Think about this: you are an Idaho homeschooler who is offered “free” money to use in your homeschool for tutoring sessions, curriculum, extracurricular sports, lessons, and more. Where do I sign up, right??
â⌠you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.â John 8:32
Where have we been?
Currently, Idaho is the most free state to homeschool, but it hasn’t always been that way.
Let’s go back to 1984, at which time the Idaho Code stated, “âŚUnless the child is otherwise comparably instructed, as may be determined by the trustees of the schooldistrict in which the child resides, the parent or guardian shall cause the child to attend a public, private or parochial school⌔ (emphasis added)
This meant that the law wasn’t uniform across the state and that the code allowed every school district in Idaho to set its own rules and standards for homeschooling.
One school district, in particular, chose to set a hard line, declaring that the children of several homeschool families were, in fact, truant, and the parents were charged with habitual truancy. The county sheriff and several armed deputies showed up at their homes and physically removed all children, from nursing infants through high schoolers, from the homes. The parents were arrested and sentenced to jail time, and their sentences were longer than another inmate convicted of child molestation!
The state media outlets accused the families of denying their children an education and that it was the government’s and community’s responsibility to ensure this didn’t happen, even if that meant stashing such parents in jail. (Paraphrased from Lewiston Morning Tribune, 12/3/84.) Another article stated that the families were challenging a “basic tenet of our society” and that they had “brought it on themselves.” (Idaho Statesman, 12/4/84)
However, as hard as they tried, the media was unable to discourage homeschooling among Idaho families, and it continued to grow, albeit with difficulties due to the existing code.
Where are we now?
Brave, pioneering homeschool families worked to ensure they could legally and freely educate their children at home. This came about by establishing a state coalition that was very active in local and federal policy to achieve the freedoms we have now and a support group that served parents through conventions, a quarterly magazine, and a wealth of information on myriad topics. These two groups have since combined to create Homeschool Idaho.
Homeschool Idaho (HSI) has worked tirelessly for 30+ years lobbying for home education in our state legislature. During this time, they have worked to promote, protect, and preserve home education in Idaho, including being instrumental in securing changes in the Idaho Code. In 2009, our current code was written into law, which states that Idaho home educators have the right to educate their children, aged 7-16, as they deem appropriate, without governmental regulation or requirements. More information about Idaho Law can be found at HSI Idaho Homeschool Law.
Our current homeschool freedom in Idaho was hard-won by these pioneering families, volunteers, and those passionate about ensuring we could walk out the calling and freedoms God has given us. But that can easily go away.
Where are we headed?
In 2019, approximately 2.5 million people in the US homeschooled. By 2022, that number had more than doubled! (And that only counts those homeschoolers who have to register with their state, of which Idaho homeschoolers do not.) Public schools realize they are losing money due to students leaving and understand they are not going to get homeschoolers back unless they make some token concessions. One of the ways they’re doing this is by partnering with for-profit companies to offer families “free” money to homeschool.
While Idaho has not passed an ESA (Education Savings/Scholarship Accounts) bill successfully through its legislative process, there are other for-profit companies within the state that offer “free” money to homeschoolers.
Sounds great, right?
Actually, no. When a family chooses to join one of these programs, they are NO LONGER a homeschool but a public school at home. The family chooses their own curriculum (with restrictions), sets their schedule and pace, and teaches their children at home, but when they choose to partner with these companies, they give up their homeschool status to become a public school at home.
How does that happen?
In order to access the funds, once the family signs on with the company, the company, in partnership with a local school district, will enroll the student in the public school system. The company will then have access to the state and federal educational dollars, keeping some for themselves, giving some to the public school district, and finally allocating a small portion of the funds to the family.
Why does that matter?
This matters because families have now chosen to give up the freedoms fought for and enjoyed by privately-funded Idaho homeschoolers. The family’s public school at home will now come under company and governmental regulations. These families will need to submit their students’ work bi-weekly, have their students meet with a “mentor” regularly, be told what they can and cannot purchase with the money, and submit to yearly standardized testing.
Additionally, it matters because the school district with which the company partners will be given money for services they are not rendering, for students they are not serving, and will also get “credit” for the test scores for the public school at-home students who are required to test. A family will be educating their children at home, and yet the school district will benefit from standardized test scores from children they didn’t serve, possibly bringing up their overall scores and being allocated more money in the process. Statistically, in Idaho, homeschooled students test 30 percentage points higher on the IOWA Test of Basic Skills than public schooled students.
These may seem like minor concessions, given the amount of money to which the family will be given access. But do you remember the frog in the pot of water where the water is gradually heated up? At first, it’s tolerable, maybe even enjoyable. The temperature is turned up slowly, so change is less noticeable, eventually leading to death. This is what we are already seeing happen within these programs. Regulation of home-educating families who choose to partner with these companies and accept the funds continues to increase yearly.
Because the families who choose these programs are public schools at home, the regulations will look similar to what a student in an in-person public school faces. The programs are accountable for ensuring that the students they are funding meet the public school regulations. Some of these regulations are frequently presented as equity, stopping discrimination, ensuring a rounded education, and more. As publicly funded institutions, both the brick-and-mortar public schools and the public schools at home will be regulated and, to an extent, will be mandated to teach the public school’s agenda.
The truth is that what the government funds, the government regulates. It has to, and we want it to! We want to know how our government is spending the money it collects from its citizens, and we want them to be accountable for their expenditures.
Yes, butâŚ
We hear repeated, defensive arguments from those families who choose to partner with these programs and accept government funding. Most of these arguments stem from a lack of understanding of how these programs truly work. Parents should gather all the information so that they may be equipped to make a fully informed decision that benefits their family and its legacy.
Argument 1: Offering “free” money promotes school choice.
