What Makes a Social Encounter Meaningful: The Impact of Social Encounters of Homeschooled Children on Emotional and Behavioral Problems

Abstract

In modern society, a large part of the socialization process occurs in schools. Therefore, one of the most significant questions raised with regard to homeschooling concerns the impact of this type of education on the emotional world of the child. However, there is almost no mention in the research of how the nature of the social activity of homeschooled children affects their emotional world. In the present research, we examined the quantity and character of the social interactions of homeschooled children and their influence on the children’s emotional and behavioral problems. The findings suggested a negative correlation between meetings with other homeschooled children and emotional and behavioral problems, and a similar relationship between the child’s number of siblings and such problems. In comparison, we found a relationship between meetings with school-going children and such problems only in the younger age group, and only with regard to problems of internalization.

Keywords

homeschooling unschooling social encounters emotional problems behavioral problems

The process of urbanization in the modern era was accompanied, among other things, by the enactment of mandatory education laws and the construction of educational institutions to serve most of the children in society. In fact, the process of urbanization developed in parallel to the transformation from a situation in which the majority of children did not attend school to one in which most of them attend regularly. However, in the last few decades, these two processes—urbanization and the development of mandatory public education—seem to have parted ways. The legitimization of education systems as the bodies responsible for educating children is waning, and different alternatives are emerging, such as private schools, magnet schools, and others. One of the most interesting alternatives to the education system that has arisen, which is also popular in urban areas (Princiotta & Bielick, 2006), is homeschooling (Guterman & Neuman, 2014; Hiatt, 1994; Neuman & Aviram, 2003, 2008; Neuman & Guterman, 2016; Wilhelm & Firmin, 2009).

As noted, during the 19th and 20th centuries, in the modern world, the school has become an institution that provides education and instruction to almost all children. During that period, almost all children attended school and the school became an important, central aspect of modern culture and folklore. In the second half of the 20th century, at different stages and in different places in the world, an alternative to education in schools—homeschooling—began to emerge. At first there were just a few isolated cases, but in some countries the practice has expanded rapidly and continues to grow.

In the United States, a leading country in the percentage and number of children who are homeschooled, they currently represent approximately 3% of the total student population. In other countries, the increase has been similar (Kunzman & Gaither, 2013). In Israel, homeschooling only began in the late 1990s, and it is now limited to about 400 families; however, this trend is growing rapidly (Neuman & Guterman, 2014, 2016).

The school is not only an institution of learning but also a central pillar in the socialization of children. Therefore, concerns have been raised about the influence of homeschooling on the children educated in this framework. Medlin (2000) summarized the criticism of homeschooling and the responses to them: The opponents of homeschooling claimed that the school offered social experiences that do not exist in the home. They argued that children who are homeschooled hear only their parents and have almost no opportunity to construct their own independent opinions. The most scathing criticism of homeschooling has been that parents choose homeschooling mainly to isolate their children and prevent anyone else from influencing them.

Parents who engage in homeschooling, not surprisingly, reject these claims and describe the school as a rigid framework that teaches children conformist behavior. In their view, peer groups in the schools are too frequently hostile or manipulative. In fact, they argue that school education is liable to make their children dependent, insecure, and even antisocial.

Ray’s (1994) comparison of the level of voting, voluntarism, and other aspects of social activity among graduates of homeschooling and the national average, demonstrated a higher level of social involvement among the graduates of homeschooling. Smith and Sikkink (1999) conducted a similar study, controlling for socioeconomic variables. Their results also indicated a higher level of social involvement in homeschooling and private schools compared with public schools.

Other studies that compared groups of children have yielded different findings. Seo (2009), for example, showed that children who were homeschooled were well socialized, but they expressed more loneliness and showed less interest in their peer group. Lee (1995) studied children currently in homeschooling and not adults who were homeschooled in the past. His comparison of the social skills of homeschooled children with those of children in schools revealed no difference between the two groups.

