Homeschooling and the Dutch institutional framing of compulsory education
Lisa W. van Geldorp (10357505)
University of Amsterdam
Bachelor Thesis 2015 Date: 24 August 2015
Course number:70230390CY Number of words: 10618 Supervisor: Michael S. Merry Study: Educational Sciences
Abstract
Homeschooling has for the past thirty years become one of the most discussed and debated issues in education on a worldwide scale. Homeschooling has become a widely accepted alternative to formal schooling both legally and socially in many countries. The Netherlands is an outlier amongst the countries where homeschooling is an option. Due to the compulsory school attendance legislation (Leerplicht). This article will examine the general theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both in support and against homeschooling as a justified alternative to formal schooling. Subsequently, with reference to the Netherlands in particular, the claims and evidence on homeschooling will related to the current framing of the compulsory education law (Leerplichtwet). It will be questioned whether the way in which the Leerplicht is currently implemented, still serves its original purpose or whether it is in need of adjustments to make way for alternatives like homeschooling. More specifically it is investigated whether homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education, and therefore deserves to be recognized both legally and socially. It is concluded that
homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education when accompanied by non-excessive state regulation. Although homeschooling challenges our general assumptions on the nature of education, it has proven itself worthy of recognition in other industrialized countries. The Dutch should no longer hide behind current institutional framing of the Leerplicht which limits the Dutch constitutional right of “Freedom of Education” to what is available in schools.
Table of contents
Title page……….…...1
Abstract………...2
Homeschooling and the Dutch institutional framing of compulsory education……….4
I. Homeschooling………7
Motivations for homeschooling………...9
II. Concerns about homeschooling………11
Certification………11
Indoctrination………..14
III. Dutch context………17
Leerplicht……….17
Schoolplicht……….19
Implications for homeschooling………..20
IV. Raising questions in regard to the conflation of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht…….22
Conclusion ……….25
Discussion………...27
Limitations………..27
Suggestions……….28
Ahead to the future……….28
Homeschooling and the Dutch institutional framing of compulsory education
Homeschooling has for the past thirty years become one of the most discussed and debated issues in education on a worldwide scale. Simply defined, homeschooling refers to the practice of deliberately educating children at home instead of allowing them to attend a conventional school (Green & Hoover-Dempsey, 2007). The education of homeschooled children is generally directed by the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and in most cases, it are the parents themselves whom provide the instructions for learning (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). Homeschooling can provide an appealing alternative to formal schooling for families that hold beliefs and values that are not in compliance with the standard curriculum taught to children in school (Romanowski, 2006). Homeschooling has become a much discussed phenomenon because it challenges our general assumptions on the nature of education. Throughout history we have come to believe that children’s education needs to take place within a formal institution, through instruction of a qualified teacher, and in company of similarly-aged peers (Hern, 1996). It is the deviation from this educational norm which has led to the ongoing discussion on whether homeschooling should be rejected or embraced as justified alternative to formal, institutionalized education.
Homeschooling has been legalized in many countries and seems to be increasing in popularity amongst families from heterogeneous backgrounds, with various motives for opting out of public schools and venturing towards homeschooling (Gaither, 2009). The countries in which homeschooling occurs most frequently are: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada (The Homeschool Legal Defense Association, 2015). In these countries and many other countries, homeschooling has steadily become an accepted alternative to formal schooling as it benefits the protection of the law, rising popular approval, and increasing institutional support from publicly funded schools (Stevens, 2003). Even though homeschooling seems to have overcome its initial skepticism and criticism in these countries, it has been said to remain a controversial issue (Ice & Hoover-Dempsey, 2010; Medlin, 2013).
As education directly and indirectly affects every member of society, it is fair to say that every member has an opinion when it comes to educational debates, like the one on homeschooling. Homeschooling remains controversial in these countries because critics continue to raise concerns about socialization, indoctrination and the quality of education that homeschooled children are receiving (Apple, 2000; Kunzman, 2009; Lubienski, 2013; Reich, 2002). For this reason the debate seems to have shifted from questions concerning its
homeschooled. On the other hand, advocates of homeschooling continue to contest these concerns by bringing the potential benefits of homeschooling to the public’s attention and fighting for its full recognition as justified alternative to formal schooling. The most common heard benefits of homeschooling are: academic advantages, social advantages, safeguarding from the public schools’ flaws, the promotion of family and the flexibility it provides for learning (Erickson, 2005; Gatto, 2013). Where the majority of the media attention, public perception and opinions of most educators were negatively directed towards homeschooling only 25 years ago, they are now recognizing its value and creating possibilities for the families who want this. “What was once countercultural has become a generally acceptable educational choice” (Steven, 2003, p. 96).
Meanwhile the Netherlands is one of the few industrialized countries where homeschooling is not a regular educational option. In fact, the state openly shares its antagonistic viewpoint and plans on abolishing homeschooling altogether (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2013). Although homeschooling is not illegal,
possibilities are certainly limited as it is currently not acknowledged by the Dutch legal system, and is generally thought of as unwarranted and not needed (Blok & Sperling, 2012). Due to the 1969 compulsory education law (Leerplichtwet)1, school attendance is mandatory for all children from the age of five until sixteen, therefore limiting homeschooling in
becoming an alternative educational option to formal schooling.
This article will examine the general theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both in support and against homeschooling as a justified alternative to formal schooling. In order to demonstrate the controversy surrounding homeschooling, the Dutch context will be turned to as the Netherlands is an outlier among the countries where homeschooling is an option. Subsequently, with reference to the Netherlands in particular, the claims and evidence on homeschooling will related to the current framing of the compulsory education law
(Leerplichtwet). It will be questioned whether the way in which the Leerplicht is currently implemented, still serves its original purpose or whether it is in need of adjustments to make way for alternatives like homeschooling. More specifically it is investigated whether
homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education, and therefore deserves to be recognized both legally and socially. The relevancy of this article is dual. Firstly, considering that homeschooling is on the rise (Collum, 2005) also in the Netherlands
1Throughout this article the Dutch terms will be used in light of the discussion The literal translation of “Leerplicht” is: an obligation to learn/be educated. Leerplichtwet translates to compulsory education law, “wet” translates to law.
(Sperling, 2010), it is of societal importance that the future possibilities of homeschooling in the Netherlands are considered. This article can provide especially relevant information for Dutch parents interested in homeschooling in the Netherlands. Secondly, this article is
scientifically relevant as it will provide a clear summary on the arguments both in support and against homeschooling. Many researchers and theorists have provided arguments for either side of the homeschooling debate, it is important that these are placed alongside each other. This will help the Dutch state, policy makers and the general public in making justified decisions on this topic.