We homeschool parents have a reputation for being skeptical of almost everything, including mainstream narratives about public education. This skepticism is rooted in an abiding desire to protect our children’s minds and hearts. But there has been a shift in the narrative, and typically cautious homeschoolers have found themselves caught up in a movement that has been gaining steam across the nation and right here in Idaho: School Choice.
“School Choice” has been touted as the miracle that will save the American education system. Proponents hawk sales-pitch slogans like “Fund Students, Not Systems” as if they were vendors at a carnival. State legislatures are frequently facing bills that spend more and more money on school choice programs, often pressured and funded by lobbying groups outside of the state.
The truth is that, in Idaho, we ALREADY have school choice. We can choose to educate our children at home or send them to public, private, parochial, or charter schools. This argument sounds good as it is presented. However, the argument is actually not about school choice but about WHO will fund the family’s choice of education for their child(ren). Families are, essentially, asking their neighbors and other taxpayers to pay for their choice.
Argument 2: They’re MY tax dollars, and I should get some back.
Actually, they’re not. The money we pay in taxes has never been designated for our personal use. Once it leaves our paychecks, it stops being our money. Many who make this argument are referring to property taxes, part of which is allocated to our local school districts. Very few Idahoans pay the $8,500 in property taxes that are earmarked per student for public schools. The amount of money from a family’s property taxes allotted to the public school is a mere fraction of what one student might receive when the family partners with the government to receive money for home education. The amount paid in our property taxes does not cover even one student’s allocation when using these “free” money programs. So, where does the rest of the money come from? Our neighbors: the other taxpayers. It is taking from our neighbors to fund our choice. And if there isn’t enough budget to fund these programs? Yup, you guessed it: raise taxes for all!
Argument 3: We are still homeschoolers. We choose our curriculum and teach our kids athome.
This argument is only partially true. As previously stated, a family who joins the program will become a public school at home. When a family partners with the government to accept funds for homeschooling, this results in the loss of parental control through regulations. The government must control everything that it funds, without exception. The for-profit companies will continue to control the funds through the funding mechanisms they have set up to administer them. It will pay only for things that it approves, and those things will have inflated price tags because the business providing the good or service has a captive client who can only purchase the item from the single source that is approved. Families do not have the autonomy to use the dollars however they see fit. For instance, a religious curriculum is not an approved purchase.
Additionally, by needing to check in regularly with a tutor or mentor and having a student’s work reviewed, the parent’s authority as teacher is questioned and minimized.
Argument 4:If the regulations become too much or are invasive, it’s okay⌠we’re members of HSLDA, and they’ll defend us or help us out of the situation.
HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) exists to serve home-educating families. When a family partners with a company offering “free” money programs, they willingly give up their homeschool status to become public school at home. Therefore, HSLDA’s membership legal services will not cover families in public schools at home, charter schools, or families homeschooling using public funds.
Argument 5: Our family taking the money doesn’t affect anyone else.
As this “free” money comes from taxpayer dollars, what happens when the amount of money collected from taxpayers no longer covers the demand for it? Citizens are taxed more, even those who do not have school-aged children. This means that a family’s choice to participate will affect the amount of taxes paid by their friends and neighbors.
Additionally, legislators currently lump homeschoolers in Idaho into one large group without differentiating between privately funded homeschoolers and those who choose to partner with government-funded programs. By partnering with programs that allow for governmental regulation to enter their homes, those who choose these “free” money programs are telling the government that all homeschoolers don’t mind the regulations. As such, when legislation has come up regarding education in the state, homeschoolers have been grouped in with other educational options because the message has been sent that we all want and/or need the government to tell us how to educate our children. In actuality, Idaho homeschoolers have shown year after year that privately funded homeschoolers are excelling, thriving, and becoming well-spoken, intelligent, logical-thinking young adults.
Why do we homeschool?
Take a moment to ponder why your family has chosen to homeschool. Many of us decided to homeschool because we felt God was calling us to diligently teach our children about Him. Some of us feel the public school agenda is objectionable and directly contradicts the Biblical foundation we seek to impart to our children.
Then ask yourself, “Does partnering with these for-profit companies that will instill government regulations into our home support our vision for our children and our homeschool?”
âChildren are a blessing and a gift from the Lord.â Psalm 127:3 (CSV)
âYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Deuteronomy 6:5-7 (ESV)
So, if our children are a gift from God and He has commanded us to teach them about Him, isn’t it possible that He would also have us teach them academics? To rely solely on Him for equipping, encouraging, refining, and providing for our needs?
We must choose. We cannot serve two masters.
âNo one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.âMatthew 6:24 (ESV)
TINSTAAFL
The truth is, There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TINSTAAFL)!
The money these for-profit companies promote as “free” is anything but. The money comes with regulations and impositions on other taxpayers. It requires families to surrender their homeschool freedom, which is given to us by God and was hard won by Idaho families.
So, what can I do?
TRUST God to supply all your needs. (Philippians 4:19)
CHOOSE carefully how to steward the money God provides your family through employment; telling our children’ no’ when we cannot afford all the lessons, all the newest technology, etc., will build their character and their faith.
LEARN more⌠ask questions! Do your research. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Share what you are learning with your homeschool friends!
NEW to Idaho? Welcome! We do things a little differently here: You do not have to fall under a charter school’s authority or any other governmental regulations to educate your children at home in Idaho.
GET INVOLVED: Join Homeschool Idaho and participate in “Pie Day,” our day at the state capitol to strut our stuff to state legislators.
PRAY for home educators in Idaho to stand strong against governmental regulation, to be secure in the knowledge that God will equip the called, and to be convinced that God is able to do far more abundantly than we ask or think. (Ephesians 3:20)
Annie Grey is a Christ follower, wife, and Momma to two CC graduates. When she isn’t serving families in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as an Area Representative, she is enjoying the outdoors in many ways, working on the family homestead, teaching group fitness classes, engaging with her young adults in thought-provoking and interesting conversation, or curled up reading a good book. After launching her arrows, she is grateful in this season that God is still using her to encourage and support families who wish to homeschool.Â
Reprinted with permission. Read original article here.
