The “Choice” Charade – Part 3

The Threat to Homeschooling

A 3D Research Report

[This 5-part report was authored by Sarah H. Leslie of the Iowa Research Group, Inc. circa 2000-2003 as part of an effort to warn the nation’s homeschoolers of a newly forming false “choice” initiative in education reform. The state of Ohio was ground zero for this new effort to redefine homeschooling. The original concerns are still in effect to this day.]

Part 3: Bill Bennett and the De-Valuing of America: Accountability and Homeschooling

Those who set the standards and define the terms will rule the systems. Those who manage the resources and determine the consequences of failure will control their “partners” and enforce compliance. The promise of “local control” is meaningless when federal funding is tied to federal standards and policies.¹

The Two Sides to William Bennett

William Bennett, like the Greek god, Janus, has two sides to his face. Bennett has carefully cultivated a persona in the media as Mr. Virtues — a highly respected leader who is seen speaking out on behalf of fine character and strong academics. Bennett is the epitome, if not caricature, of the consummate moral conservative – always on some new quest to save America from moral decay. These moral crusades endear Bennett not only to the religious and political right, but enhance his reputation across a broad swath of mainstream America. Friends and foes alike assume that this side to Bennett’s face is the only side. But it isn’t.

The other face of Bennett/Janus is less public and not well known. The fact is that Bennett has always been a proponent of radical education reform – the same kind of reform first promoted by William Spady, Willard Daggett, David Hornbeck, Robert Marzano and others. Consistently, throughout his public life, Bennett has trumpeted stringent governmental controls. Bennett’s full record in these matters is only known by education reform insiders and “sold out” radical reform promoters. Teachers and parents do not know this. To learn the facts one must scrutinize the education periodicals and journals, government documents, and reports issued by public policy institutes and think tanks. 

Bennett mixes his own brand of character, values and virtue with the heavy-handed measures of reform. Bennett and his reform colleagues probably hold sincere beliefs that the world will become a better place if they institute high standards, put in place accountability structures, and mandate measurable results. However, their plan also includes strong-armed penalties for non-compliance, something already previewed in the No Child Left Behind federal education reform legislation. This plan firmly places the locus of control into the hands of an omnipresent and intrusive state. 

The less well-known side to Bennett encompasses far more than education reform. It extends into political, economic, philosophical and cultural issues as well. It involves a group of people who share Bennett’s ideologies and who work alongside Bennett to achieve their societal reform aims. This segment of the report will only focus on education matters. In particular, this section examines what Bennett has actually said and done pertaining to homeschooling, accountability, and values. Surprisingly, this has much to do with government schools, too.

“Choice” – A Catalyst for Reform

“Choice,” despite its pretensions, is a mechanism to empower the state, not the individual. An early state plan for education restructuring described “choice” as a “catalyst” for reform:

Choice is one way to initiate changes in the system…. Public school choice should not be considered an end in itself but rather a means to a variety of outcomes… catalyst for school improvement… research shows that for choice to be effective, it must first be linked to… other restructuring strategies and policy changes. (“School Choice Task Force Report,” HB3565 Oregon Educational Act for the 21^st Century, 1/93, p. 2)

“Choice” intends to: 1) extinguish traditionally structured public education, and 2) eradicate homeschooling as it is currently legally sanctioned. An artfully contrived false dichotomy emerges when this kind of statement is made. There is cheerleading from the Left, from those who are more than happy to kill homeschooling rights. And there is applause from the Right, from some who believe that public education should falter and fail. 

Let the homeschoolers beware! Let the public educators beware! Neither is the true enemy of the other! Yet, each is being manipulated by “choice” proponents to assist in the destruction of the other. In truth, “choice” is the real enemy. It is the sledgehammer to be used to drive a fatal stake into homeschooling. It will also irrevocably restructure the intrinsic governance of public education – amputating it completely from its life support system of parental and local control, severing teachers from the last vestiges of independence and self-determination. 

The No Child Left Behind Act ensures that “choice” will be on the receiving end of public dollars and students when public schools begin to collapse under the weight of the severe penalties imposed in a few short years. Waiting in the wings to salvage the damage will be innovative “choice” structures such as charters, cybercharters, tuition tax credits, vouchers, and many deceptive and innovative hybrids. Eventually, these “options” will tether every child individually to the state, imposing “accountability” and “responsibility” mandates upon teachers, schools, districts, and families. 

Within the homeschool community there are already a few families lining up for a “piece of the pie” – federal or state dollars in the form of tuition tax credits, reimbursements, scholarships, vouchers, charters, tutoring, and the many hybrids of these “choice” options. There is also an influx of non-homeschoolers arriving on the scene, borrowing the term but sporting brand new, publicly-funded trappings. The next few years are going to be treacherous and dangerous for homeschoolers. Traditional homeschoolers, who do not want state money, nor the accompanying “accountability,” are already finding themselves threatened by this new wave of “choice” coming in like a flood. It may come as a shock when homeschoolers see certain leaders exchange hard-fought homeschool rights and freedoms in favor of these new “choice” perks. Perhaps one of the biggest surprises will be William Bennett. 

“More Teeth”

In an article entitled “Virtual Charter Schools Face Opposition From Unlikely Source,” published at a CNSNews.com website on August 13, 2002, reporter Jessice Cantelon records that opposition to William Bennett’s K12 virtual academies (cybercharters) has come from both sides of the education spectrum – the National Education Association (NEA, teacher’s union) and homeschoolers. The NEA refered to Bennett’s K12 as “taxpayer ‘facilitated home schooling.’” Tom Washburne of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a homeschool legal advocacy group, warned that “the political presence that you need to fight back the regulations on home education” would be undermined by virtual charters. Carefully treading a fine line between fact and distortion, a K12 official responded to Washburn’s statement:

Jeff Kwitowski, Bennett’s press secretary, dismissed that argument, insisting that government is only intruding on the K12 concept by requiring state funding and tests to measure student performance. Bennett is “not going to let any state politics or any education gurus come in and try to alter things and change things,” Kwitowski said.