Thus, researchers have addressed the question of how well children who were or are being educated in the homeschool framework integrate into different social frameworks. However, the existing literature does not clarify whether it is sufficient to provide children with the home environment, or if exposure to a social group of other children plays a significant role for them. In other words, we still do not know how important the quantity and quality of social exposure of children is to their emotional world. Consequently, it is both difficult to establish a theoretical understanding of the importance of social activity in children who are homeschooled, and to provide parents with practical guidance in helping their homeschooled children with respect to such activities.

In addition to these questions, the research literature does not provide a clear description of the impact of different frameworks on children who are homeschooled. One such question refers to the importance of interaction with other children who are homeschooled. In other words, is it important from the social perspective of homeschooled children to meet other children who learn in similar frameworks, or is their learning environment insignificant? Encounters with children in similar frameworks might be particularly important for homeschooled children, because they may find it easier to talk to and identify with them. In contrast, one might also argue the opposite: Perhaps it is especially important to meet children who are not homeschooled, based on the notion that socializing with other children educated in similar settings could prevent the child’s exposure to more widely accepted socialization processes, social ideas, and attitudes.

In the present research, we examined these issues with a sample of children who are educated at home. For each child in the sample, we examined the amount of exposure to other children, differentiating between encounters with homeschooled children and encounters with children who are not homeschooled. In addition, for each child we examined symptoms of emotional and behavioral difficulties. The research also took into account the child’s age and gender and the number of children in the family, which might affect the effect of social interaction on the emotional world of the child.

Method

Research Participants

Sixty-five children who studied in homeschooling frameworks participated in the research. Of these, 31 were girls and 34 were boys. The children were aged 6 to 12, with a mean of 2 years 11 months, and a standard deviation of 2.12.

Research Procedure

To recruit participants for the research, we attended weekly meetings of homeschooling families in different regions in Israel. We presented the research to the participants, explaining its anticipated contribution to the existing body of research, the relevant target population (aged 6-12), and the research methodology. Only three of the 68 relevant families chose not to participate.

Research assistants practiced the administration of questionnaires to children and parents; the families that participated in this exercise were not included in the research. The research assistants then contacted the families and made appointments for meetings. After signing informed consent forms, the parents completed the parent questionnaires. At the same time, the research assistants administered the questionnaires to the children. Upon completion of the questionnaires by each family, they held a talk with the parents and the child, in which they emphasized again the importance of the research and provided time to ask questions and comment.

Instruments

Questionnaire on emotional and behavioral problems

The Hebrew version (Zilber, Auerbach, & Lerner, 1994) of the standardized questionnaire (Achenbach, 1991) contains 112 statements about behavior, ranked by the parents regarding their child on a 3-point scale, ranging from “not true” (0) to “very true” (2). The total on the questionnaire was standardized according to gender and age of the child, to produce a score for several categories of emotional and behavioral difficulties. In this research, we used the standard division into two axes of problems, one for externalizing behavior and the other for internalizing behavior, where each was produced according to the standardization of the questionnaire in Hebrew (expressed in T-scores). Problems of externalization refer to difficulties associated with aggressive behavior, criminal behavior, violation of the rules, and harming others. Problems of internalization refer to symptoms of anxiety and depression, withdrawal, social detachment, and somatic complaints. In the present research, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability score for externalization was .93, and that for internalization was .91.

Demographic questionnaire

The parents completed a demographic questionnaire that included personal characteristics of the child, such as gender and age, and number of children in the family. In addition, this section of the questionnaire included quantitative details on the number of times a week the child met other children who were homeschooled and the number of times a week he or she met with children who attended school.

Results

To examine the possible differences between the quantity of encounters of homeschooled children with other children who were homeschooled (M = 2.22, SD = 1.05) and with other children who attended school (M = 2.00, SD = 0.87), we conducted t tests for dependent samples. The analysis indicated no significant difference between the quantity of meetings of the two types, t(64) = 1.11, p < .05.

To examine the possible differences between boys and girls in terms of problems of externalization and internalization, we performed a one-way MANOVA. The results indicated a significant difference between boys and girls, F(2, 62) = 7.69, p < .01, η² = 0.20. The means and standard deviations of internalization and externalization, as well as the results of the univariate ANOVAs performed for each measure separately, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Internalization and Externalization Problems, by Gender.

