Homeschooling, Freedom of Conscience, and the School as Republican Sanctuary: The Romeike Family Case

References

• Avenarius, H., & Heckel, H. (2000). Schulrechtskunde: Ein Handbuch für Praxis, rechtsprechung und wissenschaft. Neuwied, Kriftel: Luchterhand.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brief for the Respondent in Opposition, Romeike v. Holder at 1-27 134 S.Ct. 1491 (2014) ( No. 13-471)
   Google Scholar
• Cornelissen, G. (2012). Belief-based exemptions: Are religious beliefs special? Ratio Juris, 25(1), 85–109. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00504.x
   Google Scholar
• Decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ Decision”) at 1–22 (Dec. 16, 2009). Retrieved from http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/RomeikeBrief.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ Decision”) at 1–19 (Jan. 26, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/Romeike_Official_Deci-sion_Transcript_1-26-10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, J. G. (1994). Parents’ religion and children’s welfare: Debunking the doctrine of parents’ rights. William and Mary Law Review, 82(6), 1371–1447.
   Google Scholar
• Kekes, J. (1993). The morality of pluralism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knowles, J. G., Marlow, S. E., & Muchmore, J. A. (1992). From pedagogy to ideology: Origins and phases of home education in the United States, 1970-1990. American Journal of Education, 100(2), 195–235. doi:10.2307/1085568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konrad v. Germany, App. No. 35504/03, 8 (European Court of Human Rights Sep. 11, 2006). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-76925&filename=001-76925.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kunzman, R. (2009). Write these laws on your children: Inside the world of conservative Christian homeschooling. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and practice in education. London, UK: SAGE Publications. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
   Google Scholar
• Macklem, T. (2000). Faith as a secular value. McGill Law Journal, 45, 1–63.
   Google Scholar
• Maclure, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Secularism and freedom of conscience. (J. M. Todd, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 216 (1948).
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J. (2012). Homeschooling in America: Capturing and assessing the movement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, P. J. (2016). Homeschooling, freedom of conscience, and the school as republican sanctuary: An analysis of arguments representing polar conceptions of the secular state and religious neutrality. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308407169_Homeschooling_freedom_of_conscience_and_the_school_as_republican_sanctuary_An_analysis_of_arguments_representing_polar_conceptions_of_the_secular_state_and_religious_neutrality
   Google Scholar
• Perry, M. J. (2014). Freedom of conscience as religious and moral freedom. Journal of Law and Religion, 29(1), 124–141. doi:10.1017/jlr.2013.1
   Google Scholar
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510, 535) (1925)
   Google Scholar
• Ray, B. D. (2000). Home schooling: The ameliorator of negative influences on learning? Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1), 71–106. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE751&2_6
   Google Scholar
• Rinio, C. (2001). Die Verletzung der Schulpflicht durch die Erziehungsberechtigten als Straftat und als Ordnungswidrigkeit. Zeitschrift Für Jugendrecht, 88(6), 221–237.
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69–84. doi:10.1177/1477878506
   Google Scholar
• Roper, D. (1977). Parents as the natural enemy of the school system. The Phi Delta Kappan, 59(4), 239–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinagatullin, I. M. (2003). Constructing multicultural education in a diverse society. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spiegler, T. (2009). Why state sanctions fail to deter home education: An analysis of home education in Germany and its implications for home education policies. Theory and Research in Education, 7(3), 297–309. doi:10.1177/1477878509343738
   Google Scholar
• Spiegler, T. (2010). Parents’ motives for home education: The influence of methodological design and social context. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(1), pp. 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Spring, J. (2000). The universal right to education: Justification, definition, and guidelines. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Const. amend. I
   Google Scholar
• Uwe Andreas Josef Romeike, et. al., No. A087 368 600 ( BIA May 4, 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Woodhouse, B. B. (1992). “Who owns the child?”: Meyer and Pierce and the child as property. William and Mary Law Review, 33(4), 995–1122.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, E. M. (2004). Defending the parental right to direct education: Meyer and Pierce as bulwarks against state indoctrination. Regent University Law Review, 17, 311–353.
   Google Scholar