In a radio interview with Mark Standriff of WSPD radio in Toledo, Ohio (August 16, 2002), Bennett described his view on publicly-funded “choice” after some objections were raised by homeschoolers. Note carefully how Bennett links public money to the concept of “accountability”:

… [T]he principle I’m defending, Mark, is school choice… parental choice. The objection that they have is that it shouldn’t be involved in public funding at all. It shouldn’t be involved with government schools, as they say. But, I’m not prepared to relinquish $400 billion and just say, well never mind, that’s not the money that I’m entitled to. Parents are paying that money in taxes, they should have an option within the public school system that gives them a chance to educate their children at home, but be publicly accountable as all public schools should be….

Bennett expounded on his view of accountability in the same radio interview:

B: …We’ve had some very good meetings in Ohio with your commissioner of education, Zelman, and others, who are saying, “Look, we need results. We have got to get results.” People are tired of defending a system which is, you know, not getting results. And, we can do that. We can provide results, because of the quality of the program….

S: One of the issues that comes up is, obviously, accountability…. And here in Ohio we have proficiency tests. Do the K12 students, the Ohio Virtual Academy students, get a chance to take those proficiency tests along with the public school students?

B: Yes they do.

S: Why are those administered?

B: That’s part of the accountability…. We want our kids to take those tests for two reasons. We think, since its public money, they should be accountable. This is public education. Second, we think the kids in the Ohio Virtual Academy are going to do very well on these tests and their parents are going to be very pleased that they put them through it.

These statements, made during the past year while promoting his K12 cybercharter concept, reveal Bennett’s philosophy about standards, accountability, and testing. At first glance these remarks could be chalked up to the assumption that Bennett, in trying to appease aroused public officials, was simply towing the reform party line. However, the record will show that Bennett has a lifelong public record of calling for “more teeth” – stricter standards, measurable results, accountability, high stakes assessment testing, and state-imposed rewards and penalties based on compliance. 

In an article about the growing opposition to cybercharters around the country detailing “lax academic standards and financial accountability,” Bennett disclosed,

There are some crappy cyber schools setting up, and we are as interested as the states are in seeing that they don’t survive….The more scrutiny, the better…. Nothing will put us out of business faster than bad cyber charter schools. (“Cyber schools fill a niche for parents, kids,” V. Dion Haynes, Chicago Tribune, 12/01/02)

Bernie Hanlon, head of the California Virtual Academy, one of Bennett’s cybercharters, echoed these sentiments.

“There have been a lot of abuses in California,” Mr. Hanlon said during an interview…. “Any law that strengthens accountability in California is good. We’re just going to dance with it.” (“Calif. Charter-Funding Fight Hits Home,” Caroline Hendrie, Ed Week, http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.dfm?slug=18charter.h22)

In an Ohio newspaper article pertaining to the K12 cybercharters, Bennett again linked public dollars to accountability.

Bennett said he would like to see “more teeth” in all school regulations. “I’d be happy to see more accountability and standards,” he said. “We’re using public money.” (“School program has big booster,” Kymberli Hagelberg, Akron Beacon-Journal, 8/24/02)

“Accountability,” as defined under education reform measures involves testing and meeting state-imposed curriculum standards. This is anathema to homeschoolers for a variety of reasons – most notably, but not limited to, deeply held religious, ideological and/or political beliefs. Bennett’s remarks demonstrate a total lack of consideration and respect for homeschoolers’ choices and convictions. 

Homeschoolers see increased “accountability” – the reporting, approval, assessment, evaluation, and state supervision of their home education process — as a means to strip away the freedoms which have made homeschooling so effective. Homeschoolers have been successful because they rely on time-honored, private accountability structures – “home-grown” collaborations which include local community, church, extended family, support groups, health care practitioners, private tutors, and the list could go on and on. Homeschoolers do not live under rocks, as many critics have supposed; rather they have built up complex and extended cultural networks. The fact that homeschoolers have been so openly engaged in society has actually served them well over the years, endearing them to many who formerly opposed the concept.

Homeschoolers have traditionally been a fiercely independent group: not on welfare, not on the public dole, not on the public roll, receiving charity from private sources when needed. All of this is set to change. The bait is set, the lure is cast. Will they bite?

Opening the Floodgates

New “choice” alternatives, such as William Bennett’s cybercharter concept, pose a direct challenge to traditional homeschooling in America. One homeschool leader expressed concern about the erosion within the homeschooling ranks:

Some public school opponents of private home education have openly stated that their desire is to get a majority of home educators to sign up under public school-controlled programs like the Charter Schools and the Independent Study Programs. They have further stated that when a large enough percentage have done this, that they will hopefully (in their eyes) have little problem in “cracking down” legally on those of us who home school privately…. The further popularity of charter schools… with home educators could help undermine the freedoms we all enjoy. (“Charter Schools and ISPs: Promise or Hidden Threat?”, Roy M. Hanson, Jr., CHEA)

Echoing this concern, the Ohio Home Education Coalition issued an alert in August 2002:

One school district official told a reporter at that Columbus meeting that there are 800 homeschoolers in his district. “If we can convince just 20% to participate in our version of e-schools, we will be successful.” Successful in what way? Is enrolling homeschoolers just about stopping the financial bleed? Or, successful in getting “homeschoolers” to cave in to state pressure where they heretofore have not? Successful in claiming a newly developing definition of “homeschooling” – a definition to be determined by the mere building and with officials imposing many of the same demands required when one is physically present in the classroom? Sucessful in dividing and ultimately conquering homeschooling?