As Americans look towards the Heavens to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, I wanted to share with you an excerpt from my book, American Phoenix, about a conversation between John Quincy Adams and the Czar of Russia over the report of two comets in the sky.
As I was writing this intro on April 5, the earthquake in New York took place. I was literally searching scripture for these terms: signs, such as signs in the heavens and earthquakes when the news broke about the New York earthquake.
Here are a couple of scriptures that I found.
âThere will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.â Luke 21:11 (NIV)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.â Luke 25:21 (NIV)
Humans have often attributed meaning to eclipses, comets, and other celestial wonders. In addition to the solar eclipse visible in America on April 8, the devil comet will also make an appearance.
Space.com recently reported, âAn unusual âhorned’ comet is now visible in the night sky and may even make a rare appearance during the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. This particular comet, often called the devil comet, visits the inner solar system every 71 years.â
Hence, April 8 may include two heavenly wonders. Similarly, two signs in the sky were the topics of this excerpt from my book American Phoenixbelow.
When John Quincy Adams was America’s top diplomat to Russia in December 1811, he had a discussion with the Czar of Russia about the two signs in the sky, which were thought to be two comets. John Quincy and Emperor Alexander had grown accustomed to taking walks along the canals of St. Petersburg at the same time of day so they could meet and discuss politics and world events away from the pretension and formality of the Winter Palace.
Enjoy this excerpt from my favorite book that I have written, American Phoenix, which is now available on audible.
Comets
Comets have a bad reputation. They are known for letting their hair down and growing a brilliant train as they head for earth.
Over the years humans have had trouble making heads or tails of these celestial lights. Some welcome these eccentric stars as signs of hope. To the masses, however, these masses of gas and dust are omens of impending disaster. Many would prefer that a comet keep its distance and stay as close to the sun as possible. The reason? Fear. People have feared excessive tragedy following in the wake of these long-haired stars.
With so much woe over one comet, what would happen if two comets suddenly appeared in the sky? That was the question on Russian Emperor Alexanderâs mind as he took a walk in St. Petersburg, Russia, on December 9, 1811. When he saw his American friend, John Quincy Adams, the czar knew he would receive a thoughtful reply. Adams was the top diplomat representing America in Russia. By this time he had done something no one thought he could do: win the friendship of Russian Emperor Alexander.
âMonsieur Adams,â the emperor called enthusiastically in a good-humored tone. âI have the honor to pay my respect.â
John responded cordially. As usual the pair discussed the weather, which could not help leading to the mysterious lights in the sky.
âWe have two comets at once,â Alexander observed of the twin prediction.
Adams instantly knew what he meant. The comet of 1811 was becoming more and more unmistakable and brilliant. With its tail âwarming themâ for some months, the latest reports predicted that two comets, not merely one, would streak past St. Petersburg before the yearâs end. John doubted the newspaperâs prediction of double trouble.
âOh, that is certain,â Alexander said playfully.
He offered another cosmic puzzle for Adams to solve. âBut, furthermore, I hear that one of the fixed stars namely, Sirius, has sunk one degree in the firmament,â Alexander continued wryly.
Unlike his American friend, the emperorâs information came not from a newspaper but a person.
In a sarcastic tone, he revealed his source: âBut for this I will give you my authority, âsays the ambassador from France.ââ
âThis was extraordinary news indeed,â John responded with equal sarcasm over French Count Lauristonâs planetary predictions.
âCâest un bouleversement gĂŠnĂŠral du ciel,â Alexander replied in French of the âgeneral upheaval of the sky.â
âBut as it is generally understood that one comet portends great disasters,â John observed, âit is to be hoped that two must signify some great happiness to the world.â
âOr at least that their mischief will operate mutually against each other and by reciprocal counteraction destroy the evil efficacy of both,â Alexander suggested.
âI congratulate His Majesty of his happy solution of the portentous knot.â
âIl y a moyen dâexpliquer toutes ces choses lĂ ,â he said with a laugh, that is, there are ways to explain all these things.
The czar added that the best way to respond to cosmic harbingers of calamity was to let the heavens take their own course without meddling in their management.
Indeed. The czar may have recently brought the Turkish Empire to a truce, freeing thousands of Russian soldiers to fight France, but even with all his power, he could not control a comet nor what happened the following year in 1812. Two wars took place when Napoleon invaded Russia and America went to war with Britain. Both forever changed both John Quincy Adams and Emperor Alexander.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Kutuzov inflicted several defeats on the Turks and on May 28, 1812, concluded a Russo-Turkish peace settlement favorable to Russia (Treaty of Bucharest).
Adapted from Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.
February 12, 2024, was Abraham Lincolnâs 215th birthday. Although Iâve not written a book featuring Lincoln in the leading role, I have touched on his story through the stories of others, including the excerpt below.
In 2020, I released a book on womenâs right to vote for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. In Resilience on Parade, I shared the stories of several suffragists, such as Abigail Adams in 1776 and Susan B. Anthony in the 1800s. Below is a portion of the chapter on Sojourner Truth. Although the book covers her emancipation from slavery, this excerpt starts with her famous suffrage speech and ends with her meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Enjoy!
The fifty-four-year-old black woman, who often wore a turban woven with brightly colored threads, entered the convention in Akron, Ohio, that spring day in May 1851. Isabella Van Wagener no longer existed.
When she left her former masterâs house of bondage, she left everything behind. Years later, she went to the Lord and asked Him to give her a new name after her conversion to Christianity in 1848. The Lord gave her Sojourner, because she was to travel up and down the land to show the people the sin of slavery and to be a sign unto them. Later, she wanted a last name, because everyone had two names, and God gave her Truth because she was to proclaim truth to the people.
