Alberta Home Educators and
an American Proposal to Ban Home Education
by Michael Wagner
In 2012, Alberta’s home educators (led by the
Alberta Home Education Association and the Home
School Legal Defence Association of Canada) were
instrumental in defeating a legislative proposal to
have all instructional materials conform to human
rights legislation. In effect, the proposed legislation
would have forbidden parents from using curriculum
that upheld Christian sexual morality. The long arm of
the state would reach into homes to ensure all children
would be taught “progressive” views of sexuality. This
was a clear threat to parental rights.
At the time, the conflict over this legislation
received international attention. Later, once the matter
was settled and the proposal defeated, the conflict was
no longer newsworthy. However, the international
interest did not disappear altogether. Some left-wing
law professors in the United States are now using
this episode as a reason to advocate for a ban on
homeschooling altogether. Yes, the victory of Alberta’s
home educators in 2012 continues to reverberate at
the international level. Who says we don’t matter?
Opposing Freedom
In 2016, Martha Fineman and George B. Shepherd,
both professors at Emory University School of Law in
Atlanta, Georgia, wrote an article for the University
of Baltimore Law Review entitled, “Homeschooling:
Choosing Parental Rights Over Children’s Interests.”
Martha Fineman has been an influential left-wing
legal theorist and political philosopher for decades, so
her ideas cannot be safely ignored.
Fineman and Shepherd make no bones about
their anti-freedom agenda. They state their conclusion
forcefully: “Because of the harms homeschooling
causes to children and society, it should be prohibited”
(p. 96). They offer a number of reasons for their
conclusion, but one of those reasons is buttressed with
the Alberta example.
Alberta 2012
Many legal scholars have written articles against
homeschooling in recent years, but most of them
recommend heavy regulation of homeschooling as the
solution to the supposed problem. However, Fineman
HOME Matters Summer 2018
and Shepherd argue that increased regulation is not
a reasonable solution because home educators fight
against it so tenaciously. The evidence they offer to
support their point is the Alberta situation in 2012,
where home educators fought (and beat!) an attempt
to subvert their parental rights.
Fineman and Shepherd claim that the Alberta
legislation opposed by home educators in 2012 was
“designed to address hate crimes.” They then add that
the “Education Ministry interpreted the School Act to
prohibit homeschools, private schools, and Catholic
schools from teaching students that being gay is a
sin” (p. 99). After briefly describing the reason home
educators objected to the new law, Fineman and
Shepherd conclude, “If a homeschooling parent can
be compelled neither to teach civic virtue and respect
for law nor to submit to the most basic monitoring
and regulation, then the only alternative is to prohibit
homeschooling, so that the child will be exposed to
those lessons in a school setting” (p. 99).
In essence, they argue that since home educators
have been so successful defending their rights and
freedoms, homeschooling must be completely banned.
Allowing home education to exist legally provides a
basis from which home educators can fight against
increased regulation, and therefore outlawing home
education will remove that basis.
This is not the only reason Fineman and
Shepherd provide to support their case for prohibiting
homeschooling, but it is the one where Alberta is used
as an example of what they oppose. The other reasons
are even worse, if you can believe it. To a large degree,
Fineman and Shepherd want to ban homeschooling to
prevent parents from teaching their children that the
Bible is literally true.
Biblical Truth “Harms” Children
Fineman and Shepherd are particularly concerned
that children are being taught from Bible-based
materials in many families. The biblical nature of
much homeschooling is easily confirmed by looking
at popular curriculum. They write, “Although no
textbook is perfect, there is a substantial level of
factual misstatement in the standard textbooks used
- 21 -
by homeschooling evangelical Christians. The ‘science’
presented in these textbooks is often factually wrong,
with many of the false statements springing from the
assertion that everything in the Bible is literally true.
This insistence that Biblical statements are literal truth
leads to instruction that can be sharply out of touch
with the rest of the modern world” (p. 85).
In their view the Bible is not true, and therefore
they believe that children who receive conservative
Bible teaching will not be prepared for real life and
will not be able to function in secular society. In this
respect, homeschooling “harms” the children.