Because homeschooling has traditionally been a movement of the religious faithful and/or extraordinarily dedicated parents, it may become earmarked for extinction as “choice” becomes more widespread and popular. Many fear that the mass entrance of families without strong convictions into home-based “choice” models, dilutes the strength of the movement. They have concerns about preserving the integrity of homeschooling and separating it distinctly apart from the new, publicly-funded, “choice” counterfeits. They also worry that those with lesser conviction are easier to sway, particularly when offered the “carrot” of money, such as tuition reimbursements, “freebies,” and other enticements. One educator, noting the shift in ideology, has remarked that “home schooling” is “now about parents spending quality time with their children and giving them the best opportunity for a quality education.” (Kelly Painter of Calvert, quoted in “Blacks turn to home-schooling,” Ellen Sorokin, Washington Times, 2/9/03) 

It is now clear that not only are homeschoolers part of the targeted market for Bennett’s cybercharters, but public school students are as well. This expanded marketing could potentially have disastrous effects upon government classrooms. It could also bring in a huge influx of new, home-based, publicly-funded, cybercharter students into the ranks of those who call themselves “homeschoolers.” Education Week reported last fall (10/24/01) on K12’s cash-flow and investors, and the new need to focus on the public market. 

Home-schooled students number about 2 million, said Jim McVetty, an analyst who tracks K12 for Boston-based EduVentures, an education industry firm. But that’s not a big enough pool, he argued. “Even if they’re looking at a quarter of that market share, that’s not a huge market,” he said….

The big prize, of course, would be to sign up sizable chunks of the 53 million [public students]. (“Bennett’s Online Education Venture,” Andrew Trotter)

A related but more recent article chronicles K12’s $20 million round of new financing, led by Constellation Ventures of New York:

Dennis Miller, managing partner at Constellation Ventures, said the K12 investment is consistent with all of his firm’s criteria. “K12 is a rapidly growing company focused on untapped markets with unique distribution systems,” Miller said. “William Bennett has an exemplary record in the education sector and he and the other premier individuals involved with the company have spent a lot of time developing a world class curriculum that can be delivered in a cost-effective way. The company has been on a significant growth curve during the last two years. 

In the same article Peter Stokes, executive vice-president of EduVentures, confirms the new marketing strategy directed towards public students,

“There are indications from both the supply and demand side that suggest this is an emerging opportunity.”

…Stokes said that K12 had originally focused on the home-schooling market, but might find additional revenues from selling its content as a supplement for students in traditional schools.

About 1.5 million students are being home-schooled now, Stokes said. “That’s not insignificant, but it’s not huge,” he added. “The larger opportunity for K12 might be in providing supplemental Web-based content to families whose children attend traditional bricks-and-mortar charter schools.” (“Bennett-run startup gets $20M,” Tyson Freeman, http://www.ipo.com/venture/news.asp?p=IPO&newsID=37809 )

In launching the K12 virtual academies, Bennett has set his cybercharter oceanliner on a course towards the deep, dangerous and uncharted waters of education reform. He and his “choice” compatriots have intentionally roped on the tiny flotilla of homeschooling families, towing them on this voyage out to sea. The waves will come up and the waters will get rough. At some point the rope may be severed. Homeschoolers will have to make a decision. They can abandon their crafts and board the “choice” vessel. Or face life-threatening waves of “penalties.” 

The definition of the term “homeschooling” is becoming so leaky, given the intrusion of cybercharters and their many publicly-funded hybrids that also claim to be “homeschooling,” that the tug on the tether to Bennett’s “choice” ship is beginning to be felt. Beware of friendly architects who attempt to board the homeschool ship and fix the “leaky” legal definition of homeschooling! The slightest error in the mending could sink the boat when it takes to water!

At the same time, the great Titanic of public education is now hurtling at break-neck speed through uncharted waters towards an iceberg of heavy-handed federalism. Even now, with implementation of No Child Left Behind, schools are beginning to feel the impact of the insurmountable standards, the crunch of impassable assessments, and the collision of federal mandates with human frailties and lack of funding. The lifeboats from this sinking ship all head in one direction – to “choice.” 

Public school officials are understandably hot under the collar about the lack of state oversight of charter schools. They reason: If we have to bend over backwards to meet the onerous requirements of state and federal regulations, then why not everybody else? The drumbeat for more accountability for charter schools has already begun. Homeschoolers could be included in this call. One example lashes “home schooling” onto charters.

An unfolding “elitist” movement in U.S. education is a message that needs to be heard regarding charter schools and home schooling, says an Auglaize County Educational Service Center official.

Charter schools that have public accountability are not the issue, [the official] said; rather, the issue is when schools access the public’s money but don’t have to provide public accountability, he said pointing to home schooling.

“There’s no accountability,” the superintendent said. “Where we miss it – we don’t ask every kid in the state to pass proficiency tests.”

The institution of charter schools like home schooling tends to “divorce” the community from the pride of its schools, [the official] said. (“’Elitism’ worries official,” by Melissa Warren, Wapokoneta Daily News, 11/22/02.) [emphasis added]

The West Virginia Education Association issued a blunt alert on January 31, 2003, decrying the lack of accountability for homeschoolers. “Home school students should be tested just like students in public schools,” it read. This group urged their membership to “support a requirement that would mandate that students who fail to achieve standards for two consecutive years return to public schools.” (http://www.wvea.org/lobbyline.htm) Unfortunately, this state teachers’ union is shooting at the wrong enemy. The real threat to public education is posed by the new “choice” entities.