As the attendees of the womenâs rights conference in Akron on May 29, 1851, would soon discover, Sojourner Truth may have entered that conference known as an abolitionist, but she left it known by another name, tooâsuffragist.
âMay I say a few words? I want to say a few words about this matter,â she began, saying that she was an example of womenâs rights.
âI have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?â Indeed, as her autobiography declared, sheâd endured the toil of slavery and had the lashes to prove it.
âI have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
âAs for intellect, all I can say is, if women have a pint and man a quart – why canât she have her little pint full?â Her pint had recently been full. This woman who could not read had become a published author the previous year. How was that possible?
Sheâd shared with abolitionist Oliver Gilbert her story of perseverance and how sheâd transformed from a slave into a free person, and he had written it down and published it. Called Narrative of Sojourner Truth by Sojourner Truth, her story shed light on the cruelties of slavery and launched her into the role of an activist. It was time to stand up for African women.
âYou need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we canât take more than our pintâll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and donât know what to do,â she continued.
âWhy children, if you have womanâs rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they wonât be so much trouble,â she said in her own version of remember the ladies.
âI canât read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again,â Sojourner proclaimed, turning her talk into a mini sermon of sorts.
âThe lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus weptâand Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him.â
Then she ended with a zinger, recognizing the dual reform movements facing the nation: abolition and womenâs rights. She represented both.
âMan, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between-a hawk and a buzzard.â
The most memorable speech of that convention, her remarks as presented here were published a few weeks after her speech by Marius Robinson in the AntiâSlavery Bugle of New Lisbon, Ohio, on June 21, 1851. The eventâs organizer, Frances Dana Gage, published another version in 1863 in the New York Independent. Hailed by suffragists, it was branded as Arânât I a Woman? The accuracy of Gageâs version is doubtful because it was published twelve years after she first delivered it. Regardless, the speech brought Sojourner notoriety.
Around this time, Sojourner traveled to Massachusetts, where she met Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book Uncle Tomâs Cabin was the Common Sense of the Civil War. Harriet wrote about their meeting in the Atlanta Monthly.
Sojourner believed that if God could help her do such big things as speaking at the womenâs conference or meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, then he would help her meet the man she most wanted to meet in the world. Heavenâs Great Emancipator would help her meet the emancipator of her people.
In October 1864, Truthâs ultimate sojourn led her to the great white house where he lived. As she stared at the pillars flanking the presidentâs house, her mind may have flashed back to the island of the willow trees, her kneeling pillars of prayer under the stars above. She had never seen such a grand house before, whose columns reached to the sky as if to proclaim something special, such as justice or freedom. Then she walked into the house as freely as anyone else.
A dozen or so guests waited in the presidentâs reception area. Sojourner noticed that two of the women were also black. A gentleman escorted the guests one by one to the president, who was seated in an adjacent room. One observation made her smile.
He showed as much kindness and consideration to the colored persons as to the whites, in her opinion. It was hard to hold back a tear or two. If there was any difference, he showed more pleasantries to the emancipated. Then her moment came. The gentlemen escorted her to the presidentâs desk.
âThis is Sojourner Truth, who has come all the way from Michigan to see you,â the host said, introducing her to the president.
Abraham Lincoln stood, extending his hand to her. She responded by taking his hand and shaking it. Then he bowed.
âI am pleased to see you,â he said.
As many people did before meeting a president, she had rehearsed a thousand times what she planned to say.
âMr. President, when you first took your seat I feared you would be torn to pieces, for I likened you unto Daniel, who was thrown into the lionsâ den. And if the lions did not tear you into pieces, I knew that it would be God that had saved you; and I said if He spared me I would see you before the four years expired, and He has done so, and now I am here to see you for myself.â
Tapping his wit, Lincoln congratulated her on being spared.
âI appreciate you, for you are the best president who has ever taken the seat.â
Lincoln paused, perhaps crossing his long arms as if thinking.
âI expect you have reference to my having emancipated the slaves in my proclamation,â he said, naming many of his predecessors, especially Washington. âThey were all just as good, and would have done just as I have done if the time had come,â he said, pausing again.
âIf the people over the river,â he said, pointing across the Potomac, âhad behaved themselves, I could not have done which gave me the opportunity to do these things.â
âI thank God that you were the instrument selected by Him and the people to do it,â Sojourner replied, acknowledging that she hadnât heard of him before he became president. He upped the compliment, noting that heâd heard of her many times before.
Lincoln then turned toward his desk, sat down, and picked up a large elegant book. He told her it had been given to him by the colored people of Baltimore.
Sojourner was speechless as she stared at the Bible. She glanced at the president. He nodded, as if giving her permission to open it and look through it.
âThis is beautiful indeed; the colored people have given this to the head of the government, and that government once sanctioned laws that would not permit its people to learn enough to enable them to read this book. And for what? Let them answer who can.â
Then Sojourner pulled a small book from her skirt pocket and handed it to the president.
He picked up a pen from his desk and wrote, âFor Aunty Sojourner Truth, Oct. 29, 1864. A. Lincoln.â
Lincoln stood and took her hand with his large bony hand, the same one that had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He told her he would be pleased to have her call upon him again.
Sojourner smiled. As she exited through the door and passed through the pillars of the presidentâs house, she wanted to shout to God and thank him for Abraham Lincoln, but she didnât have to shout to be heard by the Almighty anymore. God knew her heart.
