This claim is both absurd and common. People who make this claim often argue that parents should be entrusted with their children’s education because they know and want what’s best for their children. While many parents seek what is best for their children, some do not. We know from national data that parents are reliably the most common perpetrators of abuse and neglect. 

The homeschooling community is not exempt. Data and alumni testimonials show that abuse can, and does, happen within homeschooling families. Moreover, because of policy loopholes, abusive caregivers can and do choose to “homeschool” to evade suspicion for abuse. This does not mean that homeschooling itself makes a parent abusive, but rather that lack of oversight makes homeschooling less safe.

In severe abuse cases, like those we record in our Homeschooling’s Invisible Children database, social services are involved before the abuse/neglect comes to light about one-third of the time. Often victims originally attended school, where teachers noticed signs of abuse and reported them to social services, sometimes repeatedly. Their caregivers then withdrew them to homeschool to intentionally foreclose the possibility of further reports of their abuse. Opponents of homeschooling oversight claim that the burden in cases like these is on social services to follow up with the at-risk family, especially if there were multiple reports. 

It is undeniable that social service professionals have failed to assess risk appropriately in cases that have resulted in tragic, even deadly, outcomes. However, once social services has closed a case, they cannot then open a new one without a new report of abuse—to do otherwise would violate a family’s presumption of innocence. When caregivers prevent teachers from reporting abuse by withdrawing their children from school, social services can’t act.In cases with the worst outcomes, victims are generally not only isolated from teachers and other professionals trained to recognize and report abuse, but adults outside the home altogether. 

This argument also ignores the role isolation plays in the escalation of abuse. In most states, homeschooling oversight policies are so lax that abusive caregivers can comply with legal requirements without educating their children. This allows abusive caregivers to use homeschooling as a cover for isolating a child and subjecting them to abuse that would not be possible to achieve if the child were in school, while simultaneously preventing them from receiving an education. Learn more about these unique risks here.

Disqualifying caregivers from homeschooling if they are under investigation or have been convicted of crimes against children patches a hole in a state’s child welfare safety net by preventing abusive caregivers from exploiting homeschooling to cover abuse.

While scholars have attempted to determine if homeschooled children are abused at different rates than peers, quality data do not exist to meaningfully answer this question. Lack of oversight means we don’t know how many children are homeschooled nationwide; issues with inclusion criteria and data quality in child maltreatment data mean we don’t know how many children experience abuse and neglect in the US. 

More broadly, the debate about abuse frequency distracts from the heart of the problem of child abuse and neglect. Abuse occurs in all school environments—homeschools included. All violence against children is abhorrent. Our goal should be to eliminate it completely. To do so, lawmakers need to pay attention to how school status can affect risk factors for harm. For example, while the risk of violence from peers (including school shootings) may be higher in schools, some risks may be more unique to homeschooling, such as risks for severe social isolation and educational neglect. In addition, children at public schools have reliable, frequent access to mandated reporters and trained educators. Children being homeschooled typically only have access to mandated reporters through their parents, who are not legally required to grant them access. They may also have no independent access to education or assessment. This makes homeschooled children uniquely vulnerable and results in a major hole in our child welfare system. This hole can be patched with reasonable oversight. 

The duty to protect a group of kids shouldn’t hinge on how many of them there are: when kids are denied their rights to safety, education, and sometimes life because of policy loopholes, lawmakers are responsible for fixing those gaps.

Research claiming that homeschooled students unilaterally outperform peers in school has been repeatedly discredited. Credible research paints a far less sensational picture, suggesting that homeschooled kids perform worse in math and are significantly more likely to report being behind grade level.

When it comes to life outcomes, research shows that homeschooling can in some cases facilitate academic and career success, especially when families have educational resources at their disposal and are invested in their kids’ education. However, research has repeatedly shown that overall, homeschool alumni attend university at lower rates and work for less pay than peers who attended school. Read our full brief on academics and outcomes here to learn more.

This argument is a classic example of whataboutism – that is, shifting the topic of discussion to something that seems relevant in order to avoid addressing it. Improving education outcomes across different forms of schooling is not a zero-sum game. Advocating for homeschooled children is not equivalent to advocating against public schooled children, and vice versa. Research shows that, increasingly, families use multiple ways to accommodate their kids’ needs, for example homeschooling some children at some times and using public schools at others. Pitting the improvement of homeschooling outcomes against those of other options does these families a disservice. More broadly, ensuring the next generation is prepared for adult life is too high a priority to only grant it to some children.

Oversight makes homeschooling stronger. Consistent, clear standards increase homeschooling’s legitimacy as an educational option and protect families. In states where oversight policies are unclear, families under scrutiny are vulnerable to the subjective judgment of truancy officers, CPS caseworkers, and other professionals who may not understand homeschooling, or who may be exhibiting biases against them. Clear and clearly enforced oversight policies reduce the possibility for discrimination. 

In addition, oversight is about access just as much as it is accountability. Oversight creates processes that let caregivers receive feedback from trained educators, and allow homeschooled kids to access sports, extracurriculars, part-time enrollment, and disability testing and services through their local school.

Oversight can be achieved with minimal demands on parents’ time. Caregivers can notify their school districts that they are homeschooling by filling out a one-page form each year. Caregivers who are homeschooling responsibly keep records and evaluate their children for progress regularly. Oversight reinforces what responsible homeschooling parents already do and gives them access to additional support from their school district, while also safeguarding against educational neglect when homeschooling is not going well for a family. In short, oversight supports responsible parents while protecting children.