Homeschoolers should not look to Bennett for support when push comes to shove. It is true that Bennett has carefully cultivated an image as the virtuous friend and ally of homeschoolers. He has hobnobbed with the leadership of the homeschooling community for well over a decade now, schmoozing with the state and national leaders. An article in Ed Week even cited a favorable review of Bennett’s K12 by a notable homeschool leader:

“I think there is a new breed of home schooler coming into the movement who will find this kind of service attractive, especially as it expands to the older grades,” said Michael P. Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and the president of Patrick Henry College, a small institution aimed at children who were home-schooled. (“Former Education Secretary Starts Online-Learning Venture,” Mark Walsh, January 10, 2001)

However, HSLDA has since published a strong admonition against charter schools (Jan./Feb. 2002), which unfortunately does not mention Bennett or his company by name (http://www.hslda.org/courtreport). The cover story, “Charter schools: the price is too high,” warned,

…virtual charter schools are supporting home schooling in name only. Parents who enroll their children in these virtual charter schools are actually creating small public schools in their home.

The accompanying article, “Charter schools: look before you leap!” worried,

…as the number of private home schoolers becomes smaller than those enrolled in public programs, we will see a new attack upon the precious freedoms so many pioneering private home schoolers and organizations worked so hard to establish and defend. There is a growing attempt to marginalize private home schoolers as a radical and unreasonable element of a larger “reasonable” group that understands the need for government help and supervision by certified experts. 

Bennett’s eagerness to conform to state standards and requirements (not to mention state monies), in combination with his aggressive marketing strategies, could easily propel his cybercharters into a leading role as the champion of this more “reasonable” group. In late August of 2002, an Ohio homeschooler interviewed William Bennett after one of his public presentations promoting the Ohio Virtual Academy. In private correspondence to other homeschool parents, she wrote,

I asked him if he is at war for charter schools, is he willing to allow homeschooling to be a casualty of that war? 

He didn’t answer directly, but again mentioned how much he loves homeschoolers. Hmmmm. Funny way of showing it.

Bennett’s Record on Homeschooling

Most homeschool parents do not scour William Bennett’s writings in the education journals, his public policy documents, or analyze his life’s work. To do so reveals the startling revelation that Bennett has never truly been a friend of homeschooling — at least not the kind of homeschooling currently allowed by law across America. Rather, his concept of homeschooling has always come with tight government strings attached – aligning to state curriculum standards, requiring assessments, and being held accountable for state-determined results. The following historical record gives indication of Bennett’s enmity towards homeschoolers.

On January 2, 1986, then-Secretary of Education William Bennett was the subject of a lengthy interview by columnist John Lofton of the Washington Times. This interview was subsequently entered into the Congressional Record on March 7^th of the same year. In this shocking interview, when asked specifically about his views on homeschools and Christian schools, Bennett responded,

A: I think in either of those cases the state does have a minimal interest in assuring that (a) the institution is an educational institution, that something that calls itself educational really is – and that cuts a lot of ways, putting a great burden on all sorts of schools – and (b) that the so-called school is not being used as something else – that is, that you draw a distinction between the homeschooler and the parent who wants to keep a kid out of school to do something that doesn’t have anything to do with the child’s education.

Q: But we know that what the state calls a “minimal interest” has a way of growing into a larger interest. Are you saying the state has a right to test those who go to Christian and home schools, and if the kids don’t meet the state’s testing qualifications, then the state can shut these schools down?

A: The reading and math test, yes. If enough of the kids are doing fine – reading at a level that is at least as good as the average in the rest of the state, however it is set up – that’s fine. Then you leave them alone.

Q: But you support the right of the state to set these testing standards?

A: Yeah.

Q: And if the Christian or home school falls beneath the state’s testing standards, then the state has the right to close these schools down?

A: I would say if you have a private school, in the home or under the auspices of a church, and your failure rate for students falls below the average in the state, I think the state could close them down, yeah. It’s not educating. Close it down.

These remarks provide an early example of Bennett’s advocacy of state-prescribed penalties for lack of “accountability.” When pressed on the legal concept of “minimal interest,” Bennett responded that “Some parents abuse their children. The state has a right to protect those children from those parents” – an astonishing statement which equates home and Christian education to child abuse. Bennett then proceeded to underscore these views:

Q: But why would you defend the right of the state to set testing standards when one reason a lot of parents want to send their kids to private school is because they reject the state’s standards?

A: For the same reason I send in the cops when I find out a kid has been locked in the closet for three months.

Q: But that is a criminal act. Why do you liken home schools or Christian schools that are not state-tested to a criminal act?

A: No, educational abuse of children – if you’re not teaching your children what they need to know to survive in this world….

This is horrifying revelation. Bennett, a Harvard-educated lawyer, responded to Lofton’s inquiry about “minimal interest” and state standards by likening homeschool parents to child abusers! The second answer reveals Bennett’s belief that it is “educational abuse” to reject state standards. He then likens educational abuse to child abuse and neglect – locking a child up in a closet! In a legal sense, he is saying that parents who reject state standards should be viewed in the same way as parents who torture or starve their children. 

These words are chilling. Although an extensive search has been conducted, so far no record has been found to indicate that Bennett has ever distanced himself from these words, or repented of them. In the current education reform climate, where failure to meet standards and demonstrate accountability is laced with penalties, these words appear even more ominous. Should those parents who reject state standards be penalized under child abuse laws? Homeschoolers have every reason to be concerned.

Just to be sure that he heard Bennett correctly, Lofton followed up on his interview a few weeks later.

…I asked Mr. Bennett, again, the same question:

Where does the state get the right to shut down a private Christian school or a home school? And I got the same fuzzy answer.

When I pressed him three times on this alleged right of the state, Mr. Bennett said he would have some of his department’s lawyers give me the answer to this question. (“A threat to private schools?”, Washington Times, April 30, 1986)

The context of this interview, conducted in 1986, is of particular interest. A bit of historical background from the homeschool movement is necessary. Back in the mid-1980s, when homeschoolers comprised a fledgling group of separatists and homeschooling was by and large still “illegal,” jailing for violation of state truancy laws was considered to be an effective deterrent. In fact, many homeschoolers went to jail during the early days. Truancy laws fall within the realm of criminal court action and are protected by the constitutional provision that one is innocent until proven guilty. 