âI felt that I was in the presence of a friend, and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always have advocated his cause, and have done it openly and boldly. I shall feel still more in duty bound to do so in time to come. May God assist me.â
Now more than ever, she would advocate for her people, her now free people. She longed to return home, to make Michigan a place where the emancipated could come and pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Perhaps one day she could vote. As she began her journey home, she believed that the Greatest Emancipator would help her.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of âSeparation of church and state!â, âWe are a secular democracy!â, or âYou are trying to establish a theocracy!â
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
The Myth of Secular Public Policy
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . â
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that âweâ are better than âthey.â So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
Christianity: The Source of American Rights
âThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ (Galatians 3:28). âFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ (Romans 3:23). âSuppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, âHereâs a good seat for you,â but say to the poor man, âYou stand thereâ or âSit on the floor by my feet,â have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?â (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrectâit is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
The State and the Church: Working Together, But Not as One
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesusâ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The churchâs function is for believers, while the stateâs function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The stateâs actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the stateâs power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianityâthrough the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of yearsâhas quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Applying Christian Doctrine: A Case Study and A Warning
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhrâs The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A âdoctrine of sinâ simply means âan explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.â
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sinâthey believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sinâthat ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of âoriginal sin.â That is, sin comes with being humanâwe were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no âsolutionâ to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individualâs sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, âWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionâŚOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chestertonâs Heretics:
âSuppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, âLet us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself goodâ’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.â
It is that time of year again. Grills are lit, parades are attended, and picnics and fireworks have brought families and communities together. July 4th elicits my mixed sentiments. Inevitably, we are drawn into the topic of comparison. Side by side, we attend to the world leading up to 1776 and the world in which we now reside. How are they the same? How are they different?
In years prior, I had feelings of reluctance to celebrate the historic overthrow of tyranny when it seemed our own generationâs tides of tyranny were on the rise. My frustrations were aimed metaphorically far, far away at vague, distant targets of politicians, invasive policies, and oppressive enforcement agencies. Tyranny, freedom, independence; as I turn these ideas over and over in my mind, ideas and words take on different flavors. We all inherited the paradigm we live in, and sometimes, we do not realize the layers and connections to the foundation we stand on and live in. So, join me in this thought exercise.
Directly or Indirectly Opposed to Tyranny?
If the War for Independence truly was what it claimed to be, the war was in opposition to tyranny, but not directly. Tyranny is more directly the inverse of freedom. The word âfreedomâ is a math word. It is most similar to the idea of zero. The only way to define zero is to say what it is not. You can have zero money, zero time, and zero belongings, but without a unit of measurement, zero is an extremely abstract concept. Freedom is this same idea of zero. It is the articulation of zero chains, zero oppression, zero infringements, zero force, and zero fraud. Freedom is a big beautiful nothing!
What is Independence?
So then, what is independence? And how is it related? To understand and appreciate independence, we must also attend to its inverse as well. If independence is what we love, the inverse is the threat to that object of our love. Some have even postulated that we have an obligation to hate the thing that is a threat to what we love. And what is this imminent threat? Dependency.
The founding generation were students of historical patterns. They realized that these lines run parallel. To be free, one could not be dependent. Thus, they reluctantly resolved to pursue, teach, and propagate independence as their door to freedom.
The scary reality is that the path they walked has room for two-way traffic. If independence is the path toward freedom, dependency is the path back toward tyranny and totalitarianism. So, what does state dependency look like? In its simplest form, it is the publicâs tolerance of the use of collective, regulated resources to supply individual needs. Our generationâs oversight is that the threat of dependency is not fresh in our minds. We have grown ignorant, distracted, apathetic, and negligent in keeping our guard up against the threat of dependency. Ideas of entitlement, âschool choice,â âpublic-private partnership,â subsidies, and government grants are all modern manifestations of our collective, tacit-yet-obvious approval of state dependency.
The Cost of Independence
Being opposed to dependency does not carry the same exciting, unifying battle cry that âopposing the tyrantsâ offers. Why is that? It is easy to oppose some ugly dragon in a castle far, far away. It is much more difficult to come to terms with the tiny, toxic terrors living in our own hearts and communities. This breed of dragons pokes its little head out on Election Day when we vote for the most benevolent Caesars promising to open the coffers and fund the voter or the voterâs pet project with the collectiveâs treasury. With each locus in which we tolerate this level of state âpartnership,â we are actually surrendering more and more real estate from the domain of the free to the domain of the captured. Sure, the cost of independence is expensive, but what is the value of freedom? And what should we be willing to pay to expand and preserve it for generations to come?
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
“Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights.”
Benjamin Rush
Don’t Take Liberty for Granted
Civil liberty and air travel have something in common. They are both widely taken for granted.
Have you ever considered what the advent of air travel was like? No longer were people bound by the limitations that accompanied ground and water travel. Moreover, for this to be possible, there required a great deal of compounded disciplines. Consider geology and meteorology, as well as the laws of gravity and motion all have great authority in this sphere. This type of freedom didnât spontaneously develop itself, and it isnât independent from the laws that govern it nor the responsibility to know and apply those laws.
Civil liberty isn’t much different. In some regards, modern Americans were born into this freedom in the same way that they were born into the age of air travel. We can easily take for granted all the education and application that liberated humanity in both manifestations of “freedom,” but just as there will be consequences if our society neglects the laws of nature as it pertains to air travel, there are consequences when free people neglect the laws that govern freedom and civil society.
Not only is this a civil and ethical issue; it is also a moral one. We know the laws written in nature come from the ultimate Law Giver. We know humans are blessed with dignity by merit of their imago Dei. To deny the laws of liberty, which require us to respect individual dignity, is to deny the authority of The Law Giver.
Consider the Creator’s Acknowledgment in our Declaration of Independence
âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.âThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…â
Donât take your freedom for granted. Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat (“Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse”). At the end of the day, we, too, want to be good stewards and benevolent citizens to our neighbors and our posterity. How well do we each understand and take responsibility for spreading this knowledge?