The article will proceed in the following manner. The first section will take a closer look at the practice of homeschooling by focusing on homeschooling in America. It will include a brief history in order to better understand its current position, the parental motivations for choosing homeschooling and further information on its practice will be provided. The two main concerns on homeschooling will be discussed in the second section. The following concerns are analyzed specifically: (1) certification and (2) indoctrination. The third section will discuss homeschooling in the Dutch context. Specific attention will be paid to the current framing of the compulsory education law in relation to a compulsory attendance law and the implications this has on homeschooling. The third section will raise questions concerning the origination of the conflation between the Leerplicht and Schoolplicht2, as well as the problems that may arise from this conflation.
I. Homeschooling
2
Throughout this article the Dutch terms will be used in light of the discussion The literal translation of “Schoolplicht” is: an obligation to attend school.
Homeschooling is considered to be a social movement because of its size and the unique cultural norms and values it promotes. The homeschooling movement has had a significant impact on society, especially in those countries where its value has been
recognized and accepted. America is said to be one of the leading countries in its tolerance towards homeschooling and an increasing number of families are choosing it as educational option. Where homeschooling was virtually nonexistent in the seventies, America currently counts approximately 2.2 million children whom are being homeschooled. This number is subjected to a steady increase of the population per annum (Ray, 2011). Homeschooling is nothing new, during the 1700s children were often educated at home by their parents or tutors depending on the socioeconomic status of the family. Due to the formation of funded public schools, homeschooling disappeared and did not reappear in America and many other countries until the 1970s (Reich, 2002).
Homeschooling is an alternative way of educating children and can be best understood as the ultimate rejection of the public schooling system (Gaither, 2009; Merry, 2010). The most obvious aspect in which it deviates from the way children are generally educated, is that the education does not take place within a formal institution, referred to as a ‘school’. As the term “homeschooling” implies, homeschooled children are predominantly educated in their home environment (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). Having said that, the education these children receive tends to be less formally structured, meaning that learning outside of the home is often regarded as part of the child’s education. Many of the families whom homeschool,
deliberately take their teaching and learning outside of the home for the exposure to an authentic learning environment (Kunzman, 2012). In countries where homeschooling is accepted, constructions are known to exist in which the child is homeschooled but also attends a formal school for certain aspects (E.g. for joining a school sports team or a particular class that the parents find difficult teaching). Homeschooling is not funded by the government, this means that families whom homeschool need to finance the education independently (Collum,
2005).
The curriculum that is taught by homeschool families widely. Where some families tend to stick to the curriculum taught in schools, others deliberately deviate from this by adding or removing certain aspects. Some families tend to use a set curriculum with materials which they purchase and teach to their children, other families design their own program and materials according to their educational vision and the needs of the child (Ray, 2010). On average, a homeschooling family will spend 4,82 hours per day on direct educational
Homeschooling can therefore be characterized as highly flexible in the sense that it provide families more freedom in the shaping of their education. Homeschooling is predominantly directed by the parents or guardians of the children, however, in some cases tutors are deployed for all, or some parts of the schooling (Lips & Feinberg, 2008).
Parents take up the role of what are considered to be the teachers in formal schools. Nevertheless, many of the parents don’t regard themselves as actual ‘teachers, they perceive themselves to be a guide in the learning process of their child (Kunzman, 2012). The parents whom homeschool do not necessarily have a teaching degree or any educational or
pedagogical background which would qualify them fit for teaching in the public’s perception (Ray, 2001). Ray (2001) discovered that only fifteen percent of his studied population were certified to teach. These parents are typically characterized as exceptionally involved in the education of their children and tend to be convinced of their own capabilities in providing their children with an all-round education without the involvement of a formal institution (Van Galen, 1988). When children are homeschooled, the education becomes the
responsibility of the parent instead of the responsibility of the state. The parent is to ensure that the child is well-prepared for its future participation in society which marks a tension between the state and the parents.
Homeschooling, educates school-aged children, during their primary and/or secondary schooling period (Ray, 2009a). Not all homeschooled children are homeschooled during the full length of their primary and secondary years. Some children start in formal schools and are then deliberately withdrawn by their parents, others are educated at home during their primary school years and attend a formal school for their secondary education. Other variations are also known to exist and depend largely on the preferences of the parents - or in some cases - on the child. It is not uncommon for some children within one family to be homeschooled, while others attend a formal school (Isenberg, 2007). In countries where homeschooling is an educational option, parents thus have the freedom to adjust the education accordingly to the educational needs of the child. Whether this is through homeschooling or not, parents can make this decision instead of the state making this decision for them.
In summary, homeschooling is generally a voluntary practice in which children are deliberately withdrawn from the public schooling system. Children are being homeschooled when (1) parents (instead of the government) have the primary responsibility for the teaching and regulation of the childs learning (2) the education is not financed by the government, (3) the education takes place outside a formal schooling institution. Note that cases are also known to exist where children are incapable of attending a formal school (E.g. because of
severe disabilities), making the educational choice involuntary. This article will deliberately focus on the voluntary choice to homeschool.
Motivations for homeschooling
Where homeschooling used to be regarded as unorthodox, its popularity is now rising steadily in the countries where homeschooling is a viable educational option. In these
countries homeschooling seems to have overcome its initial skepticism as parents from very diverse backgrounds and with varying motives are opting out of the public schooling system and venturing to homeschooling (Collom, 2005). Stereotypically, and in the eyes of some critics, homeschooling families are mainly thought of as religious fundamentalists. These conservative families are thought to indoctrinate their children with religious norms and values by deliberately refraining their children from getting in touch with different ways of life. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The modern day homeschooling movement (which started in America) was called into life by parents who criticized the schooling system for being too conservative in the sixties (Lines, 2003). However, when the schooling system had taken a more liberal turn by the eighties, the conservatives found themselves in a similar position and started homeschooling in order to infuse their religious values in their child’s education (Lines, 2003). Religion has never been, and is currently not the only reason for parents to opt for homeschooling. Homeschooling has become an
attractive option for families from all racial groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, lifestyle choices, and religions (Ray, 2010).