When simple truancy laws proved to be an ineffective deterrent to homeschooling and the movement continued to grow, a more drastic experiment to snuff out homeschooling was then tried in the state of Iowa. A court case (“Barry Bear”) and subsequent pilot legislation attempted to re-categorize homeschooling parents as “child abusers” and their children as “in need of assistance” due to “lack of supervision.” Child abuse laws fell under juvenile court jurisdictions where the deterrent was an ever-present threat that the child would be removed from the home by social workers to become a ward of the state. (Sam Blumenfeld, a noted author and researcher on homeschool issues, published a series of newsletters in the late 1980s and early ‘90s documenting the details of the Iowa situation.²) During the years that the Iowa experiment was being launched, using the Archie Bear family residing on a remote Indian reservation as guinea pigs, William Bennett was secretary of education in the Reagan cabinet. How much did he know about the Iowa plan? Was he instrumental in its formulation?

Perhaps coincidentally, an article was published a year after Bennett’s interview with Lofton, written by the legal counsel for the Iowa Department of Education during that turbulent homeschool era. She expressed views similar to those espoused by Bennett:

Any law that would allow Christians to teach their children without oversight or interference from the state would also allow parents with less worthy motives to lock their children in a closet, use them to babysit for younger siblings, or have them work twelve hours a day in the family hardware store. Opening the door for the lamb allows the lion to enter as well….

Certified teachers are state-mandated child-abuse reporters. When children are allowed to be kept at home, there may be no outside contact, no help for the abused child….

The precarious balance of parents’ rights versus children’s rights should never be struck in favor of the parents. (“Children Are Not Chattel,” Kathy L. Collins, Free Inquiry, Fall 1987)

Bennett on Truancy

Iowa homeschoolers report that during those years the state went to extreme lengths to create further court case precedent to re-define truancy as child abuse, especially targeting families that were presumed to be marginalized (bi-racial, e.g.). Each attempt was thwarted, sometimes in ways that were nothing short of miraculous. Finally, in desperation, state officials created a “phony” homeschooling family. A Vietnam veteran with residual problems was encouraged to begin schooling his children at home by enrolling in “The Des Moines Plan,” an early public school program where children were taught by parents in the home. This somewhat dysfunctional family was obviously not well-suited to educating their children at home. Officials prepared to take the family to court for alleged “truancy” violations, but intended to switch gear in court and charge them under state child abuse laws based on “lack of supervision.” Being forewarned of this intent, the family fled the state in the middle of the night and escaped this action.

This strategy remains a viable option to this day. Cybercharter operators and supporters have freely borrowed the term “homeschooling” even though they are publicly-funded schools that may occur in the home. The stage is being set for homeschoolers to be linked to any crisis that may arise from the highly unregulated charter industry – guilty by association simply because of the expanded use of this term to describe every possible variant of publicly-funded, home-based education. When the regulations, and demands for “accountability” come down, as they inevitably will, homeschoolers could eventually be forced into the public system. 

For example, a number of charters specialize in dropouts, truants and otherwise troubled teens, many of whom have been in the juvenile court system. Three charter schools starting up in Toledo, Ohio, target “actual and potential dropout student,” “chronically expelled, suspended, or truant,” and “pregnant students or those with children.” (“Sponsorship of 3 charter schools OKd,” Toledo Blade, 3/24/03). Because these types of cybercharters frequently employ the use of the term “homeschooling” to describe their publicly-funded education, there is growing confusion. A recent article from an Ohio newspaper underscores the mix-up that occurs when homeschoolers are linked to charter schools, dysfunctional families, and child abusers. 

[State Senator John Carey] worries that parents who might be guilty of child abuse could be escaping identification and prosecution by pulling their children from public schools under the guise of “home schooling.”

He said it’s possible that parents who believe they are being scrutinized by public school teachers – and could be reported to police or children services authorities for abuse investigations – could pull their children from school to avoid intervention….

Ohio knows almost nothing about its home-schooled children. There may be 60,000 in the state…. And if children in online charter schools are included, the number is much larger…. 

Akron has received national attention twice in the last two years because of abuse of children who happened to be home-schooled.(“Legislator sees risk in home schooling,” Dennis J. Willard and Doug Oplinger, Akron Beacon-Journal, 05/02/03.)

On whose side will Bennett fall when push comes to shove, and the homeschoolers begin to feel the threats of more state control? Consistent with Bennett’s earlier expressed views on truancy, and perhaps shedding light on his underlying philosophical rationale, is an excerpt from his The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories (Simon & Schuster, 1993). “Plato on Responsibility: From the Crito,” is a dialogue between Socrates and the law, representing the supreme state. Socrates begins by suggesting, 

Imagine that I am about to play truant, and the laws and the government come and interrogate me.

The law/state responds, 

In the first place did we not bring you into existence. Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?…. Or against those of us who after birth regulate the nurture and education of children, in which you also were trained? 

When Socrates answers in the affirmative, the law/state contends,

Well, then since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you.

After a bit more dialogue, the law/state then asserts,

And he who disobeys us is… wrong; first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education…. (pp. 246-247)

Bennett introduced this passage by commenting that Socrates’ “decision to die remains one of history’s great examples of an individual who believes his first responsibility to his community, his family, and himself is to follow the dictates of a reason-directed conscience.” 