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more”.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship I.Q. on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their seven children on their small acreage, where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
“Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for you, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!” Psalm 67:3-5 (ESV)
“One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts.” Psalm 145:4 (ESV)
Although the foundational message of scripture is redemption through the work of Christ, GlobalRedemption is the historical conduit that ties together the Bible’s narrative from creation to consummation. Moreover, take a thorough reading of the Old Testament and two themes will stand out:
Global redemption has always been a part of God’s restorative plan.
Time and time again, God’s people failed to commend the Lord’s instruction to the next generation.
For Christian parents, these two principles are foundational imperatives for discipling children. We aim to create worshipers who worship by spreading the worship of God to the globe. As John Piper points out, the essential drive of missions is worship.
“Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesnât. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity.
But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. In missions, we simply aim to bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God’s glory. The goal of missions is the gladness of the peoples in the greatness of God.“1
Given this, it is our task as parents to commend this instruction to the next generation. After 42 years of pastoring a delightfully mission-minded church, Iâm aware of how Satan tempts us to stifle missions interest in our children (we have four grown kids). With apologies to C.S. Lewis and huge admiration for his Screwtape Letters, I offer the following to illustrate some of the Adversary’s strategies for hindering our parental great commission.
Dear Nephew,
I hear you have access to some well-intentioned but delusional parents. Not only have they bought into the enemyâs lie, they want to rear their children to join his cause. I believe the term they use is âmissions-minded.’ Might I suggest you plant the following ideas in the heads of these parents? Fortunately for our side, these wonât seem out of step with most of their peers, even the churched ones.
1. Donât let your child catch wind of the fact that religion of all stripes is booming around the globe. Let him assume that the secularization he sees around him in the U.S. is the norm globally. No one is listening or responding to the gospel, so why go? Why waste his life?
2. Donât expose her to a church that thinks missions is normative for all growing disciples. Burn a book like Parkinsonâs analysis of 2 Peter 1:3-8 in The Peter Principlethat makes missions-minded love for all peoples in all the world the very pinnacle of discipleship. Donât let her get close enough to adults who find joy in living sacrificially for the gospel, it will do strange things to her mind and heart. Guide them to a church that has decided to do local missions instead of global missions. Dichotomous thinking: Once adopted, itâs a helpful mindset for our cause.
3. Donât let him realize that the Bible is a book about missions; it is written by people on mission to a people supposed to be on mission. Its central theme is Godâs mission to reclaim His kingdom. Let him settle for the Bible as a book designed to keep him happy and comfort him when things are down. Extol the Hallmark card value of the Bible. Keep the Great Commission as an isolated text to be brought out annually at a missions conference or offering. Train him to feel good about that annual demonstration of “commitment to Godâs agenda.”
4. Donât let her hear about Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, a ludicrous college-level course too many of the enemyâs fans have taken. Its ideas are dangerous to our cause. You want the words Missions and Missionary to stay in the rather mindless realm of “God, bless the missionaries” prayers. Word has it there are even kid versions of this course.
5. Donât let him meet kids his own age who come from a different culture or land. The enemy has planted a chip in him that will, unfortunately, make him aware of how like he is to this ‘other.’ As long as the ‘other’ is ‘other,’ we have a chance to make ‘other’ mean ‘not as valuable as I am.’ This is, perhaps, our greatest advantage.
6. Model insularity. You are the most significant influence in his life. Donât ever let him see you spend yourself for the ‘other.’ Donât let him see you honor someone your church has sent into the world with what they call ‘good news.’ Be nice, but donât get so close to your neighbors that you find yourself caring about them. It’s okay to invite them to a church service but donât go further. Your child may get the impression that ‘good news’ is something every churched person experiences and actually shares.
7. Expose her to the right kind of missionary. One who obviously couldnât get a job in the real world. One who knows his place as a bottom feeder in the minds of your peers at church, who deserves the leftovers but thatâs all. Even if you catch wind of the anthropological, linguistic, and apologetic skills his work requires, donât let your child hear it. Itâs important that your child maintain a low view of the enemyâs workforce. Whatever you do, donât allow the wrong kind of missionary into your home. That kind of honor sends all the wrong messages to your child.
8. Find a circle of friends for him who are mildly religious, but their religion has ‘do not offend’ as its top priority. Fortunately for us, the ‘good news’ is offensive toâleast until the enemy works his magic (which Iâll never understand). Find ‘nice’ kids for him to hang out with. Not too wild but not too religious. You know, ‘balanced.’ If your church hires a youth pastor who wants to turn your son into a voice for the enemy, start a gossip campaign and get him fired. The average stay of a youth pastor is 6 months, so it shouldnât be hard.
9. In general, we recommend avoiding international travel as a family. While we have done all we can to squelch it, religion is booming around the globe. But there have been sightings of enemy fans in unexpected places we thought we had purged: Paris, Dubai, Nairobi, and Cancun. Itâs an uphill struggle, but weâre on it. Meanwhile, stay home where the plausibility structure for the other side is weak. Your child will conclude no one anywhere in the world is interested in spiritual things if all he sees around him is spiritual apathy.
10. Coddle her. Donât expose her to ideas, let alone experiences, that might make her have to trust in something or someone greater than herself. Thank badness for the ‘be safe at all cost’ phenomenon circulating today! You have many partners on your side. The enemyâs call is a risky one. Healthy risk-taking is addictive. She may find such behavior adds energy to life. So, avoid risky situations. Even ropes courses, seemingly innocuous, can start something we find hard to reverse. Remember, her self-image and safety are the most important things in life. Donât let her try that in which she might fail and, as the enemy puts it, learn from her mistakes. What an outdated notion!
Good luck and let me hear from you.