Currently there are many reasons known for parents to school their children in the comfort of their home. Van Galen (1988) differentiates between two types of motivations for homeschooling in her research: the pedagogues and the ideologues. These distinct categories are cited by many studies on the parental motivations for homeschooling and still appear to be relevant when looking at the contemporary motives. Pedagogues are parents whom withdraw their children from the public schooling system as they perceive schools to teach children inadequately. The pedagogues are less worried about the content taught in schools but rather they have concerns for the methods incorporated in schools. They “share a respect for their children’s intellect and creativity and a belief that children learn best when pedagogy taps into the child’s innate desire to learn” (Van Galen, 1988, p. 55). Homeschooling provides these families with a suiting alternative as it allows for a personalized teaching method adjusted to the need of each individual child. On the contrary, the ideologues choose to homeschool their children because of concerns regarding the norms and values taught in
schools, or the lacking of it. This group generally consists of religious and conservatives whom devalue the content that children are exposed to in public schools. Homeschooling provides them the freedom to adjust their curriculum as they see appropriate and allows them to infuse their religion in the education of their children. Van Galen (1988) found that a families choice to seek homeschooling is very personal and varies greatly between families.
Many studies have been conducted in search of the motivations for parents to opt for homeschooling. Isenberg (2007) used data from the National Educational Household Survey (NHES, 1996, 1999, 2003) to conclude that the top three reasons did not change at the three times of the measurements. The main reasons for parents choosing for homeschooling were found to be because of the dissatisfaction with the instruction at school, religious
considerations, and concerns about the quality of the environment. Isenberg (2007) finds that Van Galen’s (1988) categories are very broad and therefore subjective, sometimes making the divide very difficult. However, Isenberg comes to the conclusion that in America, most homeschooling families can be classified as pedagogues, only a small group as ideologues and a minor group chooses for homeschooling because the child has special (educational) needs which cannot be catered for in schools. Ray (2001) discovered that American homeschooling families venture to homeschooling for a wide array of reasons. Namely: academic enhancement, social enhancement, customized curriculum suited to the need of each individual child, practice other pedagogical approaches than found in formal schools, family relationship enhancement, religious considerations and to educate in a safer environment than generally found in schools. Some minority groupings motivated their choice to homeschool by the racism their children would otherwise be exposed to in schools (Mazama & Lundy, 2012). Homeschooling provides a viable educational option for all types of families with varying motives.
Even though homeschooling may have overcome its initial skepticism in countries where homeschooling has become generally accepted both socially and legally,
homeschooling is still far away from being free of concern. That homeschooling is still highly controversial is evident by the number of articles that are being published both in favor and against homeschooling as justified alternative to formal schooling. Many of the initial concerns have been contested and turned away by the countries where homeschooling has found its legal ground, other concerns keep returning and therefore continue to be part of a heated discussion. Homeschooling critics are particularly concerned about the lack of state supervision and regulation and therefore worry about the quality of education homeschooled children are receiving (Apple, 2000; Kunzman, 2009; Lubienski, 2013; Reich, 2002). As a result, homeschoolers often find themselves in uncertainty as homeschooling legislations continue to be altered and can vary greatly between states and countries (Cooper, 2007). The three main concerns that are being raised persistently are: (1) certification, (2) indoctrination and (3) socialization. The following section will examine the general theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both in support and against the certification and indoctrination concern. The aim of this section is to aid the reader in deciding on whether homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal schooling or whether the concerns are legitimate. Only then can the possibilities of homeschooling in the Netherlands be further discussed.
Certification
The certification concern in regard to homeschooling is about most homeschooling parents not being certified to teach, which could to pose a direct threat to the academic achievement of homeschooled children. Parents whom choose to homeschool, generally do not have the qualifications and experience which are thought to be necessary for the teacher profession. Ray (2001) found that approximately fifteen percent of homeschooling parents are certified. Most industrialized countries nowadays require teachers to have a degree in teaching in order to guarantee the quality of their teaching and therefore the academic achievement of their pupils. Critics are concerned for the academic achievement as parents are not believed to have these adequate teaching abilities. For this reason, a few countries whom have accepted homeschooling as alternative to formal schooling have put regulations in place which require at least one of the parents to be a certified teacher, have at least a college degree, or pass a specially designed teachers exam (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010). Multiple studies have concluded, however, that the academic achievement of homeschooled students taught by certified parents is not higher than students taught by non-certified parents. One can question
whether these concerns and such regulations are warranted, or whether they can be contested with the evidence and theoretical arguments available.
The vast majority of research available on the influence of teacher credentials on the academic achievement of homeschooled children all point in one direction: the academic achievement of homeschooled children is not affected by whether or not their parents are certified as teachers. Amongst 11.739 American homeschooling children, Ray (2010) found that the children taught by certified parents averaged at the 87th percentile on achievement tests while children from noncertified parents averaged at the 88th percentile. Children from noncertified homeschooling parents, actually outperformed their formally schooled peers slightly (although found to be significant). Ray’s (2010) study is the most recent and the largest of its kind, nevertheless, various other studies have been carried out investigating the effect of certification of parent teachers on the academic achievement of homeschooling children. A similar research was carried out amongst a large Canadian homeschooling population and again there was no correlation found between the academic performance on standardized tests and parents have a teacher qualification (Ray, 2001). All studies except for two, found that uncertified homeschooling parents did not negatively influence the academic achievement of their children. In fact, some studies found uncertified parents to positively influence the academic achievement. The studies whom did find a correlation between the parent being certified and the academic achievement, both had sample sizes below 50 participants making their statistical significance questionable (Medlin, 1994).
If the certification concern is justified, one would expect the academic achievement of homeschooled students to fall behind their formally schooled peers as most (85%) of
homeschooling parents are uncertified (Ray, 2010). Nothing could be further from the truth, until this date there is no empirical evidence which implies that homeschooling has a negative effect on the academic performance of children. The majority of research shows that a
positive relationship exists, suggesting that homeschooled students are outperforming their formally schooled peers (Ray, 2001; Ray, 2009; Ray, 2010; Rudner, 1999). Ray (2010) again provides the most recent study when analyzing the academic performance of homeschooling students. Ray concludes that homeschoolers generally score slightly above the 80th percentile for standardized tests on reading, language, math, science, and social studies. Most
homeschooled students studied by Ray, outperformed 80% of their conventionally schooled peers. Other studies found similar results, however, large and representative studies on the academic achievement of homeschooling are relatively outdated. Ray (2001) found that the average Canadian homeschool student scored between the 76th and 84th percentile on
standardized performance tests. This nationwide study contained 2.594 homeschooled children derived from 808 Canadian families. Another study amongst 20.760 American children concluded that the average performance of homeschooling students is within the 70th to 80th percentile. Additionally it was concluded that the homeschooling students in the studied sample, tended to be one to four grades ahead of their formally schooled peers of the same age (Rudner, 1999). Currently there are no studies which indicate contrary results in regard to the academic performance of homeschooling students.