	Boys (n = 34)		Girls (n = 31)		F(1, 88)	η²
	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 88)	η²
Internalization problems	49.74	10.40	43.78	7.88	6.29*	0.09
Externalization problems	45.95	9.96	45.07	9.38	0.14	0.00

p < .05.

The results indicated significant differences between boys and girls in terms of internalization problems, with girls demonstrating more problems of internalization.

To examine the relationship between the demographic and social variables and problems of internalization and externalization, we calculated Pearson correlations. The results revealed significant correlations between the quantity of meetings with children who were homeschooled and internalization problems, r = −.29, p < .05, where children who met more with other homeschooled children were characterized by less problems of internalization. A correlation was also found between the number of meetings with other children in homeschooling and externalization, r = −.25, p < .05, where children who met more with other homeschooled children were characterized by less problems of externalization. In contrast, no significant correlation was found between meetings with school-going children and internalization or externalization. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between number of siblings and externalization, r = −.22, p < .05, where children with more siblings were characterized by less externalization.

To examine the contribution of social encounters to problems of internalization and externalization among homeschooled children, we performed two hierarchical regression analyses. The first regression dealt with internalization, and the second regression dealt with externalization problems. Each regression included three steps: In the first step, we entered the children’s demographic traits: age, number of children in the family, and gender. In the second step, we added the two variables of social meetings: number of meetings with other homeschooled children and number of meetings with school-going children. In the third step, we examined the contribution of the interaction of Personal Variables × Types of Meetings, to ascertain whether the contribution of encounters to the explained variance in externalization and internalization problems was dependent upon personal variables. In the first two steps, the entry of the variables was forced; in the third step, in which we examined the contribution of the interactions to explaining the variance, we entered only those interactions that contributed significantly (p < .05) to the explanation of variance.

The results of the regression regarding problems of internalization showed an explanation of 36% of the variance in internalization; with regard to the regression on externalization, 16% of the variance was explained. The β coefficients of the explanation of variance in problems of internalization are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Explanation of Variance of Internalization Problems.

	B	β	R² change	R ²
Step 1
Number of children in the family	−1.76	−.23*	.17*	.17*
Gender	−7.18	−.27**
Age of child	0.05	.11
Step 2
Number of children in the family	−1.84	−.24*	.12*	.29**
Gender	−8.35	−.43**
Age of child	0.01	.04
Number of meetings with homeschooled children	−3.86	−.36**
Number of meetings with school-going children	0.02	.22
Step 3
Number of children in the family	−1.61	−.21	.07*	.36***
Gender	−7.94	−.41**
Age of child	0.05	.12**
Number of meetings with homeschooled children	−3.40	−.32**
Number of meetings with school-going children	1.25	.11
Age × Meeting With School-Going Children	−2.89	−.30*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2 shows that in the first step, in which we entered the demographic variables of the children (age, number of children in the family, and gender), the results indicated a significant contribution of 17% to the explanation of variance. Gender and number of children contributed significantly to explanation of the variance in problems of internalization. The finding for gender was consistent with the MANOVA presented later in this article. There were more problems of internalization among girls than boys. In addition, a significant negative correlation was found between the number of children in the family and problems of internalization. Entry of the two variables of encounters—quantity of meetings with homeschooled children and quantity of meetings with school-going children—added a further significant contribution of 12%. In this step, a significant negative correlation was found between quantity of meetings with homeschooled children and internalization problems. In other words, a greater quantity of encounters with homeschooled children was associated with a lower level of internalization.

In the third step, when we entered the interactions between social encounters and the child’s personal variables, we found a significant interaction of the Age of the Child × Encounters With Children who are not homeschooled. This interaction added an additional 7% to the explanation of variance.

To further clarify the interactions, we used the method presented by Aiken and West (1991). Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the number of meetings and internationalization problems among children of young and older ages.

Figure 1.

Interaction between number of meetings with school-going children and internalization problems among young and older children.