Over the years, legislative and court threats have continued to attempt to link homeschooling to truancy, and truancy to child abuse and neglect. Just this year the California legislature is considering SB 950, which

…would add “habitual truancy” to the categories of child abuse and neglect.” SB 950 would result in Child Protective Services (CPS) social workers investigating private homschooling parents any time their children were alleged to be habitual truants (5 absences) by a public school official. (Legal-Legislative Update, Roy M. Hanson, Jr., Private and Home Educators of California, Mar/Apr 2003)

Could “penalties” for noncompliance with education reform mandates be broadened to include the cruel act of removing children from home under child abuse laws? This possibility has already been raised by social reformers, who introduced family “outcomes” in the early 1990s, proposing that these standards be linked to rewards and penalties for parents. There is now a renewed call for parental rights and responsibilities legislation³ – legislation often naively sponsored by homeschool groups – which could set up government-prescribed standards mandating parental “responsibilities,” while at the same time empowering the state with “compelling interest” in parental “rights.” This legislation, in combination with other reform measures, could potentially open a “Pandora’s Box” of new “penalties” for homeschoolers who refuse to meet state standards. 

The Drumbeat for Accountability

Over the years, Bennett has consistently expounded upon the theme of “responsibility,” and applied it liberally to parents, children, teachers, administrators and schools. The 1986 Lofton interview reveals that Bennett was an early advocate of the major tenets of education reform – higher standards, increased accountability, widespread assessments, and rewards and punishments. In the context of an extended discussion about a pilot voucher program, Lofton asked,

Q: A recent article in the Texas Law Review suggested holding public schools legally accountable for failure to educate kids in reading, writing and arithmetic. How does that sound to you?

A: I need to think about that. They certainly should be held responsible. But legally responsible? I’d like to pause on that because I don’t know that we need more litigation. Schools that fail to do the job should be closed and boarded up. Those that do the job should be rewarded. 

This is another early indication of Bennett’s resolve to issue penalties. In 1987, Bennett called for “more federal spending,… accountability measures,… merit pay, magnet schools and dropout prevention….” He said that the

lack of accountability is the biggest obstacle to improving U.S. schools. The country has stiffer and more immediate penalties for serving rotten hamburger in a restaurant “than for furnishing a thousand school-children with a rotten education.” (“Bennett: Look at how candidates stand on U.S. educational issues,” by Christopher Connell, AP, 9/8/87)

Bennett was an early champion for the outcome-based education model. 

But the focus should also be on outcomes, or student achievement – what students actually learn. (“Bennett: fewer books, more brains,” AP, 9/6/87)

It is interesting to note that prior to his appointment as Secretary of Education in 1985 Bennett insisted, “There are few things in which I have less interest than dismantling the Department of Education,” to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (“Bennett says he won’t kill Education Department,” Carol Innerst, Washington Times, 1/29/85). In this same article, Bennett called for tuition tax credits and magnet schools, typical “choice” options. Many supposed that the pro-“choice” Bennett would be working to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, based upon widespread grassroots Republican lobbying of President Reagan. However by 1989, Bennett 

told a congressional critic that “largely because of me” it was likely the education slot would stay in the Cabinet. “I made a hell of a commitment,” he said at a Senate hearing, storming back at a liberal Republican who complained about budget cuts. “You just didn’t like the direction. I was damn successful.” (“Bennett’s job could position him well for 1990s,” Walter R. Mears, AP, 9/11/89) 

A few years later, Bennett continued on the same themes. Note carefully in the excerpts below how Bennett intertwines “choice” with more accountability.

I believe that to be effective, reform should attack three fundamental flaws in public education: a soft curriculum, a general lack of accountability for results, and a lack of parental choice. (The Devaluing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children, Summit Books, 1992, p. 61)

A radical reform of education through national standards, merit pay, alternative certification, a core curriculum and, most important, allowing parents to choose the public, private or religious schools to which they send their children. (“America needs cultural renewal,” 4/18/93) 

With the publishing of The De-Valuing of America, Bennett continued his call for more accountability through the imposition of education reform measures:

A second key education reform is providing for much greater accountability. Today, there are greater, more certain, and more immediate penalties in this country for serving up a single rotten hamburger than for furnishing a thousand schoolchildren with a rotten education…. [emphasis in original, note the similarity to earlier remarks, ed.]

…[W]e must have ways of identifying and rewarding schools that work, methods that work, and principles and teachers who work. We should… hold them all accountable for the results they achieve. We must have ways of identifying and, if necessary, moving out those who fail to do their jobs and of identifying and rewarding those who do their jobs well…. To determine results we must have true reliable national standards. Students must be tested to those standards and the results (by state, district, and school) should be made public. (pp. 62-63)

At the Department of Education I tried to broaden the public discussion on education reform and get the reform movement out of the hands of the educrats and into the hands of the public. I tried to bring attention to the right issues: high standards and basics, competency for teachers, educational choice, strong curriculum content, homework, sound moral education, and accountability. (p. 68)

These quotes on accountability unveil another side to the face of William Bennett. This is a side that is rarely seen in the media, and seldom examined by the public. This brief synopsis reflects his overall views on education reform. These remarks were not pulled out of context. Rather, they reveal his lifelong commitment to education restructuring – a commitment that bears remarkable resemblance to the most radical of reformers.

How can this be? one might ask. Hasn’t Mr. Bennett been the epitome of the “conservative” voice in education and family matters, including civic virtue? This is the side that Bennett presents to the public. In fact, one could pull from the previous quote, the phrase “strong curriculum content, homework, sound moral education” and think they were on the same page as Bennett. One can glean what they want to hear from Bennett’s words. This is because he consistently delivers a mixed message, including “virtues” with the loaded language of education reform, and this mishmash turns out to mean something else entirely. One educator, a critic of Bennett, has remarked on his effective use of this strategy:

Because Bennett knows [the] public so very well, he makes frequent use of such juicy phrases as “content, character, and choice.” It is ironic that a public so unsupporting of intellectual and artistic endeavors responds so favorably to Bennett’s calls for more culture and more classics in the schools. Perhaps I ought to point out, though, that the volume of this call depends somewhat on the audience that Bennett is addressing. 