Biblical Truth “Harms” Society
Besides harming the children, society is also
harmed when parents “indoctrinate” their children
“with extreme views.” As they put it, “This type of
indoctrination reinforces the falsehoods sometimes
taught to homeschooled children, leading to conflict
with the scientific truth taught at more inclusive public
schools. This not only harms the individual student, it
harms the greater cohesion of society, creating discord
and strife that prevent our country from working
toward common goals” (p. 86).
What kind of “extreme views” do they mean?
- 22 -
Well, for instance, some parents “enforce religious
patriarchal ideals — such as restricting their daughters’
educations to ensure they can only be homemakers
and not pursue any outside employment, or expecting
children to work rather than learn” (p. 88). They do
not like the idea of girls growing up to be homemakers.
They also complain that “Many of the proponents
and practitioners of homeschooling have been
publically critical of social or public values such
as toleration and expanded notions of equality”
(p. 64). The citation they give for this point is an
item by HSLDA’s Michael Farris explaining some
negative implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
same-sex marriage ruling. So when they say many
homeschoolers have been critical of “social or public
values,” they are referring to those of us who believe in
traditional Christian morality. In other words, biblical
Christianity is the source of many of the “extreme
views” they are concerned about.
Ideological Conformity
Fineman and Shepherd want all children to
be compelled to attend public schools. This way
all children can be educated in progressive sexual
morality and the secularist worldview. In short, the
state should compel all children to be taught Fineman
HOME Matters Summer 2018
Alberta Home Educators and an American Proposal to Ban Home Education

and Shepherd’s personal social and political beliefs. In
their view, “The state fails when it does not effectively
educate children about sexual, gender, and other forms
of diversity or when it inadequately addresses bullying,
harassment, and discrimination” (p. 70). For the state
to “succeed” then, everyone must be taught left-wing
ideology. That is, all children must be instructed in
progressive views of sexuality and gender, etc.
Interestingly, Fineman and Shepherd are clear that
they dislike the freedom for homeschooling that is
allowed in the United States. Their country provides
more freedom for home education than perhaps any
other. Fineman and Shepherd see that as detrimental.
Why can’t the United States just abolish freedom as
so many other countries have done? Or, as they put
it, “We finally conclude that homeschooling should be
prohibited, conforming America’s approach to state
responsibility in regard to education to that of many
of our peer nations” (p. 60). Apparently the “peer
nations” they admire are countries such as Germany
and Sweden that essentially ban homeschooling.
Individual liberty is an obstacle to social engineers
who want to use state power to usher in their
concept of an ideal society by force. Their solution,
as in the case of Fineman and Shepherd, is to
eliminate freedom so that the government can
coerce its citizens to conform without any legal
hindrances.
The only positive thing that can be said about
Fineman and Shepherd is that they are clear and
honest about their objectives. They don’t try to
be subtle or hide behind academic jargon. They
openly demand the end of our freedom. This is a
so-called “progressive” goal for education policy in
the twenty-first century.
Shepherd’s policy recommendations. For the most
part, the Anglosphere nations (Britain and the
countries it founded) have historically maintained
the greatest degree of individual liberty in the world.
The United States may be most exemplary in this
respect. If America falls into the grasp of the left-wing
extremism advocated by Fineman and Shepherd, the
world would be a much darker place.
In 2012, Alberta’s home educators showed the
world that they take freedom seriously when they
pushed back against the social engineering in our own
province. It’s to our credit that the enemies of freedom
have noticed this achievement and are not happy
about it.
Michael Wagner is an
independent researcher and
writer with a PhD in political
science from the University
of Alberta. His most recent
book is True Right: Genuine
Conservative Leaders of
Western Canada. He and his
wife have eleven children and have been home educating
for over 20 years.

Conclusion
Fineman and Shepherd’s article demonstrates
that there is an international dimension to the
struggle for homeschooling freedom. Although
they are American, they use the success of Alberta’s
home educators as an example of what they are
fighting against. They also hold up countries that
don’t respect parental rights and individual liberty
as positive examples for the United States to follow.
Needless to say, it would be a disaster if the
United States or Canada accepted Fineman and
HOME Matters Summer 2018 - 23 -