As illustrated in the figure, among the older children, we found a negative but not significant relationship between meetings with school-going children and internalization problems, β = −.17, p > .05. In contrast, among the younger children, we found a significant positive relationship between meetings with school-going children and internalization problems, β = .31, p < .05. These data indicate a positive correlation between meetings with school-going children and internalization problems among the younger homeschooled children.

As noted, the results of the regression regarding externalization showed that the level of explained variance of externalization was only 16%. Significant interaction was not found in this regression; therefore, only the first two steps of the regression are shown in the table. The β coefficients for the explanation of variance in problems of externalization are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Explanation of Variance of Externalization Problems.

Variable	B	β	R² change	R ²
Step 1
Number of children in the family	−1.81	−.25*	.07	.07
Gender	−2.03	−.11
Age of child	−0.22	−.06
Step 2
Number of children in the family	−1.87	−.26*	.09	.16*
Gender	−2.88	−.15
Age of child	−0.05	−.12
Number of meetings with homeschooled children	−2.94	−.28*
Number of meetings with school-going children	0.082	.08

p < .05.

In the first step, when we entered the demographic variables of the children, the results revealed a significant contribution of 7% to the explanation of variance. The analysis indicated a significant negative correlation between number of children in the family and problems of externalization. In other words, having more encounters with homeschooled children was associated with a lower level of externalization problems. In the second step, when we entered the two variables of social meetings (with homeschooled children and with school-going children), a signification contribution of an additional 9% was found. This analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between quantity of encounters with homeschooled children and problems of externalization. In other words, more encounters with homeschooled children were associated with a lower level of externalization.

Discussion

The social situation of children in homeschooling differs greatly from that of children who attend school. Unlike the daily interaction of school-going children with other children who also attend school, homeschooled children do not go to school, and are therefore likely to socialize with other children less frequently. In addition, not all the encounters of homeschooled children are with children who study in similar frameworks to their own. In fact, in the present research, the homeschooled children met more often with school-going children. In addition, most of them met with both homeschooled and school-going children more than once a week. We examined the relationship between the quantity and types of social meetings of the homeschooled children (with other homeschooled children with school-goers) and the level to which they displayed emotional and behavioral problems.

The findings indicated that meetings of homeschooled children with other homeschoolers correlated negatively with internalization and externalization, so that homeschooled children who met more often with other homeschooled children had a lower level of internalization and externalization problems. In contrast, the results did not indicate such a correlation between the quantity of social meetings with school-going children and externalization. With regard to internalization, a correlation with the number of social meetings with school-going children was found, but only among the children in Grades 1 and 2. In this age group, the greater the number of meetings with school-going children, the higher the level of internalization problems.

The findings of the present research indicate the importance of social encounters in reducing internalization and externalization problems of children who are homeschooled. They also suggest that the importance of the encounters with other homeschooled children differs from the importance of meeting school-going children. There are several possible explanations for these findings.

Social Distance

It can be assumed that a lack of interaction causes a social deficit, leading in turn to loneliness, social distance, and emotional distress. Numerous studies have indicated the significant relationship between social isolation, and emotional and behavioral distress (e.g., Distel et al., 2010; Fontaine et al., 2009; Holder & Coleman, 2009). Perhaps being in an environment with less social diversity, which may also create a different set of experiences from that of other children in the same area, in some cases creates a type of social isolation.

When a homeschooled child meets another child, this is likely to reduce the social loneliness and distance that the child feels and therefore reduce emotional distress. This will be expressed in less problems of internalization and externalization. This explanation also helps us understand the gap between the importance of meetings with other children who are homeschooled and that of meetings with school-goers, assuming a cultural and experiential difference between children who learn in the different frameworks. A homeschooled child who meets another child who is homeschooled is actually meeting someone with similar culture and experiences, and this might help reduce the sense of distance and, accordingly, the emotional distress. In the case of homeschooling in Israel, this is particularly true; there is almost no homeschooling based on religious orientation, and therefore the cultural uniformity among families that homeschool is all the greater.

