View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

There Is Little Evidence Disproportionately Associating Home Schoolers with Child Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stewart and Mccracken

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: There Is Little Evidence Disproportionately Associating Home Schoolers with Child Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stewart and Mccracken
Language: English
Authors: Shakeel, M. D. (ORCID 0000-0002-7700-8540), Ray, B. D. (ORCID 0000-0002-0989-1589)
Source: Journal of School Choice. 2023 17(2):218-222.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 5
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Home Schooling, Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Child Safety, Research Methodology, Parenting Styles, Educational Policy
DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2022.2163968
ISSN: 1558-2159
1558-2167
Abstract: Stewart and McCracken at the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) present a rebuttal to our article where their main critique is regarding our study's ideological roots. In this rejoinder to Stewart and McCracken, we highlight three things: (1) the takeaways from our study are robust to the criticism of CRHE; (2) our survey instrument and conclusions are well aligned with the existing surveys and findings on child abuse; and (4) CRHE itself admits that their mission is not based on using empirical evidence for cross-sector child abuse comparison. They say, "they are not particularly interested in contesting our empirical findings." While Stewart and McCracken claim that lax homeschooling laws enable or cause abuse, they provide no empirical evidence to support this claim. We argue that CRHE insists on pursuing goals based on their ideology, hence they miss the mark regarding the purpose of our empirical study and critiquing it. Our study is the first of its kind to use a valid and reliable instrument with a representative sample and we encourage others to further this line of empirical work. We caution policymakers to use representative evidence in framing child protection laws after accounting for the role played by demographics and not just school sector.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1389940
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwERKe9XmHNk7OUQfJ7mkIcCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFvHMo3Md6Sp8-gDSQIBEICBm_vNoh7LCNOKJgUmNt1ElEGzyZoH6COAf2KprG54sDrYwfur4vyXd7WvZcA6KS0OzdiNz3mRp53Exz9K7nNGXN3zU0GSe_wbHPEUgFJEd4lGnLS5d3k7L_Vvewal-3Oi-h9AYibtUVqOQhtk6eY8V2z61RulU4GG_jfvzeK1eQwO-AsJZiTN_MaWxxoOkFBWDPByXNZOFS_v3vJH
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163950685;[2y6a]01apr.23;2023May30.07:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163950685-1">There Is Little Evidence Disproportionately Associating Home Schoolers with Child Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stewart and McCracken </title> <p>Stewart and McCracken at the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) present a rebuttal to our article where their main critique is regarding our study's ideological roots. In this rejoinder to Stewart and McCracken, we highlight three things: a) the takeaways from our study are robust to the criticism of CRHE, b) our survey instrument and conclusions are well aligned with the existing surveys and findings on child abuse, and c) CRHE itself admits that their mission is not based on using empirical evidence for cross-sector child abuse comparison. They say, "they are not particularly interested in contesting our empirical findings." While Stewart and McCracken claim that lax homeschooling laws enable or cause abuse, they provide no empirical evidence to support this claim. We argue that CRHE insists on pursuing goals based on their ideology, hence they miss the mark regarding the purpose of our empirical study and critiquing it. Our study is the first of its kind to use a valid and reliable instrument with a representative sample and we encourage others to further this line of empirical work. We caution policymakers to use representative evidence in framing child protection laws after accounting for the role played by demographics and not just school sector.</p> <p>Keywords: Homeschool; public school; child abuse; child neglect; policy</p> <p>Like Stewart and McCracken ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]), Ray and Shakeel ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]) want child protection laws to be informed by empirical work. Our approaches clearly differ. In our view, Stewart and McCracken promote ideology while downplaying empirical evidence on child maltreatment.</p> <p>We first rebut Stewart and McCracken's methodological critique. Contrary to what they claim, we were transparent about their sampling, methods, robustness checks, and limitations. The study was peer-reviewed, whereby the reviewers raised questions related to sampling, instrument, and claims based on the data.</p> <p>Barna Group's clients have included well-known secular organizations and businesses such as the Gates Foundation, Habitat for Humanity, and Sony. Our survey was exceptionally lengthy. We saved costs by modifying an existing survey on fragile families conducted with Barna (Ray, Shakeel, Worth, & Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]). Stewart and McCracken's criticism of Barna's selection is misplaced given cost- and survey-length related realities.</p> <p>Stewart and McCracken offer a myopic criticism of the snowball technique in our study. Increasing sample size with this standard method was reasonable and the best available through Barna. Yet, dropping this snowball sample does not make the role of demographics any smaller in comparison to school sector for predicting self-reported child abuse and neglect. Stewart and McCracken could have asked us to reproduce the tables by dropping the snowball sample, but they did not. The coefficients on homeschooling and Adjusted R-squared from the models are not likely to alter the takeaway facts.</p> <p>In response to Stewart and McCracken, we must point out that the survey questions are not our invention, but are derived from official definitions used by various government agencies and in court cases (see appendix of Ray & Shakeel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]). Survey questions in Felitti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>], p. 248) fairly matche many of our questions. We never claim that our instrument is the <emph>only</emph> way to study the topic of child abuse. Future surveys can develop more extensive instruments, and replicate our findings. Yet, our instrument has a high reliability and, as we cite in our article, the demographics-related findings are in accord with the literature on child abuse.