The nationwide phenomenon of home instruction is meeting resistance from state compulsory school attendance laws, resulting in many court cases in recent years. Parents who choose to teach their children at home may do so on moral or religious grounds, or because they consider public schools too conservative or traditional. State compulsory attendance laws have been based on the desire to "Americanize" immigrants, the consideration for the welfare of the child and the community, and the safety of the state. Therefore, this duty of education for the public good has been the prosecuting argument in questions of schooling. The right of parental authority has been one defense against such regulation, resulting in a restriction on state public education mandates, thus allowing private schools. Recent home instruction cases, however, have shown that state laws allowing private school attendance are often not specific, sometimes making prosecution difficult since the right to home instruction may or may not be implied. The right to free exercise of religion can be a successful defense, but stringent requirements must be met in order for the parent's religious interest to balance the state's interest in compulsory education. It is suggested that consideration of the rights of children must come first in these cases. (DCS)