In contrast, a child who attends school spends many hours of the day within the educational framework, a central part of his or her social interaction takes place in this framework. Like any framework, schools are characterized by an atmosphere, experiences, concepts, aspirations, social codes, and more. In this situation, the social encounter with a child who does not share the same world of concepts, emotions, and thoughts is likely to create distance among the children. Thus, the encounter with a child who attends school could actually create distance and not reduce the social distance the homeschooled child feels, and therefore does not help the child deal with emotional distress.

As noted, meetings of homeschooled children with school-goers of younger ages (Grades 1 and 2) have a negative effect on the level of internalization problems. The explanation presented here may also fit these findings, as the socialization process that takes place in school actually begins at this age and it is likely that first and second graders are highly engaged in them, hence the cultural distance between them and homeschooled children and the negative effect of their encounters on internalization problems.

It is possible to assume that older children (Grades 3-6) are already used to the socialization processes, hence the absence effect of their encounters on internalization problems.

In addition, the cultural distance may be greater in Grades 1 and 2 because this is the first time that homeschooled children diverge from school-goers, as this is the time they actually do not attend school.

The Child’s Peer Group

Another possibility is that there is no deficit or loneliness among children who are homeschooled, but the encounter with other children enables the child to express their emotions, thoughts, and desires different from what is done with their parents. From this perspective, the ability to express things differently from that done within the family supports the emotional life of the homeschooled child. Perhaps the environment of children also complements aspects that are not expressed within the family.

This explanation also helps explain why the relationship with children who attend school does not fulfill this function, as encounters with similar children who are coping with the same difficulties, deliberations, and feelings help both to create a sense of closeness and identification and to cope emotionally based on a sense that one’s situation is not extreme and strange but similar to what other children deal with.

The research findings also indicate that the number of children in the family is related negatively to problems of externalization and internalization, that is, children in homeschooling who have more siblings had a lower level of internalization and externalization problems. There are several ways to interpret these findings.

First, it can be assumed that having siblings, who are also homeschooled, has a similar effect to that of encounters with other homeschooled children. In other words, it is likely that brothers and sisters are also people with whom the homeschooled children can share their emotions, thoughts, and desires. In fact, siblings are likely to be a better object for identification and comparison, as they share even greater similarity compared with other homeschooled children. In some situations, a child raised under similar conditions may serve as the best possible partner for discussing one’s feelings and coping, as he or she understands the child’s experiences more than any person outside of the family could. The more siblings there are, the greater the probability of having meaningful conversations with one of them.

It is of course possible that the relationship between number of siblings and internalization and externalization problems is not similar to the influence of meetings with other homeschooled children but arises from other factors, such as home atmosphere. For instance, having a larger number of children requires the family to concentrate less on individual problems and operate as a family system instead. It is possible that this will increase the sense of partnership and identification, thereby supporting the emotional world of the child.

It is interesting to note that the regression analysis of the contribution of all the variables mentioned above to the explained variance of internalization and externalization was 36% for problems of internalization and 16% for problems of externalization. This finding is consistent with results of previous research that indicated a significant correlation between social isolation and problems such as depression and anxiety (e.g., Distel et al., 2010).

The findings of the present research give rise to significant questions that could be examined in further research. For example, in the present research we examined the quantity of social encounters of homeschooled children. We did not examine other interesting aspects in this context, such as the age of the children with whom they met. If the ability to identify with other children is an essential factor, it may be important to provide opportunities for social encounters with children of a similar age range.

It would also be interesting to examine the duration of the interactions. Are short encounters sufficient, or is it necessary to have longer interactions to gain emotional benefit from the meetings? In the present research, we focused on the weekly number of interactions but not their duration. No less interesting is the examination of the character of the interactions and whether this affects the impact of the interactions on the children. Further research of this type is essential to a better understanding of the influence of the social interactions of homeschooled children and their need for company in general. Such knowledge would create a foundation for understanding the emotional world of the child, as well as significantly increasing our ability to guide parents, teachers, and inspectors regarding social activity that benefits children.