Tom Kenney is Pastor Emeritus of Peninsula Community Chapel, Yorktown, VA. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1975 with a BA in Business Administration. While there, he was nurtured by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and joined their staff upon graduation, serving the Vanderbilt University campus from 1975-1978. Having benefited from the works of men like J.I. Packer and John Stott, Tom earned a Masters of Divinity at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. In 1982, the Tabernacle Church of Norfolk called him to pastor the church planting effort. Tom stepped down as Lead Pastor of Peninsula Community Chapel in May 2020, after 38 years in that position and now serves at the Global Ministry Pastor. Tom enjoys Fridays off with his wife Mabel, reading The Economist and historical fiction, visiting the Chapel’s global partners around the world and working out at the YMCA. Tom and Mabel have four grown children.
What is one thing public education and home education have in common? The obvious answer would beâŚeducation. However, as we see in Vladimir Leninâs ominous promise to, âGive me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world,â perhaps transformation is the true common denominator, as transformation is always the goal of education. Therefore, at the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Education in America is Eroding
Four decades ago, Former President Ronald Reagan illuminated the outcome of trusting the declining public school systems in his 1983 report titled A Nation at Risk:
âOur Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a peopleâŚ
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselvesâŚ.
Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce [i.e., STEM & College and Career Ready]. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our society.â
Are We Embracing Socialism?
Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, states, âWhen one in four Americans want to eliminate capitalism and embrace socialism, we know that we have failed to educate about the historical and moral failings of these ideologies.â This startling statistic is widely evident in the government-controlled school systemsâ promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Social Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and LGBTQ++ coercion, where children are deceitfully maneuvered from parental teaching to State indoctrination.
At the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Undeniably, a parent is charged to âTrain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.â(Proverbs 22:6 NKJV) However, in an act of calculated division, totalitarians such as Hitler, Lenin, and Mao have used this Proverb in their attempts to eradicate the family and shape the minds of the upcoming generation with the intent to, in those infamous words of Lenin, â…transform the whole world.â This exceedingly conspicuous tactic is front and center throughout America today. It has been clearly spelled out in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4of the United Nations Agenda 2030, with which the United States has cooperated:
âOur vision is to transform lives through education, recognizing the important role of education as a main driver of development and in achieving the other proposed SDGs. We commit with a sense of urgency to a single, renewed education agenda that is holistic, ambitious, and aspirational, leaving no one behind. This new vision is fully captured by the proposed SDG 4 ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ and its corresponding targets. It is transformative and universal, attends to the âunfinished businessâ of the EFA [Education For All] agenda and the education-related MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], and addresses global and national education challenges. It is inspired by a humanistic vision of education and development based on human rights and dignity; social justice; inclusion; protection; cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity; and shared responsibility and accountability.â1
Is the intent of this agenda not clearly statedââto transform livesâ through global state control of education and the Marxist indoctrination of children?
The Family is The Solution
This agenda is in stark contrast to American parents’ unique success in cultivating a firm foundation of freedom in our nation, even before the development of our Constitution. Historically, American families have worked, worshiped, and educated while being undergirded with the self-evident truth that sacrifice over self-service and self-governance over government restraint cultivates freedom, yet our modern families continue to succumb to the subtle and consistent conditioning toward the UNâs divisive preference to bring all schools under government control.
Now, more than any time in our Nation’s history, is the time for parents to boldly and courageously assert our inherent responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of our children and vehemently reject the UN reportâs claim that âthe State remains the duty bearer of education as a public good.â2
Now is the time for families to awaken from their self-imposed financial slumber, revive atrophied personal civic responsibilities, recalibrate family priorities, and recapture their God-given right to educate, by exiting the institutions of indoctrinationâthe government-controlled K-12 schooling systems.
Now is the time for families to cultivate and practice ownership and discipline with the honorable motive of self-governance and freedom.
âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
President Ronald Reagan
Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, states, âIf a nation takes on the character of its people, then our classrooms are ultimately about the formation of citizens and souls.ââ Family is the best classroomânot government, entitlements, or vouchers.
Family necessitates devotion to one another, to our work, and to our inheritance.
Family promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, and is the most trustworthy institution in civilization.
Family teaches that work is worship, and you must pay your own wayâfreedomâs prerequisites.
Ronald Reagan once said, âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
Through devotion, sacrifice, and commitment, the family establishes, inculcates, and maintains freedom. Families, therefore, are incomparable educators and the trustworthy remnant to guarantee that enduring transformation occurs in the world.
Check out these other blogs on family and education.
Regina Piazza is a 13-year home educator with Classical ConversationsÂŽ and has held multiple roles including Tutor, Director, and Support Representative. She is a former Air Force veteran and two-time business owner who ran for Florida State Senate for the first time in 2022. She is currently working to preserve education and religious freedom as the Florida State Advocate for Classical Conversations.
Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. (2016). Accessed 5/9/2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
Zancajo, AdriĂĄn & Fontdevila, Clara & Verger, Antoni & Bonal, Xavier. (2021). Regulating Public-Private Partnerships, governing non-state schools: An equity perspective. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16374.93760. Accessed 5/9/2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356915329_Regulating_Public-Private_Partnerships_governing_non-state_schools_An_equity_perspective
At some point, youâve probably heard the question asked (or maybe youâve asked the question): why homeschool when your child can go to a public school funded by the government?
But perhaps we should flip that question around. Homeschooling has grown in popularity with families throughout the United States. Several studies suggest that between 5 and 6 percent of school-age children are homeschooled (thatâs about three million kids), and this number increases year by year. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many parents found themselves homeschooling either outright or de factoâand that only increased the popularity of homeschooling!
So what is it that makes homeschooling increasingly attractive and public schools so unattractive?
Why Homeschool?
There are more reasons to homeschool than ever.