</p> <p>Stewart and McCracken lump us with "parental rights extremists," suggesting ideological bias in Ray's previous work. They claim in their second paragraph that "pervasive ideological roots" of our study are the "more salient" concern – more than their methodological critique. In the latter portion of their manuscript, they claim that we "neglect to disclose how their philosophical priors demonstrably infuse their research design." This is a red herring.</p> <p>Any organized group is likely to have an ideology, including the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE). For transparency, Shakeel does not hold the membership of any homeschool organization, has no homeschooling background, is not a parent or a US citizen, and has no association with evangelical groups, which draw the ire of Stewart and McCracken. Shakeel played the key role in determining the methodology. In addition, we had the entire study code checked and replicated by Benjamin Arold at the Ifo Institute in the University of Munich (see acknowledgments). Shakeel and Arold's involvement in the study was done to ensure that any philosophical orientation of Ray or the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) did not affect the quality of the data, analysis, and findings.</p> <p>Stewart and McCracken do not shy away from exposing their biases by poisoning the well (e.g., citing only critics and not admirers of Ray's research) and saying "Readers might be surprised to learn that we are not particularly interested in contesting Ray and Shakeel's empirical findings ... ... For us, the question has never been whether abuse overall is more common among children who are homeschooled or children who attend school, but rather what happens when abuse does occur." By doing so, they ignore the key finding of our study about demographics rather than school sector being the major predictor of child abuse. They also ignore the notable finding that the incidences of abuse and neglect for homeschool children are mainly attributed to social settings and not the family. Does their ideological prior prohibit Stewart and McCracken from using demographics to inform child protection laws? Or, are they simply interested in propagating the priors of their organization? From their response it seems the latter.</p> <p>Stewart and McCracken then contradict themselves in their last paragraph by saying "Does school sector really "exhibit policy insignificance" with respect to abuse when we have documented 483 cases of abuse enabled by lax homeschooling laws – including 158 children who died before they had an opportunity to participate in Ray and Shakeel's survey?" This statement does not prove that school sector becomes policy significant. With their logic, one could count the multifold thousands of cases of child abuse in public schools and castigate that school sector for abusing children (see the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>] the School Survey on Crime and Safety,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>] Supplementary Homicide Reports[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]). Child abuse, neglect, torture, and fatality happen irrespective of school sector. The unsettled question is whether a particular school sector can be held responsible for disproportionate harm to children? Based on our study, the answer is no.</p> <p>CRHE promotes massive regulation of home education while offering no evidence that such would save significant numbers of children.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>] Homeschooling is growing across the United States, and post-Covid-19 pandemic it seems that the growth in homeschoolers is here to stay (Houston, Peterson, & West, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]). Our study does not examine homeschooling regulation, but its findings of demographics being the key predictor in child abuse in comparison to school sector threaten the mission of CRHE. If protection of <emph>all children</emph> is the ultimate goal, policy findings should be informed by representative data based on rigorous analysis. It will not be easy for CHRE to factor in demographics and then establish that homeschooling is an independent and significant predictor of child maltreatment. It appears that CRHE has chosen to neglect such an exercise, whose findings might undermine the organization's policy agenda.</p> <p>Stewart and McCracken offer no empirical evidence that various homeschool laws cause abuse, neglect, or fatalities. They offer no empirical evidence that compulsory schooling laws should be used to attempt to prevent abuse of children rather than ensure literacy and numeracy. And they offer no evidence that their preferred ideology of an administrative state should and can prevent significant amounts of harm to children. Since their main focus is on " ... what happens when abuse does occur," then why are they critical of our or anyone's correlation- or causation-focused research? If they are focused in what happens after children are abused, they should focus on post-abuse finding protocols.</p> <p>We are trying to build an evidence base that did not previously exist and our findings (and those of Dills, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]) suggest that claims connecting homeschooling to abuse appear to be overblown, if not incorrect. This evidence raises questions about the strict regulatory strategies that Stewart and McCracken and their organization (CRHE) are promoting. Regulations in real world come with costs. Recent investigative reporting shows how "careless" reporting on child abuse by public school educators devastates thousands of families in New York City (Lehrer-Small, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]). CRHE's promoted regulations would devastate families, while placing a disproportionate and inequitable burden on low-income and ethnic minority families, many of whom are homeschooling their children in increasing number after the pandemic. CRHE's mission is ideology driven and they do not appear to change their practices due to research that shows a lack of association between school sector and child abuse and neglect. We do hope that researchers will continue to pursue an evidence-informed approach to this important topic.