The existing studies on teacher qualifications demonstrate that the relation with academic performance does not exist. Whether or not a parent is certified to teach does not predict the educational performance of their children. In fact, homeschoolers’ achievement is found to be well above the academic achievement of formally schooled peers while most homeschooling parents teach their children uncertified (Ray, 2001; Ray, 2009; Ray, 2010; Rudner, 1999). The concern about certification appears to be unjustified. From the research above one should not conclude that homeschooling is more effective than formal schools, however, one can conclude that parents whom choose for homeschooling have proven themselves capable of realizing excellent academic achievement.
As previously indicated, it has been found that one of the main motivations for parents to seek homeschooling for their children, is that it allows parents to accomplish more than is available in schools academically (Ray, 2001). Homeschooling provides the opportunity for parents to give more individual attention to the learning needs of each child. As the
curriculum can continuously be adjusted and teaching methods can be customized
accordingly, it is thought that children who are homeschooled are more likely to receive an education which is tailored to their individual needs (Ray, 2001). In schools, teachers have to divide their attention between many children, making it impossible to give each child
individual attention. This could be an explanations for why homeschooled children tend to outperform their formally schooled peers. A paradox can be noted where on the one hand critics are concerned for the academic achievement of homeschooled students as their parents are often uncertified to teach. On the other hand, parents whom homeschool deliberately withdraw their children from formal schools because of their concern for the quality of education and thus the academic achievement of their children. Countries whom have required teacher qualifications for homeschooling are coming to terms with it being to excessive and are therefore adjusting their regulations (Collum, 2005). It seems fair to
conclude that the certification argument does not hold up when making inferences on whether homeschooling can be a justified alternative to formal schooling.
Indoctrination
The second concern that is often raised by critics is the fear for parents abusing their authority by indoctrinating their children. Indoctrination becomes an issue when parents mold their children into a specific way of life and refrain their children from exposure to deviant life choices (Meisels, 2004; Reich, 2002). Merry (2005) describes indoctrination as being similar to “..mind control or brainwashing and runs counter to open-mindedness and
tolerance” (p. 405). According to Merry, indoctrination is about a belief which is forced upon someone and who is coerced in being unable to think and reflect critically upon this belief. “Belief” is not necessarily of religious nature, however, this can be the case and is often feared for in relation to homeschooling. When a child is indoctrinated their autonomy
becomes limited as they are not exposed to alternative ways of life. This may circumscribe the child’s (future) ability in deciding on its own preferences in behaviors, values or religious ideas (Merry, 2005). On the whole, the concern here is that the absence of a compulsory school attendance law will allow parents to educate their children into believing that their way of life is the only way of life. Therefore restricting the child’s future ability in becoming an autonomous being, “free” in making its own lifestyle choices (Meisel, 2004). For a student to develop this sense of “free”, “students must be exposed to the vibrant diversity of a
democratic society so that they possess the liberty to live a life of their own design’ (Reich, 2002, p. 59). Critics find compulsory school attendance legislations necessary to safeguard the child’s future capability in becoming a “self-determining agent” by protecting them from parental indoctrination (Merry & Karsten, 2010, p. 507).
From a liberal perspective it is widely agreed upon that parents are not entitled to indoctrinate their children, nevertheless, parents have a genuine interest –and right- to raise their children as they see fit (Brighthouse & Swift, 2006. This marks a tension and highlights the difficulty of the distinction between indoctrination and the innocent shaping of the child’s norms and values without undermining their (future) autonomy. In addition, the child has an interest in becoming a self-determining agent and therefore has an interest in developing a minimal sense of autonomy (Reich, 2002). Because children are yet incapable of protecting their future interest in autonomy, the parents of the child should safeguard this interest. Parents should therefore provide the child with an environment that enhances their autonomy and should protect them from indoctrination of any kind. According to Merry & Karsten (2010), it is the choice of “environment” which poses a challenge to whether the concern of indoctrination is justified in relation to homeschooling. Deciding upon the environment best
fitted for safeguarding a child’s autonomy interest and thus protecting it from indoctrination, generally cannot be thought of as a “one-size-fits-all approach” (Merry & Karsten, 2010, p. 508). Merry and Karsten state that the choice for the best environment, whether this is by homeschooling or formal schooling, is dependent on multiple factors both contextual and personal.
The liberal homeschooling population whom chooses to homeschool on the basis of protecting their children’s autonomy interest, believe that educating in the private atmosphere provides a safer environment than any formal school could (Meisels, 2004; Merry & Karsten, 2010). Formal schools are generally believed to be the only means by which the child’s educational interest in autonomy can be achieved, however, this claim seems plausible. Many articles on this topic remind the reader of both the intentional and unintentional values that formal schools transfer to their students. These values may deviate from the values held within the child’s family and may also interfere with the child’s future development of autonomy (Merry & Karsten, 2010). Counter to this argument runs the theory of Welner (2002), whom states that homeschoolers whom homeschool on the basis of the autonomy argument, ultimately fail at freeing their children from all forms of indoctrination. By deliberately withdrawing their children from formal schools, she believes children are being indoctrinated by the values of the family and at sacrifice of the larger vision of society Welner, 2002). This again highlights the difficulty of distinguishing between indoctrination and innocent influencing the beliefs of one’s children as described by Brighthouse and Swift (2006). It can also be contested by Merry and Karsten’s (2010) claim on the fact that the best environment for learning in regard to the autonomy interest of the child is dependent on numerous factors and cannot be generalized as easily. Parents knowing their children best and therefore may be better equipped at deciding on the educational needs of their own children instead of the state. Meisels (2004) adds to this that by enforcing compulsory school
attendance laws as a means for protecting children from indoctrination, makes the state guilty of discrimination. Especially in countries where various school types (both religious and ideologically motivated) have been socially accepted and are publicly funded, the
indoctrination concern does not seem to hold up in regard to the homeschooling discussion. The indoctrination concern provides a more complicated discussion and a simple conclusion has proven to be difficult. Autonomy-or the lacking of it- and indoctrination are values which cannot be measured and monitored (Merry & Karsten, 2010). Therefore the indoctrination concern lacks in empirical evidence and also provides a difficult case for assessing whether parents whom homeschool are abusing their authority and indoctrinating
their children. We must keep in mind that there may be parents who will abuse their authority and deliberately indoctrinate their child, but we should refrain from accusing all
homeschooling parents of doing so. Indoctrination and the potential threat this poses to the development of autonomy of a child cannot be underestimated, however, the autonomy of a child could also be affected by indoctrination through schooling as education and politics cannot be separated. Because of this, parents may be better equipped in ensuring the child’s educational interest in autonomy are being met. On the other hand, some children’s autonomy interest may be better fulfilled by schools. Again, one cannot ignore the paradox which is present here. Critics fear for the indoctrination of homeschooled students on the one hand and homeschooling parents choosing homeschooling because they fear for the indoctrination in government-run schools on the other hand.
