider at the end of this chapter:
1. Our participants were unhappy with the school, but it was their parenting that had the greatest influence on what they expected to be the outcome of the choice of homeschooling.
2. There was a strong belief that schools were failing, even among our teachers who reported doing everything they could to “fix” the school experience for the students in their care.
3. In your opinion, do families make rational choices in relation to education? Explain your answer.
4. How might the COVID-19 pandemic-19 school closures have influenced ideologues and pedagogues differently?
5. Do you think that families who are deliberate homeschoolers might ever take their children to school? What drivers might influence those choices?
Canaries in the Coalmine
Twitter
Facebook
WhatsApp
LinkedIn
