determining who is allowed to homeschool and who is not, results could be used for informational purposes. Recommendations for curriculum, teaching strategies, and pedagogical training would provide support for homeschoolers and thus avoid using the power of the state to enforce an educational orthodoxy which many families undertake homeschooling to avoid. This is the kind of approach reasonable homeschoolers ought to support. Thoughtfully implemented, this approach would benefit children and parents without bias or undue intrusion by the State. Dwyer and Peters might object that this move vitiates the regulatory regimen they propose, robbing the State of any power to intervene in cases of serious educational neglect. But an ameliorative strategy is not nugatory. On the contrary, it is employed in a variety of other contexts, including public schools. If it is the strategy of choice for correcting districting deficits in the State’s own educational institutions, why should it not be deployed for education in families? As the political appeal of what supporters once dubbed ‘The One Best System’ declines, it is increasingly difficult to resolve policy disputes solely through appeal to empirical evidence. Dwyer and Peters’ rights framework and policy recommendations demonstrate the vital importance of philosophical inquiry. The charter school debate would benefit from this approach. If the justification for school choice were grounded in children’s right rather than parental choice and the doctrine of markets, it would be much easier to sort out the legitimacy of charter school advocates’ claims and critics’ objections, and an unbiased regulatory framework would be easy to construct. If Ben-Porath and Johanek had tackled conceptual issues first, the tangled disputes around charter schools could have been unraveled more successfully.

中文翻译：

---

美国公共教育：种族、宗教和幻想

确定哪些人可以在家上学，哪些人不可以，结果可用于信息目的。课程建议、教学策略和教学培训将为在家上学的人提供支持，从而避免利用国家的权力来执行许多家庭进行在家上学以避免的教育正统观念。这是一种合理的家庭教育者应该支持的方法。如果实施周到，这种方法将使儿童和父母受益，而不会受到国家的偏见或不当干预。Dwyer 和 Peters 可能会反对称，这一举措破坏了他们提出的监管制度，剥夺了国家干预严重教育疏忽案件的任何权力。但改善策略并非毫无意义。相反，它被用于各种其他环境中，包括公立学校。如果这是纠正国家自身教育机构的区划不足的首选策略，为什么不应该将其部署到家庭教育中？随着支持者曾经被称为“最佳制度”的政治吸引力下降，仅通过诉诸经验证据来解决政策争端变得越来越困难。德怀尔和彼得斯的权利框架和政策建议证明了哲学探究的重要性。特许学校辩论将受益于这种方法。如果学校选择的理由基于儿童的权利而不是父母的选择和市场学说，那么理清特许学校倡导者的主张和批评者的反对的合法性就会容易得多，一个公正的监管框架很容易构建。如果 Ben-Porath 和 Johanek 先解决了概念问题，那么围绕特许学校的纠缠不清的争端本可以更成功地解决。