The importance of the present research notwithstanding, the difficulty in determining the direction of the relationships between variables represents a significant limitation. The research did not include manipulation; therefore, it is impossible to clearly determine causality. Thus, we cannot establish that social interaction influenced the level of internalization or externalization. For example, a reverse causality is also possible: Perhaps children with less problems of internalization and externalization feel more comfortable when other families and children want to get together. Furthermore, when there are less internalization and externalization problems, there may be less communication difficulties, so that the children feel more comfortable in interactions with other children. Thus, children with a low level of internalization and externalization may be more interested in social interaction. It is also possible that a third factor, such as the parents’ personality, influences both the level of the child’s internalization and externalization problems and the quantity of interactions he or she has.

To establish the causality of the relationships indicated in the present research, it is necessary to conduct interventional research, comparing groups of children, where the researchers, together with the parents, would arrange one group that would engage in a greater number of encounters during a certain period.

Another limitation of the research was the relatively small sample, located in just one country. It is very important that further research compare the present results with those obtained in different samples from different populations. Such confirmation of the present results would be significant, in light of the importance of the findings to the theoretical understanding of the field, as well as the practical advice that professionals offer parents.

Despite these limitations, the present study constitutes a first investigation of this type of the social world of homeschooled children. Research on this subject is significant both to the understanding of the growing trend of homeschooling and to better understand the social and emotional needs of children in general. The research indicates that the quantity of social interactions of the child and the type of children with whom these interactions take place are positively associated with the level of the child’s problems of internalization and externalization. This interesting finding highlights the need for further research to examine this important influence in greater depth.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The authors Oz Guterman and Ari Neuman contributed equally to this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Oz Guterman is a lecturer in the Department of Human Resource at Western Galilee College in Israel. His interests include several fields: nonverbal perception of emotion, factors of academic excellence among students, and home schooling.

Ari Neuman is a senior lecturer in the Department of Education at the Western Galilee College in Israel where he chairs the Education Systems Management Division. He is interested in home schooling, project evaluation and academic excellence among students.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

(1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Distel

M. A.

Rebollo-Mesa

Abdellaoui

Derom

C. A.

Willemsen

Cacioppo

J. T.

Boomsma

D. I.

(2010). Familial resemblance for loneliness. Behavior Genetics, 40, 480-494.

Fontaine

R. G.

Yang

Burks

V. S.

Dodge

K. A.

Price

J. M.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(2009). Loneliness as a partial mediator of the relation between low social preference in childhood and anxious/depressed symptoms in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 479-471.

Guterman

Neuman

(2014). Old/new way to learn – home-schooling (or the past and future of education). Paper presented at 12th International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, Madrid, Spain.

Hiatt

D. B.

(1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642-1994. School Community Journal, 4(2), 27-38.

Holder

M. D.

Coleman

(2009). The contribution of social relationships to children’s happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 329-349.

Kunzman

Gaither

(2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 2, 4-59.

Lee

W. J.

(1995). The socialization of home-schooled and public-schooled children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

10.

Medlin

R. G.

(2000). Home schooling and the question of socialization. Peabody Journal of Education, 75, 107-123.

11.

Neuman

Aviram

(2003). Home schooling as afundamental change in lifestyle. Evaluation and Research in Education, 17, 132-143.

12.

Neuman

Aviram

(2008). Home schooling: A rational choice in a postmodern world or there’s a little child saying the emperor hasn’t got anything on. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3, 185-194.

13.

Neuman

Guterman

(2016). Structured and unstructured elective home education: A proposal for broadening the taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2016.1174190.

14.

Princiotta

Bielick

(2006). Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 (Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2006-042). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

15.

Ray

B. D.

(1994). A nationwide study of home education in Canada: Family characteristics, student achievement, and other topics. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.

16.

Seo

(2009). The profitable adventure of threatened middle-class families: An ethnographic study on homeschooling in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 409-422.

17.

Smith

Sikkink

(1999). Is private school privatizing? First Things, 92, 16-20.

18.

Wilhelm

G. M.

Firmin

M. W.

(2009). Historical and contemporary developments in home school education. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 18, 303-315.

19.

Zilber

Auerbach

Lerner

(1994). Israeli norms for the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist: Comparison of clinically-referred and non-referred children. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 31, 5-12.