Significantly, this teacher rejected Bennett’s promotion of the Pizza Hut reading-incentive program, so popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This program, based on rewarding children with pizzas for reading, was a foretaste of modern reform mechanisms that penalize children, teachers and schools for failure to attain good “report cards” based on assessment results. Cutting to the heart of the issue, she remarked,

I see the use of extrinsic rewards to motivate children as cutting to the very core of the American value system. Teachers must help children find intrinsic rewards: reading for reading’s sake. When you offer bribes, you debase both books and children….

Experienced and savvy teachers know that when you keep a scorecard on reading, whether it’s gold start or pizzas, children start paying more attention to the scorecard than to the books. Even worse, they start lying about the number of books they’ve read, and they read easy books so that they can read more in less time. Instead of encouraging reading, participation in such schemes ends up encouraging the development of moral monsters. People who promote such schemes have faith neither in children nor in books. They also lack faith in the ability of teachers to bring good books and children together without gimmicks.  (“A Not-So-Tearful Farewell To William Bennett,” Susan Ohanian, Phi Delta Kappan, Sept. 1988, see http://www.susanohanian.com.)

This teacher’s remarks, full of clarity and common sense, stand in stark contrast to Bennett’s views, expressed in The De-Valuing of America:

Are we willing to reward excellence…? Are we willing to penalize failure…? Are we going to insist on high standards (making the receipt of federal student aid or receipt of a high school diploma contingent on passing a qualifying test with real national standards?) (p. 70)

When one connects this strong call to “reward excellence” and “penalize failure” with Bennett’s assertions about “education abuse,” some serious questions must be raised. If parents choose the “wrong” type of education for their child, would this constitute “educational abuse”? What if the child does not score well on an assessment? Could that constitute “educational neglect”? Just how severe could the penalties component of education reform become? And, just how far and wide could penalties be applied?

Accountability and Virtue

Bennett fails to recognize, for whatever reason, that religious, private and homeschool families may have strong philosophical reasons for not wishing to meet state-prescribed standards, and that demonstrating accountability on assessments may, in fact, violate their religious faith. This is a key omission characteristic of the education reform model as a whole. Under this ideology one can believe whatever they want, but they do not have a right to practice their beliefs – especially when it comes to the education of their children. Bennett holds the view that “every American child has an equal claim to a common future, under common laws, enjoying common rights and charged with common responsibilities. And there follows the need for a common basic education.” (cover letter, James Madison High School, 1/98). 

It is clear that what he means by “common basic education” is state-prescribed, state-directed education. But his version also includes “virtue.” For over a decade Bennett has publicly championed a return to Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman virtues, morality and ethics, based on the premise that these are values held in “common” in American culture. Bennett has said,

Religion is a well-spring of civic virtues that democracy requires in order to flourish. It promotes hard work and responsibility. It lifts each citizen outside himself and inspires concern for community and country. It is a call to kindness, decency and forgiveness. Neutrality to religion guarantees neutrality to those very values that issue from religion. (“Divine guidance for young scholars,” Washington Times, 10/27/92)

This is the “Mr. Virtues” image that most Americans recognize whenever Bennett is mentioned. It is this appeal to Judeo-Christian values that endears Bennett to the religious homeschoolers. In fact, during Bennett’s many “culture wars” he often took the education elite to task for not supporting the values of western civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some education reform leaders held to an entirely different set of “common” values, some of which are blatantly derived from eastern mysticism. These culture wars were often magnified by Bennett himself. One astute observer noted that

Bennett’s hypotheses are not presented for dissection or discussion; they are designed instead to push preset emotional buttons, to stir up deep-seated frustration with what isn’t working in our nation, to touch the basic mood of the people…. Such polemics play well on the nightly news, and that’s all that matters. Typical of the dichotomist, Bennett takes a complex situation and divides it into two poles. If you aren’t for him, then you must be against him. And, as Bennett has cleverly constructed his position, if you are against him, then you are against decency and morality, against married motherhood and deregulated apple pie. (Ohanian, ibid.)

Lost in these culture wars, unfortunately, is the overarching moral dilemma: Should the state have the right to prescribe“common” values? Bennett himself answered that question affirmatively on many occasions, especially in the chapter entitled “The Great Cultural Divide” in his book, The De-Valuing of America. 

Bennett takes the state one step further into legislating values, however. And this shift represents a significant shift beyond simple law and order; i.e., punishing evildoers. Should the state be empowered to reward citizens who hold “common” values and punish citizens who do not hold to these “common” values? Bennett has consistently intertwined moral and cultural issues with accountability:

“If we want out children to possess the traits of character we most admire,” he said in an address sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, “we need to teach them what those traits are. They must achieve at least a minimal level of moral literacy….” (An emphasis on moral literacy,” William Raspberry, Star, 11/11/86) [emphasis added]

And who defines “moral literacy”? From Mr. Bennett’s perspective, the state, of course. Should “moral literacy” be included on state assessments? Should rewards and punishments be doled out based on a child’s answers to the “moral literacy” questions? Should homeschoolers be required to take these tests? 

Reaching one step further, a final, vital question must be raised: Should state-prescribed punishment for psychological/attitudinal questions such as these be based on the results of a single assessment instrument? Complex testing issues alone belie this misuse. Especially concerning children, whose natural vulnerabilities expose them to every potential pitfall of an imperfect testing process! Yet, the “accountability” and “assessment” drumbeat has been pounding incessantly for over a decade now, including within the walls of academia, and all march in step to the new politically-correct tune. Bennett has often been seen leading the pack. 