When we analyze the current position of homeschooling in the Dutch context, the controversy surrounding it becomes very obvious when looking at the framing of the
educational laws. The Netherlands appears to be one of the few industrialized countries whom has not allowed for homeschooling to become an accepted alternative to formal schooling. Even though the interest in homeschooling seems to be increasing like every other
industrialized country, the government has refrained from discussing its future possibilities in the Netherlands and hides behind the law (Sperling, 2010). For this reason, homeschooling has not been acknowledged by the Dutch legal system as educational alternative and its possibilities are very limited. Even though homeschooling is not illegal, educational laws are in place which restrict parents in choosing for homeschooling as alternative to formal
education. While other countries seem to be becoming more accepting of homeschooling, the Dutch state openly shares its concerns and proceeds to restrict homeschooling even further. Ignoring calls from the general public for more freedom in choosing a suitable type of education for their children (MOCW, 2013)
The Dutch schooling system is characterized by its broad variety of school types which are on offer. What makes the Netherlands especially exceptional are the two
constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Education and the equal funding of special and public education. Freedom of Education entitles everyone in the Netherlands to educate and start a school with a particular direction. Special schools (bijzondere scholen) educate their pupils on the basis of a specific religion, belief, or a vision of education. The available public schools do not have this specific foundation. What makes the Netherlands stand out amongst other countries is that these special schools have the right to equal funding if they comply with the state’s conditions (Rijksoverheid, 2015). For this reason, the school choice is highly diverse and in theory accessible to everyone without any additional costs. At first sight, the
Netherlands comes across as very accepting and tolerant towards educational alternatives, at closer inspection, the state erratically restricts the educational choice of parents as their options are left limited due to the current framing of the Leerplichtwet. The following section will examine the history of the Leerplichtwet as its framing did not always prohibit
homeschooling and attention will be paid to the current framing. Attention will also be paid to the implications of the Leerplicht on homeschooling in the Netherlands.
Leeplicht
During the second half of the 19th century it gradually become more accepted for the state to interfere in the lives of the members present in its society. As the state had a role in protecting the members of society which were unable to (yet) protect themselves, laws were
needed to ensure their well-being and interests. Children were especially vulnerable and in need of legal protection because of the authority that parents had over their own children. As the state and parents interests did not always coincide with regards to the education of a child, the state introduced the compulsory education law (Sperling, 2010). The first Leerplichtwet was publicly introduced in 1900 and effective as from 1901. The Leerplichtwet was
introduced to combat child labor and reduce school dropouts, indirectly it was aimed at increasing the Netherland’s economic competitiveness on international levels. The
Leerplichtwet stated that an education was mandatory for every child from the age of six until twelve years old (Bakker, Noordman, & Rietveld-van Wingerden, 2006). By this law, parents had an obligation in ensuring their kids were receiving an education which would adequately prepare them for future societal participation.
In order to comply with this law children needed to be educated, however, who they were educated by and whether this was inside or outside an official institution was entirely up to the parents (Sperling 2010). Even though more than 90 percent of the children were already enrolled in a public school at the time the Leerplichtwet was introduced exemptions were deliberately made possible in order to accommodate the parental rights of the children the law applied to (Bakker, Noordman, & Rietveld-van Wingerden, 2006). At the time, only public schools were funded by the government which meant that sending your child to a school with a different direction (e.g. Waldorf, Montessori), would be at cost. The state recognized that if the Leerplichtwet had forced all parents to enroll children in formal schools, it would be discriminating towards families with lower incomes as they would only be able to send their children to public schools (Sperling, 2010). As a result parents were left with the possibility to homeschool their children if they wished to do so. Homeschooling was formally
acknowledged by law, under the condition that homeschooled children were educated in the same subjects as formally schooled children. In order to homeschool, parents had to inform the council about their children being homeschooled, the subjects they would be
homeschooled in and whom would be guiding the learning (Sperling, 2010). Regulations were put in place to safeguard the child’s right to education and to ensure parents were not
deliberately keeping children out of schools so they would work.
Following the first introduction of the 1900 Leerplichtwet, only minor adjustments were made to the law. Most of the adjustments were concerned with the number of years a child needed to be educated and at which age the education should be started off from. Combatting child labor was no longer the main motive as most children were enrolled in schools, the Leerplicht needed to be extended to ensure that all children received a better
chance at future labor market participation. It wasn’t until 1969 that the Leerplichtwet was replaced by the current Leerplichtwet, which marked a notable shift in its intention
(Storimans, 2006). The Leerplicht introduced in 1900 was intended to guarantee all children received a proper education, the method by which this was accomplished was of secondary concern and left to the parents to decide on. In contrast, the 1969 Leerplicht was intended as a means to deliver children to schools which has been thought to serve the higher purpose of curbing their (future) functioning in society (Sperling, 2010).
Schoolplicht
The in 1969 introduced Leerplicht, stated that school attendance for all children until the age of sixteen was mandatory. The way in which the new Leerplichtwet was framed, no longer allowed the possibility to educate a child at home, or by any other alternative for that matter. In order to comply with the law, children had to attend a formal school from then onwards. The Leerplicht was no longer about an obligation in being educated, it had transformed into a school attendance obligation (Schoolplicht). The Leerplicht became synonymous to the Schoolplicht by making the coercion it entailed less obvious.
Homeschooling no longer belonged to the legal educational options of parents due to the governments concerns for the socialization of these children. Prior to the implementation of the 1969 Leerplichtwet framed as a Schoolplicht, it has been hypothesized that it was political instability of that time which caused the state to interfere more. The state gradually took over functions, services and social control which had previously been dealt with by families, communities and the church (Sperling, 2010). For this same reason, the state increased its role in the education of its (future) citizens. A state directed education became a means to
achieving political and societal goals. Many theorize that this is one of the main reasons for the Dutch state to obligate all children between the age of five and sixteen to attend a formal school. The reasons that were provided at the time for the introduction of the new Leerplicht, were primarily to combat child labor and truancy. Added to that was the necessity to increase a child’s education to nine years in order to make secondary education mandatory for
everyone (Storimans, 2006).