</p> <hd id="AN0163950685-2">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0163950685-3"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/school-crime-supplement-scs</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/SAVD.html">www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/SAVD.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/index.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/100699/version/V11/view">www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/100699/version/V11/view</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/advocacy/lawmakers/policy-recommendations/</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0163950685-4"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Dills, A. (2022). Homeschooling and child safety: Are kids safer at home? Journal of School Choice. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2022.2113355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14 (4), 245 – 258. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, D., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2022). Parental anxieties over student learning dissipate as schools relax anti-covid measures. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.educationnext.org/parental-anxieties-over-student-learning-dissipate-as-schools-relax-anti-covid-measures-2022-education-next-survey-public-opinion/">www.educationnext.org/parental-anxieties-over-student-learning-dissipate-as-schools-relax-anti-covid-measures-2022-education-next-survey-public-opinion/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehrer-Small, A. (2022). Exclusive data: Educators' 'careless' child abuse reports devastate thousands of NYC families. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-data-educators-careless-child-abuse-reports-devastate-thousands-of-nyc-families/">www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-data-educators-careless-child-abuse-reports-devastate-thousands-of-nyc-families/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray, B. D., & Shakeel, M. D. (2022). Demographics are predictive of child abuse and neglect but homeschool versus conventional school is a non-issue: Evidence from a nationally representative survey. Journal of School Choice, 1 – 38. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2022.2108879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ray, B. D., Shakeel, M. D., Worth, F., & Bryant, V. (2021). Four key barriers affecting the choice to homeschool: Evidence from a fragile community. Journal of School Choice, 15 (2), 194 – 214. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2021.1924583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Stewart, G., & McCracken, C. (2022). Abused homeschooled children deserve legal protections: A response to Ray and Shakeel (2022). Journal of School Choice.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By M. D. Shakeel and B. D. Ray</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1389940
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: There Is Little Evidence Disproportionately Associating Home Schoolers with Child Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stewart and Mccracken
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shakeel%2C+M%2E+D%2E%22">Shakeel, M. D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-8540">0000-0002-7700-8540</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ray%2C+B%2E+D%2E%22">Ray, B. D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0989-1589">0000-0002-0989-1589</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+School+Choice%22"><i>Journal of School Choice</i></searchLink>. 2023 17(2):218-222.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 5
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+Schooling%22">Home Schooling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Abuse%22">Child Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Neglect%22">Child Neglect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Safety%22">Child Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15582159.2022.2163968
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1558-2159<br />1558-2167
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Stewart and McCracken at the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) present a rebuttal to our article where their main critique is regarding our study's ideological roots. In this rejoinder to Stewart and McCracken, we highlight three things: (1) the takeaways from our study are robust to the criticism of CRHE; (2) our survey instrument and conclusions are well aligned with the existing surveys and findings on child abuse; and (4) CRHE itself admits that their mission is not based on using empirical evidence for cross-sector child abuse comparison. They say, "they are not particularly interested in contesting our empirical findings." While Stewart and McCracken claim that lax homeschooling laws enable or cause abuse, they provide no empirical evidence to support this claim. We argue that CRHE insists on pursuing goals based on their ideology, hence they miss the mark regarding the purpose of our empirical study and critiquing it. Our study is the first of its kind to use a valid and reliable instrument with a representative sample and we encourage others to further this line of empirical work. We caution policymakers to use representative evidence in framing child protection laws after accounting for the role played by demographics and not just school sector.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1389940
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1389940
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15582159.2022.2163968
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 5
        StartPage: 218
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Home Schooling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Neglect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: There Is Little Evidence Disproportionately Associating Home Schoolers with Child Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stewart and Mccracken
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shakeel, M. D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ray, B. D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1558-2159
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1558-2167
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of School Choice
              Type: main
ResultId 1