Ways of Transformation
by Nicky Hardenbergh

From VOICES: The Journal of the National Home Education Network (Summer, 2000)

For most of us, homeschooling is such an integral part of our lives that any threat to homeschooling affects us more directly and more personally than virtually any other political issue. We usually consider the political process part of our homeschool/life curriculum; a trip to the State House to attend a bill hearing is an aspect of the family’s educational and civic activity. Much is at stake in homeschool politics, and we are ready to act in the political arena much more often than the average citizen.

But what happens when our own idea of appropriate political action is at odds with those of other homeschoolers? We all come under the same regulations. How, then, can we deal best with conflicts of strategies or approaches? For me, one of the most fascinating aspects of homeschool politics is the broad range of political convictions represented by homeschoolers. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed. Yet working together with people whom you would never have met outside of homeschooling is a rich, expanding experience. Perhaps "expanding" is the key word here. We need to be ready to depart from the narrow confines of duality thinking, the thinking that declares, "you’re either for or against me."

In my involvement in homeschool politics, I have found that the same dynamics that work well in any human interaction also operate in the political arena. I’ve been connected with homeschool politics for some years, mainly through Massachusetts Home Learning Association (mhla.org), the oldest statewide homeschool group in Massachusetts. When thinking about writing this article for Voices, I organized my thoughts on the subject into three reminders that help me when facing a potential conflict.

1. Keep open lines of civil communication and hold open a space for a resolution that satisfies everyone.

I like the word "civil" because it highlights our working together as citizens of the same body politic. Those using civil discourse do not usurp all the righteous position for themselves. Even if we perceive that the "other" as being uncivil, we still gain nothing by escalating out of civility ourselves. Assuming good intentions on the part of the "other" is, I have found, a pre-requisite to achieving anything positive. If we suspect the "other" has bad intentions, our most effective strategy is still to proceed under the assumption of good intentions, until we have incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Our willingness to risk and to hold a place for a solution (even though we can’t imagine what it might be) can create a resolution that would not come into existence otherwise.

I’ve been hearing and reading about such ideas for years, but I continue to find it rather amazing that they work! In a recent book, William Ury (co-author of Getting to Yes), presents his view on how such resolutions can occur:

While most issues in contention are presented as having just two sides—pro and con—there usually exists a third. From this third perspective, the truth of each competing point of view can be appreciated. Shared interests often come to loom larger than the differences. People remember that they all, in the end, belong to the same extended community. (Getting to Peace, p. 16)

The extended community of homeschoolers shares the common goal of wanting to take full responsibility for our children’s education, without regulatory interference. Where we differ is on the most effective strategies to achieve that end purpose. Here’s where the network of homeschoolers, especially working through the internet, is so valuable.

In Massachusetts we have an open, working relationship with MassHOPE, the other state-wide homeschool organization and an HSLDA affiliate organization. We use primarily email to communicate with each other. Next week we have a joint "get-together" meeting with the new Chairman of the Joint Committee on Education. We plan to introduce ourselves and acquaint the Chairman with the homeschool regulatory structure, particularly with its constraints on what schools may require. Our agenda has been worked out via our email communication. To have achieved such coordination--setting a date, changing the date several times, determining what documents we would each bring to the meeting, etc.-- without an electronic network would have been an immensely larger enterprise.

Certainly our two groups have differences of world view and fundamental mission, yet we are both firmly committed to the same idea: we want to take full responsibility for our children's education. We each understand that if a political issue ever raises a matter on which we have fundamental differences of principle that we will each pursue what we think is right. It’s important to remember that keeping open lines of communication is not the same as expecting agreement. We never put ourselves under the artificial constraint of having to be a "united front." Certainly we know it’s is best if we can be united, but it's critical to be in communication about what positions we are taking.

2. Keep gathering information and keep the ability to rechart your course in light of new information.

Once you have moved into the "third perspective," to use Ury’s word, you usually find that new information appears. The issue begins to take on new dimensions and new questions start to form. We have learned in our own homeschooling families how much growth takes place when we move outside of a linear curriculum. Likewise, in the political arena, once we leave the dualistic path, we can explore a whole new territory or network. We need to hold our "conceptual frameworks sufficiently lightly to allow in experiences that don’t fit well. When existing frameworks cannot accommodate anomalous phenomena, holding them lightly allows them to expand or change." (Willis Harmon, Spring 1997, Noetic Sciences Review, p. 16)

If we are not in strife with other homeschooling groups, we are able to share information. Massachusetts homeschool groups have a history of working together. Almost ten years ago, they coordinated in writing a Massachusetts Law and Practice Information sheet for homeschoolers. More recently, we worked cooperatively against a bill that sought to require private school students to take the MCAS tests (statewide standardized tests given in 4th, 8th, and 10th grades). Scott Somerville of HSLDA brought the bill, H1886, to our attention through an an email loop to various state-wide groups that had an interest in opposing the bill. I took advantage of the open nature of the loop to be frank about my concerns, including my sometimes very different perceptions from those of HSLDA. Meanwhile, we at MHLA continued to gather more information and post it on our website as well as on that multi-group email loop. Since HSLDA members comprise the largest coordinated group of homeschoolers in Massachusetts (as in most, if not all, states) we were glad to have a forum that enabled us to be heard by those homeschoolers.

3. Keep your ego out of the discussion and try to live as if everyone can read your mind.

Keeping one's ego out of the discussion is probably the biggest challenge for most of us. Certainly it is for me. "If only everyone would listen to me, I could fix everything!" But when we can adopt a non-defensive position, we are richly rewarded by being able to achieve a fluidity of discourse that can negotiate beyond obstacles that seemed impassable previously. For me, a good maxim to aim for in politics, as in all of life, is "live as if others can read your mind"-- a scary thought, but a good way to discipline myself and, as much as possible, keep open lines of communication.

A related notion is that we really have no control over the actions of others and, therefore, should not build a strategy that requires everyone to be in agreement. A conflict of strategy occurred over the issue of H1886, discussed above. Almost as soon as we found out about the bill, we discovered that the author, Hal Lane, had never even considered homeschools and certainly did not intend the bill to reach them. Given that information, we thought it was premature to ask members to call the State House to speak against the bill. We informed members of the events as they were happening, but did not see a need for them to call the Legislature yet. HSLDA, on the other hand, encouraged its members to call Lane’s office to speak against the bill, and large numbers did. Which is the better strategy? Arguments could be made for each: on the one hand, we don’t want our legislators to develop the idea that homeschoolers are uninformed puppets of their leaders. On the other hand, we do want our legislators to know that homeschoolers are watching them and will act when threatened. Since it’s unrealistic to expect that all homeschool groups will assess the danger of any given threat in the same way, we need to develop working relationships that can accommodate differences—not an easy task. Mostly I am comforted by realizing that, as with other social change movements, such as Civil Rights, there will always be different groups working with different strategies, sometimes even diametrically opposed strategies. Yet slowly, over the course of years, the social change does occur. Right now we are in a period of intense ferment and transition regarding education in general and homeschooling in particular. I look forward with curiosity and interest to participating in that transformation.