Until this day, and since 1969, children in the Netherlands are by law required to attend a school. Parents who deliberately keep their children out of school face prosecution. Due to the constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Education, parents have the right to enroll their child in a school which fits their lifestyle direction or religion. Due to this entitlement,
parents can apply for an exemption from the compulsory education law when there is no school at a manageable distance from their home which strokes with their direction.
‘Direction’ is defined as the religion or educational philosophy in the Dutch jurisdiction (Blok & Sperling, 2012). Although the Dutch law does entail a provision by which children can be exempted, exemptions are rarely assigned to families. In the rare cases where an exemption is given, parents are not by law required to educate their children at home and no regulations are in place to inspect whether these children are being educated. An exemption is not merely provided as a opportunity to homeschool, an exemption is given so children no longer have to attend a formal school (Blok & Karsten, 2008). Ironically, an exemption is easily given to families with a child who cannot attend a school because of mental or physical disabilities. In these cases it appears as if homeschooling is a ‘good enough’ alternative.
Implications for homeschooling
Homeschooling challenges the manner in which the Leerplichtwet is currently framed and implemented. As school attendance is mandatory for all children from the age of five until sixteen, homeschooling as alternative to formal education is highly limited in the Netherlands. As a result, last year 5.919 children throughout the Netherlands received an exemption for the compulsory attendance law. 4.444 children on the basis of physical and psychological problems, 575 children on the basis of directional objections3 (MOCW, 2013). Although this is a relative increase since previous years, it is nowhere near the number of homeschoolers in countries where homeschooling is accepted as educational alternative for everyone. The current framing of the Leerplicht as a Schoolplicht has caused the
homeschooling population to be different from most homeschooling populations elsewhere. As homeschooling motivations can only be directional by the Dutch law, the population generally consists of religious and conservative families of which there are not many schools available.
Two major studies have been carried out aimed at identifying the Dutch population whom have been exempted from the educational law. Blok and Karsten (2008) studied whether these children were receiving an education and how they were being educated. They also examined whether these families would be open to state regulation on their educational practices. Blok, Triesscheijn and Karsten (2010) carried out similar research but also
examined the educational and professional careers of children that were homeschooled and
how analyzed how other European countries regulate homeschooling practices. Blok and Karsten (2008) interviewed 51 parents and concluded that all children were receiving an alternative type of education of which most families resorted to homeschooling as alternative. The education these children were receiving tended to be remotely similar to the education at school, in the sense that the parents had studied the Dutch educational goals and educated the children in the same subjects. On top of that, most families had additional educational goals which were based on their religion or educational philosophy. On average these children received fifteen hours of planned and structured education. The children would be taught by various teaching methods and materials and was highly dependent on the accessibility of the parent. Many of the interviewed parents realized the importance of learning adequate social skills and invested time in exposing their children to the diversity of the Dutch society. The children were enrolled in sport clubs or other social gatherings which they attended on a regular basis (Blok & Karsten, 2008). Stereotypically, homeschooling families are often thought to rebel against any kind of state interference. Interestingly enough, Blok and Karsten (2008) found that 80 percent of the families were open to regulatory advice on their
educational practices and most families had no objections to the state monitoring the learning outcomes and the development of social skills.
The additional research which was carried out by Blok, Triesscheijn and Karsten (2010) drew similar conclusions. All of the nine interviewed families provided their children with education in the form of homeschooling. The education was remotely similar to the education the children would be receiving in schools, however, families experienced more flexibility in adjusting the teaching to the needs of the child. The outflow of children from sixteen interviewed families happened all ages and levels: to primary education, to secondary education and vocational school and university. Generally the parents look positively at the transition and feel that their child had the ability to adjust appropriately. From the five European countries investigated, homeschooling was embedded in the law and regulations were put in place to safeguard the education of these children (Blok, Triesscheijn, & Karsten, 2010). It again shows that the Netherlands is one of few countries who does not seem to be moving forward when it comes to accepting alternatives like homeschooling. Although the Netherlands is very accepting in the sense that it equally funds and acknowledged private institutions, the state erratically restricts the educational choice of parents as their options are left limited to what is offered in schools.
The current Dutch compulsory education law (Leerplicht) appears to be framed as a compulsory school attendance law (Schoolplicht). This legislation requires every child to attend a formal school, instead of requiring each child to receive an adequate education as its literal translation suggests. Over time, their true meanings seem to have gotten lost in
translation, resulting in the synonymous use of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht. Firstly, this section will examine possible reasons for the synonomous use of these two terms by placing the implementation of the legislation in its historical context. Secondly, the possible problems that may arise from the conflation of the leerplicht and schoolplicht will be discussed. This section aims to shed more light on the Dutch context in order to discuss its future.
When we question the possible reasons for the synonymous use of two critically different concepts we need to consider the time in which the current leerplicht (framed as schoolplicht) was implemented. The new Leerplichtwet passed in 1969, a time which is often referred to as a highly unstable period in Dutch history, especially when we consider what happened prior to this specific year (Rigthart, 1995). Post World War II the states’ role underwent major changes. The material and emotional damage caused by the war required active government participation for the reconstruction of society. Interestingly enough, the state’s role was not questioned and society seemed to have restored its faith in the state’s agenda after the occupation during the war. Everything that was done during that period in time was aimed at restoring the social order which had been in place prior to the second World War. After all, only if the chaos was tamed and order was restored, it would be possible to re-experience freedom as felt before the war (De Graaf, 1999).
