In a new article for the Christofascist magazine World, homeschool alumnus and abuse denialist Samuel D. James argues that homeschooling critics have double standards because, as the article’s subtitle asks, “Why doesn’t widespread abuse in public schools get more attention?”
Asking about physical and sexual abuse in public schools—very real and significant problems—is, of course, a completely unoriginal question for critics of abuse in homeschooling. For us homeschool alumni and child and survivor advocates, this question is virtually the very first question asked by anyone who is attempting to deflect attention away from abuse in homeschooling. That James, an alum himself, cannot move beyond such a cliché, illogical dismissal of our concerns is unfortunate. But it also means that he clearly is not interacting much with alumni and advocates. If he was, he would at least have moved beyond surface-level dismissals. He would also understand we don’t oppose homeschooling; we oppose abuse.
James begins his article by railing against Stefan Merrill Block, a novelist who recently wrote a well-received memoir about being homeschooled by an abusive mother. After publishing his memoir, Block wrote a guest essay for The New York Times about how his experience of abusive homeschooling isn’t unique to him and is enabled by the intentionally deregulated state of homeschool policy. To be clear: Block is a novelist. Prior to writing his memoir, Block had written three novels—none of which were about him being homeschooled by abusive parents. Block does not work for the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, the one and only advocacy organization that professionally fights against abuse in homeschooling. Again, he is a novelist who wrote one book about his own personal experience of homeschooling and then wrote a few opinion articles on why his personal experience is not abnormal.
Yet here is how James begins his article and describes Block: “Block is a crusader against homeschooling families.” Why does James describe Block as a “crusader”? Block does not have a history of attacking homeschooling. He was, prior to publishing his memoir, unknown to most individuals and groups that advocate on these issues. This completely unnecessary framing of Block’s actions of sharing a personal experience of abuse and trying to help others avoid having that same experience only serves as a selfish, rhetorical device on James’s part. He is trying to frame Block as being some evil, powerful figure tarnishing the reputation of homeschooling and trying to ban it—none of which is true.
After baselessly accusing Block of being an anti-family crusader instead of taking his concerns as a fellow alum seriously, James immediately throws out a red herring: a teacher involved in a public school’s homeschooling program was recently arrested for grooming and planning to sexually abuse a 5th grade boy. That teacher, Sydnee Graf, was later charged with child rape as well. According to news reports, Graf was reported to law enforcement by police stationed at the public school.
Before addressing the details of this abuse case, let me explain why James raising the case of Graf is a red herring to Block’s attempt to address abuse in homeschooling. A red herring is the logical fallacy of changing the subject. For example, let’s say I say something like, “ICE is committing human rights atrocities.” If your response to my argument is, “Democrats commit human rights atrocities,” you are committing the red herring logical fallacy. See, Democrats do indeed commit human rights atrocities, but whether they do has no bearing on whether the argument “ICE is committing human rights atrocities” is true or false. Those are two separate arguments. If your only response to ICE’s human rights atrocities is pointing out other people also commit atrocities, or even vice-versa, we will never get anywhere on stopping any of the atrocities.
This is exactly what James does. Instead of either debunking Block’s arguments or proposing his own solutions to the problems identified by Block, James simply throws out abuse in public schools—as if that somehow was an answer to abuse in homeschooling.
This honestly would go both ways. While I talk frequently about abuse in homeschooling, if I mentioned it every time someone else mentioned abuse in public schools, it would be similarly distracting, rude, and unhelpful for all parties. There are time and space to discuss abuse of children in all varieties of educational settings.
But that’s the point: distraction rather than solutions. See, James isn’t interested in stopping abuse in either homeschooling or public schools. When he raises abuse in public schools as a topic, it is not to solve it. It is simply to shut down discussion of abuse in homeschooling.
Here is why James doesn’t discuss solutions: because the solutions to abuse in public schools and homeschooling are the same! All schools need checks and balances on the adults that work for them because all schools serve children or young adults—and children and young adults are vulnerable to abuse by adults. All schools—whether public, private, or home—need to train teachers in and educate students about child abuse awareness and prevention; all schools need to abide by child protection policies and follow mandatory reporting requirements; all schools need various levels of oversight, where adults are held accountable and responsible for the authority and power they hold over the children in their care; all schools need to respect children’s rights.
James doesn’t give solutions to abuse in public schools because he doesn’t want them to apply to homeschooling. He, like other rightwing extremists and homeschooling apologists such as the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), supports the intentionally deregulated state of homeschool policy. They oppose any and every attempt to create oversight of homeschooling or apply child protection best practices to homeschooling communities and organizations.
Now, let’s return to the details of James’s “abuse in public schools” story—the story of child sex predator Sydnee Graf. First, framing this story as an example of public school abuse that compares to abuse in homeschooling is highly disingenuous. James admits the abuse occurred, or was planned to occur, during “Non-Traditional Instruction,” also known as “remote learning,” which is also known as a public school homeschooling program. Essentially, it occurred at the child’s home, not at the school itself. So, this isn’t a straightforward example of either abuse in a public school or abuse in homeschooling. It’s a unique mix of educational settings.
The second detail that deserves mention about Graf’s story is how the teacher was caught and arrested: she was reported to law enforcement by police stationed at the public school. Why is this detail important? Because this detail proves exactly the opposite of what James wants: it proves that having oversight of adults in school settings is helpful. If there were not other adults in that school to gather the necessary information and report it to the authorities, that child would likely still be victimized today.
Yet many homeschooled children have very few other adults in their lives that are trained to identify and report child abuse. There are no police stationed at children’s homes. There are no social workers working for homeschool co-ops. There are not nurses or doctors or dentists or any of the mandatory reporters that public school children (and even some private school children) encounter daily. At best, most homeschooled children might encounter a mandatory reporter on Sunday when their family goes to church—but pastors and other religious leaders are exempt from mandatory reporting laws in 33 states.
It’s not Block’s fault that abuse in public schools exists. It’s not the fault of other “crusaders” against abuse in homeschooling, either. In my experience, the vast majority of homeschool alumni and our advocates overwhelmingly support best practices for child protection in any and every educational setting. And the fact is, there are already standards for public schools on child abuse awareness and prevention. There are already protection policies and reporting guidelines and enforcement mechanisms and support systems. They may not work well and may need to be vastly improved or more widely or better implemented, but they exist.
The difference with homeschooling is that none of that exists. There are virtually zero checks and balances on homeschooling parents in most states. In all but 3 states, convicted child abusers and child sex predators are legally able to homeschool. In fact, when Illinois recently considered more oversight of homeschooling, convicted child molesters publicly advocated against it. One convicted child molester who advocated against it was later found to be a lifetime member of HSLDA.
The fact that Sydnee Graf abused children is horrific. But we know her story because there was a system in place and the system, however imperfect, worked. If Sydnee Graf’s victims had been merely homeschooled and not homeschooled through a public school, however, their abuse might never have been discovered. That’s the point. Yes, as James so poetically observes, “There are abusive parents and abusive teachers, cruel mothers and cruel guidance counselors, destructive homes and destructive classrooms.” But in the home, like in homeschooling, there are very few checks and balances. This is exactly why most child abuse occurs at home and most child abusers are parents.
If we don’t want those patterns replicated in homeschooling, we must treat homeschooled children equitably, which means applying child protection best practices and educational standards to all children, regardless of educational setting. This is not a double standard; it’s literally begging for the same standards.