Record: Janet F. Carlson, “Context and Regulation of Homeschooling: Issues, Evidence, and Assessment Practices” in School Psychology 35(2020): 10-19. [Abstract here]
Summary: Dr. Janet Carlson is a research professor and associate director of the College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Nebraska. She is a licensed psychologist, teaches a variety of psychology classes, and researches assessment related policies and concepts. In this article she seeks to provide a general overview of homeschooling law for school psychologists so that they can be better equipped to understand serve homeschooled children with special needs. Her method is to find the best and most relevant homeschooling scholarship and summarize it for her audience.
Carlson begins with a cursory look at the history of homeschooling, explaining that dramatically different state regulations emerged out of that history. She then turns to the question of whether or not homeschoolers qualify for special education services. In 2000 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hooks v. Clark County School District, ruled that Nevada did not have to pay for a child’s special education services since the state did not define homeschooling as schooling in its statutes. In the 2004 rewrite of the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), however, public schools were charged with finding and evaluating all children who need it even if they are not in the public education system. Mixed in with this history Carlson mentions some of the empirical literature on the homeschooling of special needs children, which, though methodologically sketchy, has frequently found positive results.
Next Carlson reviews the socialization literature, finding that while much of the scholarship is empirically questionable, the results are generally positive. She finds the same for the scholarship on academic achievement. However, she notes in the next section, the research is deeply flawed both because it too often fails to recognize that for many families homeschooling and public education are not either/or binaries, and because this research is so often conducted by advocates using shoddy methods.
Carlson’s next section is a wonderfully clear and authoritative survey of the academic testing requirements (or lack thereof) of all 50 states, complete with a map illustrating the seven categories in which she places each state statute.
Finally, Carlson connects all of this to school psychology. Her main point is that the tension between federal-level special education law and state-level homeschooling law has led to confusion on the degree to which school psychologists and other special education providers must service the homeschooling community. In the few states that require testing when homeschoolers shift to public schools (Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, as well as two states that leave it to local district discretion, Montana and Nebraska), school psychologists are likely to encounter former homeschoolers frequently. The 2004 IDEA requirement that states locate and evaluate non-public schooled children means that in theory school psychologists in all states should be working with homeschoolers desiring special education services. Yet, notes Carlson, there is little evidence that this mandate is being taken seriously nor is there guidance on how it could be accomplished effectively in the homeschooling context. To help here, Carlson provides another remarkable U.S. map, this time with the states coded for the degree to which their education statutes allow homeschoolers to enroll part time and to access special education services. By her count, 29 states provide disability services to homeschooled children, though in some of these and in many other states there is lack of clarity given the multiple ways homeschooled children can or can not register as schools. She ends by urging school psychologists to educate themselves about the laws of their state and district and to get to know local homeschooling organizations so as to build bridges and establish trust.
Appraisal: Many times summative review articles do not offer much of value. That is happily not the case here. Carlson’s summaries of state testing requirements and of state laws about homeschooler access to public school resources and special education services are wonderful. They distill information available elsewhere into convenient maps and clear summaries that are the best I’ve seen on either topic. I’m doubtful that her concluding advice that school psychologists spend time engaging local homeschool support groups and so forth will get much traction given the huge case load most school psychologists have already, but the spirit of the proposal is honorable. All in all this is a wonderful addition to the literature on homeschooling and public school law and policy, and to the scholarship on homeschooling and special education.
Milton Gaither, Messiah College