By the sixties the Netherlands was still recovering from the social and emotional damage caused by World War II. According to historians, the decade of the sixties constitutes a breaking point in the post-war Dutch history because of many rigorous changes impacting society. Some of the most noteworthy changes were: economic growth and prosperity, social security, socio-economic tensions, political innovation and radicalism, secularization, the rapid advance of television and media, greater sexual freedom, the rise of a youth culture, the formation of a militant, left-ideological student movement and finally an intensified
generational conflict (Rigthart, 1995). Especially these rigorous changes concerning the new form of social order and the technological development led to the formation of youth groups whom protested against the tightened grip of the state. These youth culture groups (E.g. hippies, provo’s and nozems) fought for the pursuit of an independent way of life that was independent of religious or political group rings and did this by critically questioning the current state of affairs. As a result, the rest of society also started questioning certain practices
and generally more people were opting out of the established system (Rigthart, 1995). According to De Graaf (1999) and Sperling (2013), it may have been the political and societal instability which caused the state to tighten its grip on education. Especially now more people where breaking free from traditional ties like church groupings, other methods were necessary for influencing society. The state began to consider education as a means for achieving societal objectives and had a genuine interest in requiring every child to attend a government funded school. This was done by extending the period of the education of every child had to nine years, and one could no longer comply with the law by educating children outside of formal schools. The state used combatting child labor, truancy and a general elevation of society as the reasons for the new framing of the Leerplichtwet which at the time was necessary to some extend (De Graaf, 1999; Sperling, 2010). This may provide a possible explanation for the synonymous use of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht. Historical evidence is available which indicates that state deliberately tightened their grip on education as a means to social control. However, the public was given other explanations and therefore did not question the imposed framing of the Leerplicht. It appears as if the synonomous use of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht was deliberate. ‘A wolf in sheepskin’ to cover the coercion that the 1969 Leerplichtwet entailed.
Concluding remark: current framing no longer seems to serve its original pupose
The conflation of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht seems to not have happened accidentally and served the purpose of social control, combatting child labor, preventing truancy and general intellectual elevation of society. Next the possible problems that may arise from the conflation of Leerplicht with Schoolplicht will be briefly discussed and aim to challenge the readers thoughts on its current framing. The way in which the current Leerplicht is framed could possibly lead to a number of problems. Firstly, it limits the Dutch educational system in numerous ways. The education of children seems to be limited to what is available in schools. As a result, the Netherlands is unable to go along with innovative alternatives whom
challenge the assumption of school attendance, as homeschooling does. Particularly when homeschooling has been accepted both legally and socially as a justified alternative in various industrialized countries, the Netherlands lags behind without warranted reasons for it. What is currently offered to students in school may not accommodate every student because of the large classes, the methods incorporated, or the facilities on offer. By framing the Leerplicht as a Schoolplicht, parents are forced to keep their children in school, even though this may not be at the benefit of the child’s learning. There is no alternative.
Schoolplicht is that the very few children whom currently have an exemption, are not being monitored. As homeschooling is not legally recognized as school attendance is mandatory, there are currently no regulations in place which monitor the educational progress of these children (Blok & Sperling, 2012). Parents are not obliged to provide children with an alternative form of education when they have been exempted and this provides a highly problematic scenario. This poses a direct threat to the educational interests of the child as well as the interests of the state as their future participation cannot be guaranteed (Reich, 2002). By installing a new Leerplicht which stays true to its meaning (a learning obligation rather than a attendance obligation), parents will be obliged to seek alternative methods for educating their child once they have been exempted. Whether this is through homeschooling or any other alternative. Although this part was mainly hypothetical, it does provide information that may ain in establishing the future of the Dutch schooling system and homeschooling as a justified alternative in the Netherlands.
This article examine the general theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both in support and against homeschooling as a justified alternative to formal schooling. The
controversy surrounding homeschooling was demonstrated by referring to the Dutch context as the Netherlands is an outlier among the countries where homeschooling is an option. Subsequently, with reference to the Netherlands in particular, the claims and evidence on homeschooling were related to the current framing of the compulsory education law (Leerplichtwet). It was questioned whether the way in which the Leerplicht is currently implemented, still serves its original purpose or whether it is in need of adjustments to make way for alternatives like homeschooling. More specifically it was investigated whether homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education, and therefore deserves to be recognized both legally and socially.
The first section took a closer look at the practice of homeschooling by focusing on homeschooling in America as they were one of the first to acknowledge its value by incorporating it both legally and socially. Included was a brief history in order to better understand its current position, the parental motivations for choosing homeschooling and its practice was discussed to provide an idea of what it entails. It was found that homeschooling is on the rise, more parents are wanting to withdraw their children from formal schools as they believe that they provide a better suited education than formal schools can. Families from all racial groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, lifestyle choices and religions choose for
homeschooling. The main reasons for venturing to homeschooling are: academic enhancement, social enhancement, customized curriculum suited to the need of each
individual child, practice other pedagogical approaches than found in formal schools, family relationship enhancement, religious considerations and to educate in a safer environment than generally found in schools.
Two of the three most widely agreed upon concerns about homeschooling were discussed in the second section. The following concerns were analyzed specifically: (1) certification and (2) indoctrination. The existing studies on teacher qualifications demonstrate that the relation with academic performance does not exist. Whether or not a parent is
certified to teach does not predict the educational performance of their children. In fact, homeschoolers’ achievement is found to be well above the academic achievement of formally schooled peers while most homeschooling parents teach their children uncertified. In regard to the indoctrination concern it is concluded that indoctrination and the potential threat this poses to the development of autonomy in a child cannot be underestimated, however, the autonomy of a child could also be affected by indoctrination through schooling as education and politics
cannot be separated. This concern remains difficult to decide upon but it seems unjust for the state to ve homeschooling on the basis of the indoctrination concern when various types of schools are being accepted and funded.
The third section discussed homeschooling in the Dutch context. Specific attention was paid to the current framing of the Leerplicht in relation to the Schoolplicht and the implications this has on homeschooling in the Netherlands. The current Leerplicht appears to be a disguised Schoolplicht as one can only comply with this law by attending a formal school. Whereas the first Leerplicht implemented in 1900 entailed a specific provision for parents whom wanted to homeschool their children. Parents had an obligation to the state in ensuring their child received an education, meaning that this Leerplicht stayed true to its meaning. The institutional framing of the Leerplicht restricts educational alternatives as the options are left limited to what is available in school. For this reason homeschooling is still in its infancy in the Netherlands while other countries have accepted it as a justified alternative to formal schooling and integrated into their educational system.
The fourth section raised questions concerning the origination of the conflation between the Leerplicht and Schoolplicht, as well as the problems that may arise from this conflation. The conflation of Leerplicht and Schoolplicht seems not to have happened accidentally and served the purpose of social control due to the political and societal instability in the sixties. The 1969 Leerplicht was also implemented for combatting child labor, preventing truancy and general intellectual elevation of society. These motives for the renewal of the Leerplicht make its current framing outdated as it no longer serves its original purpose. Leerplicht may have been deliberately used as a synonym for Schoolplicht as it made the coercion that it entailed less obvious. Possible problems that may arise from this are: the Netherlands’ limitation in going along with alternatives which challenge the assumption of attendance and monitoring small population of children currently being homeschooled as there homeschooling is not acknowledged by the law due the way the Leerplicht is currently framed. The overall conclusion drawn in this article is that homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education when accompanied by non-excessive state regulation. Although homeschooling challenges our general assumptions on the nature of education, it has proven itself worthy of recognition in other industrialized countries. The Dutch should no longer hide behind current institutional framing of the Leerplicht which limits the Dutch constitutional right of “Freedom of Education” to what is available in schools.