Religious Freedom
Religious freedom is one of the most repeated answers offered by parents when making the decision to homeschool their child. Public schools donât incorporate religious studies into the classroom. Public school curricula may teach a different set of values and beliefs than what parents believe and want to instill in their child.
Homeschooling, on the other hand, affords parents the opportunity to incorporate Bible studies, prayers, and values throughout the lesson plan.
Safety and Security
Concern over a childâs safety is another reason why parents choose to homeschool. Some children are subjected to negative influences such as bullying and the presence of drugs and alcohol in public schools. These negative influences can affect a childâs academic performance in the classroom.
However, in a homeschool environment, parents are able to watch over their child and help them develop without those stressors and dangers.
Personalized Learning
In a homeschool setting, parents are able to offer more personalized learning for their child. Public school teachers have a classroom of students with different abilities and levels of learning. The lesson plans wonât be tailored for each individual student.
Homeschool allows for the parents to assess their childâs strengths and weaknesses and help build lessons around their needs. This type of teaching provides flexibility to give the child what they need to learn and skip ahead if they grasp the subject.
Family
Homeschooling is a family effort. There is collaboration between siblings and parents to come together and share knowledge and experiences. This level of connectedness goes beyond what can be provided in public schools.
The opportunity to reinforce family values and beliefs while developing a stronger sense of self is why many families choose homeschooling over public schooling.
These are a few reasons why homeschool parents often decide to homeschool their children rather than send them to public school. Here are two such reasons:
Lower Academic Outcomes
Studies have revealed that homeschool students typically score higher than public school students on standardized tests. Parentsâ level of education does not change the studentâs success.1
Homeschool students also typically do better in college. Homeschool students have a higher rate of graduating college than students who attended public school. One study revealed that homeschooled students graduated with an average GPA of 3.46 while their public school peers graduated with an average of 3.16. The same study also showed that homeschooled students graduated from college at a higher rate (66.7%) than their peers (57.5%).23
Poorer Social Environments
Contrary to the popular misconception, homeschool students are often better socialized than their public school counterparts. They are more likely to participate in political drives, sports teams, church ministries, and community work.4
Public schools, meanwhile, often present challenges for social development, such as bullying, discouragement, and negative peer influences. For example, according to one study, 5% of students between the ages of twelve and eighteen reported that they had been afraid of attack or harm at school in 2019.5
Thatâs 1 out of 20 students, and the average class size in the USA is 20.3.6
The evidence is abundant and the collective experience of homeschoolers shows that homeschooling works. Public schools, on the other hand, afford poorer outcomes all around.
Why send your child to public school when you can homeschool?
Many people in America own timeshares or at least have been to one of those awful presentations. The concept is simple. Merriam-Webster defines a timeshare as “an agreement or arrangement in which parties share the ownership of or right to use property (as a resort condominium), and that provides for occupation by each party, especially for periods of less than a year.”
The concept at hand regards how investors share ownership and rights to property. For many Americans, this is a tolerable relationship where all parties get pages of fine print and give their informed consent.
Does Joint Ownership Actually Exist?
Here is my question, though: Does joint ownership actually exist? In 1828, in the first edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, ownership was defined as “property; exclusive right of possession; legal or just claim or title.”
The difference here is collective ownership vs. individual ownership. They sound similar, but they are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Once a collective owns something, the individual does not. And once an individual owns something, the collective does not have ownership.
Culturally, we like the concept of collective ownership. Why? Vacations are both valuable and expensive. They are genuinely beneficial to relationships, mental health, and stepping away from life to gain perspective, see new places, and gain education.
So many good things come from vacations. If time and money allow, one could say vacations are essential. For most families, the friction comes not from whether we should take a vacation but from the question: “How are we going to pay for a vacation?”
Enter the timeshare industry, which has capitalized on the strain between the value of vacation vs. the expense. The presentations capitalize on this tension and propose a solution: shared ownership. This proposal stems from the relationship between investing and ownership. (I don’t know of any timeshare holder who actually thinks they have exclusive right of possession.)
A Multiplicity of Ownership Means No Individual Ownership
This leads me to my point: a multiplicity of ownership means no individual ownership. Collective owners or investors are merely stakeholders. They each have a vote and a voice but are still subject to the collective’s will.
The unfortunate consequence with outside investors is thatâby definitionâyou have forfeited exclusive ownership. Individual ownership and collective ownership are mutually exclusive.
The stakeholder relationship works in many common relationships where responsible parties can tolerate giving up individual ownership. Roads, city ordinances, and vacation abodes are some of our collectively shared possessions.
But what about those central responsibilities we possess? When is deferring to the stakeholder option an abdication of responsibility? For instance, scripture indirectly warns about having outside stakeholders in a marriage (Gen. 2:24). No outsider should have a vote in your marriage. The couple answers to God alone; therefore, it is imperative that they do not sell out to other investors who do not share in their unique and personal responsibility.
This same idea can apply to very private matters of the human experience. As James Madison said,
“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.”
To summarize, there should be no stakeholders in someone’s religion or conscience. Madison repeatedly warned against trampling the private property (exclusive, individual ownership) of someone’s conscience.
How Do We Categorize Our Family’s Education?
Here is our closing question. How do we categorize our family’s education? Is it common or sacred? Is it public or private? Referring back to the vacation dilemma, education is also an essential commodity. It is more essential than a vacation, and given our budget limitations, the appeal to invest with multiple investors is strong.
The unfortunate consequence with outside investors is thatâby definitionâyou have forfeited exclusive ownership. Individual ownership and collective ownership are mutually exclusive. Moreover, stewardship of your family’s education belongs to you at the end of the day; it cannot be outsourced. Our ownership in this field is sacred, and we all bear personal responsibility. This is the message we should aim to communicate to future generations.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me, I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (Romans 12:1-2 ESV)
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship I.Q. on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their seven children on their small acreage, where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