Bennett has been a lifelong champion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which was examined in some detail in part 2 of this report. While Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education he was directly responsible for launching the NAEP in its present form, a test which monitors a child’s threshold of conscience, integrating hypothetical moral dilemmas into its content. This test has become known as the “Nation’s Report Card” and is the foundation for all state assessments. According to Anita Hoge, a parent who filed a federal complaint during the 1980s against the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Educational Quality Assessment (EQA), which was a forerunner to the modern NAEP,

These [NAEP] outcomes include measuring such basic life skills as personal finance and consumer protection skills, health maintenance skills (how to wear a condom?), interpersonal skills, family responsibility skills, and career development skills (ED 139819, NAEP, May 1977 [Contract Agency, NCES, Contract No. OEC-0-74-0506])

Hoge eventually won her case, filed under the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, after years of obfuscation and obstruction at the highest levels. It exposed the extent of federal involvement in curricula, testing and evaluation which was primarily designed to change children’s attitudes, values and beliefs. One former Department of Education official has observed that

Anyone following or involved with the Anita Hoge/Pennsylvania case will tell you that the U.S. Department of Education – under Secretaries of Education William Bennett and Lamar Alexander – pulled out all the stops, at every level, to thwart Hoge’s efforts and those of other parents who tried to use this law. Such an assault on those who paid the bills – and provided the children (“resources”) upon whom they experiment even today – was, and is, criminal. (the deliberate dumbing down of america: A Chronological Paper Trail, Charlotte Iserbyt, Conscience Press, 1999, p. 221.)

In fact, Hoge received no help from Bennett. Writing about her experience with Bennett and Lamar Alexander, she said,

…Mr. Bennett (Mr. Virtues) was Secretary of Education when I filed my federal complaint. Mr. Bennett made no attempt to respond to my letters or appeals from others close to him in the Reagan administration about resolving the most documented complaint of psychological abuse ever lodged in the U.S. Department of Education using the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment…. My files prove that Mr. Bennett could have stopped this abuse long ago… and he did not….

When both former Secretaries of Education, Lamar Alexander and William Bennett, testified before the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee (1/26/95), they were very bold about expressing their expectations of “responsibility, authority, and accountability flowing toward families, schools, communities and states.” However, in the same breath… they embraced the very reforms that have created such turmoil in our communities.

Lamar Alexander… was named Chairman of the committee to expand the NAEP… in 1986 to state by state comparisons, therefore standardizing the state assessments to mirror the NAEP. He and Mr. Bennett were also instrumental in providing the impetus and the grants to upgrade and expand the national data bank for the collection of microrecords, individual records on individual students and teachers. (“Lamar Alexander and William Bennett,” The Christian Conscience, March 1996, p. 42)

Concluding Remarks:

During the Reagan administration all of the reform groundwork was laid for what later became America 2000/Goals 2000 and ultimately the No Child Left Behind Act. In September 1986, Bennett’s Department of Education issued First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education in America, an early project in school reform. In chapter IV, “School Policy,” a boxed quotation states that 

The first requirement for a good school is that it rest on values that are good. The second requirement is that it be efficient in promoting the good values.

On the same page, the report calls for “fair and rigorous standards” and states that children should know that “advancement will not take place until those goals have been reached, those standards met.” In addition, 

Tests are important means of determining whether children have acquired enough knowledge to move on, and it is essential that fair, complete, and periodic assessments take place.

Susan Ohanian, the teacher who has dared to be a critic of Bennett, wrote about her disappointment with Bennett’s appointment of only one teacher to the group of 21 “Distinguished Americans” serving on the Elementary Study Group which prepared the document, First Lessons. Discussing the frustration with teaching values, she observed,

One is left wondering how Bennett would go about instilling good character and values in the youth of a nation where shampoo gets its own aisle in the supermarket but the number of thoughtful periodicals keeps decreasing….

When Bennett suggests that all school-children should memorize “Ozymandias” because this poem will “build character,” his audience nods in agreement, though not one person in 1,000 has the vaguest acquaintance with the poem. And no reporter ever points to the irony that the same public that pays enthusiastic lip service to the need for children to read the classics – in school – is keeping Sidney Sheldon and Stephen King and Lee Iacocca and Elizabeth Taylor’s diet book at the top of the best-seller list. People who fill their homes with “Wheel of Fortune,” and who rely on teachers to provide character lessons for their children while pulling them through Tennyson and George Eliot, are indeed putting a lot of faith and hope in the schools. (ibid.)

Bennett has consistently added values to education reform, mixing them with standards, accountability and assessments. Homeschoolers and others may presume to agree with Bennett regarding which values are important. But that presumption could be based more on the media image of the “Virtues Czar,” and not founded upon fact. One can glean a sense of Bennett’s values and virtues by reading The Book of Virtues. Read the story “Baucis and Philemon” (p. 303) and especially take note of Bennett’s preface: 

The ancient Greeks understood that the health of the community depended on how well its individual citizens treated one another. To them, Zeus, the king of the gods, was both the guardian of the state and the protector of human relations among civilized men. All social institutions, including the family, lay in his care.

Read “Insincere Honesty” (p. 647) which ends, “If that be honesty, ‘twere better to be dishonest.” Or, turn to page 810, where “The Path of Virtue” is said to be Buddha, and page 812, “Man’s Nature Is Good” by Mencius, a “Chinese Confucian sage.” Or, read page 815, “The Way to Tao.” When Bennett calls for assessing a child’s “moral literacy,” just whose morals and values will rise to the surface to become the “common” values of our culture? 

At the conclusion of The De-Valuing of America, Bennett states: “At the end of the day, somebody’s values will prevail.” (p. 258)

Shall the state prescribe which of these values should be taught to children; and not only taught, but tested; and not only tested, but rewarded and punished? 

*See Sarah Leslie’s testimony of homeschool persecution: https://herescope.net/homeschooling-under-fire

Endnotes Part 3:

1. Berit Kjos, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2003/homeland.htm
2. Newsletters distributed by the Iowa Research Group, Inc.
3. South Carolina House Bill 3102, for example.
4. “Not So Vital Statistics on William Bennett,” New York Times, 9/27/85.