This article concluded that homeschooling can provide a justified alternative to formal education when accompanied by non-excessive state regulation. Although homeschooling challenges our general assumptions on the nature of education, it has proven itself worthy of recognition in other industrialized countries. Therefore the Dutch should no longer hide behind current institutional framing of the Leerplicht which limits the Dutch constitutional right of “Freedom of Education” to what is available in schools.. On the other hand, it was not in the intention of this article to devalue schools or to suggest that homeschooling is better in general. It is important to realize that homeschooling is not for everyone as it amounts to a great deal of responsibility and is a time consuming investment. This article found evidence in support of homeschooling as a justified alternative and therefore suggests an easing of the Leerplicht in order for homeschooling to also become a viable alternative in the Netherlands whom. Homeschooling should become an educational option in conjunction with non-excessive state regulation to protect children from parents whom may abuse their authority.
Limitations
The conclusion that was reached in this article is subject to a number of limitations which one needs to be aware of before moving further. Firstly, most of the studies referred to in this article originate from America. This may be especially problematic for the cases in which empirical data was used for reaching our conclusion. The limitation lies primarily in the generalizability of these studies. Although only large and nationwide studies were referred to, one should take into account that America and the Netherlands are different countries and results found in America are not a guarantee for results in the Netherlands. The available Dutch literature on homeschooling is limited, especially in regard to the performance of the few children that are currently being homeschooled in the Netherlands.
Secondly, critics of homeschooling often base their antagonistic perspective on the statistical limitations that studies of homeschooling are subject to. Lubienski, Puckett & Brewer (2013) argue that the causal inferences made on homeschooling in relation to higher levels of academic achievement, postsecondary attainment and even happiness are statistically questionable. The results found amongst homeschooled students are often compared to
formally schooled peers to put it into perspective meaning that preexisting groups are
compared. By using a static group comparison design, there is no control group assigned. This could mean that the higher level of educational achievement found amongst homeschooled children, is due to other contributing factors instead of solely on whether the studied children were homeschooled or not. Lubienski et al. (2013), also critique the existing studies on their
generalizability and claim that the homeschooled populations used, were not representable of the wider population. However, critics should not ignore that until this day no studies have implied that the homeschooling population is behind on its formally schooled peers.
Thirdly, the fourth section of this article questioned the origination of the conflation between Leerplicht and Schoolplicht and discussed the problems that may arise from the synonymous use. It is worth noting that in order to establish how they became synonymous, three dissertations were used as they provided elaborate information on the transition of the 1900 Leerplicht to the 1969 Leerplicht in its historical context. Although the possible
problems that may arise from this conflation were partly hypothetical, they seem worth taking into consideration in order for the future of Dutch policy in regard to whether or not to open up the possibilities for homeschooling.
Suggestions
As insinuated before, studies on the performance of homeschooled children in the Netherlands would provide a stronger case for an easing of the Leerplichtwet to make room for homeschooling. At the moment, the conclusions made are based upon research available in America and Canada and provide no guarantee of the current performance of
homeschooled students in the Netherlands. Therefore, further nationally based research is provided as a suggestion. A second suggestion for this article, while also a limitation due to its absence in this article is the schooling versus education debate. The Dutch constitutional right of ‘Freedom of Education’ appears to be limited to what’s available in a formal school setting due to the current framing of the Leerplicht. The reason for this seems highly
questionable when philosophers of education as early as Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1762), questioned the value of a formal school setting opposed to the value of interactions with the outside world for learning. The discussion on whether schooling a child at home can provide a justified alternative to schooling a child in a formal setting, relates to a much older debate on schooling versus education. Schooling and education are terms which are often used
interchangeably and synonymously. Nevertheless, their definitions have differed significantly for centuries. This discussion would have been of added value and may need to be restarted in light of the legalization of homeschooling.
Ahead to the future
From the literature used for this article we have drawn the conclusion that the Dutch should no longer hide behind current institutional framing of the Leerplicht which limits the Dutch constitutional right of “Freedom of Education” to what is available in schools.
Homeschooling has proven itself to be a worthy alternative in other countries, however, regulations and oversight seem necessary for safeguarding the future of each child. Parents should be given the option to homeschool their child if they think this is in the best interest of the child. Parents know their children best and should therefore be the one’s making this decision, instead of the state making one decision that applies to every child. In addition, denying parents the choice to homeschool is discriminating considering that the Netherlands has a wide variety of school types with have been accepted and funded. Restricting
homeschooling because the various school types available on offer should accommodate every family living in the Netherlands (MOCW, 2013), also seems highly intolerant.
For the reasons named above it is recommended that the Netherlands considers to revise its educational legislations in order to include homeschooling as option for both ideological and pedagogical motives of parents. If the current Leerplicht framed as a
Schoolplicht, would be changed in a way that stays true to its meaning (an obligation to learn instead of an obligation to attend school), it would allow for parents to make the decision on whether homeschooling is a suitable option for their children. Homeschooling can then be acknowledged legally and parents can be forced to provide their children with an alternative form of education once they have been exempted from the Leerplicht. It is suggested that parents still have to apply for an exemption by motivating their choice and objections to the formal schooling system. This will hopefully work as a filter, ensuring that parents with intentions other than the best interest of their child cannot homeschool. Furthermore it is suggested that homeschooling is regulated and monitored, allowing the state the power to force a child to attend a school when there are concerns about the education the child is receiving.
Neighboring country Belgium can provide an example for the Netherlands (Blok & Sperling, 2012). In Belgium homeschooling is recognized legally and therefore has laws in place to safeguard the interests of the homeschooling children. Homeschooling is open for both ideologues and pedagogues but families are obliged to notify the state of their choice to homeschool. School inspectors also inspect the quality of education of homeschoolers on a yearly basis. During the inspection parents are required to explain how they educate and which sources they use for their education. The inspection should obtain a clear picture of whether the children are being adequately prepared for future societal participation while taking the specific contextual factors of each family into consideration (Blok & Sperling, 2012). The time has come for the Netherlands to become more accepting of alternative forms
of education whom challenge the general assumption on the nature of education whom have been with us for decades.
