For some time now, school choice has been a hot topicâand honestly, in my opinion, for good reason. Iâm a product of government-funded schooling, and Iâve been a harsh critic of the institution since before I even started having kids.
I Am Not Binding Consciences or Condemning
Now let me clarify as Iâve done before:
I am in no way trying to condemn or bind anyone’s conscience here.
I am in no way saying you are in sin for choosing public schooling, and I am not condemning your reasons for doing so.
I think there are many well-intentioned families out there who attend public schools (I know and have been impacted by many), and itâs ok to disagree.
But There are Many Issues to Consider
However, there are many issues (historical, systemic, and immanent) with public-funded schools, and many states are looking for more ways to offer people a way out. Ergo, many families are eager to receive government funding to move into other educational options.
Hopefully, at least at this point, you see the irony of leavinggovernment-funded schools for the opportunity to attend government-funded schools . . .
In short, âschool choiceâ (i.e., using taxpayer state funds to pay for private education [especially homeschooling]) is worth rethinking. To aid you in this process, here are 7 resources on the topic you should consider:
Edward Murray currently serves as Manager of Special Projects & Policy Research for Classical Conversations and The Homeschool Freedom Action Center. He is a native of Augusta, GA, and an alumnus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, where he earned his MDiv. He currently lives in Newport News, VA, with his wife and three children.
Even back in 2016, Why Liberty Mattersâ Dr. Marlene McMillian was warning us about how school vouchers and educational grants can be clever and deceitful.
She writes: âHe who pays controls. This is an immutable law of the universe. You cannot take government money without government control. Whether the civil government puts the money in your front pocket, your back pocket, direct deposit or you have to take the check to the bank, it is still government money. As soon as your âprivateâ school accepts government money, it becomes a government school. Oh yes, the âPrivate Schoolâ sign may still be out front, but it is âPrivate in name only.ââ
She asserts the future cost â. . . is incalculableâ and ponders, âWhat will it cost future generations to get out from under government dependency? The real question should be: Will they ever have the will, the courage, or be able to undo generations of conditioning to government dependency?â
Dr. McMillian challenges us to â[think] about the statement âEducation dollars should follow the child to the school of parentâs choice . . . â and understand that this means âCivil government regulation should follow the child to the school of parentâs choice.â Parents and children will never have freedom, let alone liberty, as long as they are government dependents.â
Further sounding the alarm, she writes, âIf your goal is not liberty, you get tyranny by default.â
As I travel from state to state I find there are two tables of homeschool resources. Those that are total free-market options, and those that are fully or partially taxpayer funded. These resources could be tutoring services, classes, extracurricular activities, sports, fine-arts, and so much more. What I have found remarkably interesting is just like a gluten-free table, free-market options are either spars or plentiful; bland or diverse.
An Illustration From My Gluten-Free Friends
Nearly, every potluck I attend has an accommodating table, based on the reality that a large segment of our population has chosen to abstain from gluten. We know there are a spectrum of reasons. Nearly every gluten-free consumer has some moderate to severe negative consequence they are trying to avoid, and yet others take a proactive approach.
I also bet there are some on the train because⌠well, they get on all trains.
Motivations aside, in my lifetime the potluck scene has completely changed to accommodate this demographic.
Ok, nothing against my anti-glutenomist friends⌠If I still have you, follow me with the illustration.
The gluten-free consumer made a decision (forced or voluntary) that altered a major portion of their life. They have their position prior to any potluck. Once there, they are either delighted or depressed with the variety of gluten-free options. The most strict in this demographic choose only from this table. Rarely in their disappointment do they ever compromise and decide to browse the non-gluten free selection. (If you know someone like this who has had accidental gluten contamination, you know why).
To be specific, if there is no cake on the gf table, the consumer does not reluctantly go to the other table to get their cake, they simply go without cake. If this happens enough times, one of two things will probably happen. The friends and family of this individual will have compassion and bake a diet-friendly cake, or the consumer will get frustrated enough to bake their own cake.
How in the world does this intersect with home-schooling?
As we evaluate options on the two tables, we must first step back and evaluate our commitment to the homeschool resource âdiet.â What are the pros and cons of only consuming free-market options? Are there any consequences to sampling options from the subsidized table if you donât find what you like in the free-market? Some states provide an âall or nothingâ choice. In these states, for those that have chosen to homeschool, no state funded options are available.
Do you know what they DO have? They are serving a feast of quality, diverse, competitive, free-market services. How do they have such options? There you will find a rich legacy of groups and individuals who found a way to make a gf cake â by that I mean a robust free-market buffet because the consumers in the state required that accommodation. In other circumstances we find that families solved their own dilemmas with conviction and creativity.
In Many States the Free-Market Table is Lacking
If you are in a state like mine, the free-market table is lacking. One reason this is true is due to the fact that the other table is easily accessible. Families discouraged by the free-market are welcome to browse the state-funded options. At first glance, this seems warm and hospitable. Consumers say things like, âI do not have a choice, the option I wanted (or a quality version of this option) was not available on the free-market.
When this is our outlook, do you know what happens to our table? Nothing. It stays sparse and bland.
What will drive change? The options are the following:
(1) Families will set their âdietâ and commit to it before they ever attend the potluck,
(2) Families will ONLY chose the bland options,
Or
(3) Families willcreate better options for the next generation.
We all have a choice, and as we all know; all choices yield outcomes.
Lauren Gideon is the Manager of Grassroots Advocacy for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ 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.
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 generation’s tides of control 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, 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, 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. Â
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.
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 Manager of Grassroots Advocacy for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ 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.
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 âan 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.â
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 Websterâs American Dictionary of the English Language, ownership was defined as âproperty; exclusive right of possession; legal or just claim or title.â
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, then the collective does not have ownership.
Culturally, we like the concept of collective ownership. Why? Vacations are both valuable and expensive. They are genuinely valuable to relationships, to mental health, toward stepping away from life to gain perspective, to see new places, and to 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 does not come from whether we should take a vacation but from the question: âHow are we going to pay for a vacation?â
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 donât know of any timeshare holder that 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 they are still subject to the collectiveâs will.
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 that 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 manâs 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 manâs house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a manâs 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 someoneâs religion or conscience. Madison repeatedly warned against trampling the private property (exclusive, individual ownership) of someoneâs conscience.
How Do We Categorize Our Familyâs Education?
Here is our closing question. How do we categorize our familyâs education? Is it common or sacred? Is it public or private? Referring back to the vacation dilemmaâeducation 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 familyâs 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.
           Romans 12:2â3: 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.
Lauren Gideon is the Manager of Grassroots Advocacy for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ 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.
School choice has been a debated topic for many years, and while you may be thinking itâs a good thing, there are compelling reasons to reconsider. Although it is sometimes difficult to determine causation from correlation, there is the potential-future issue of inflating tuition rates due to state funding. Consider St. Paul Catholic school in St. Petersburg, Florida, which recently explicitly stated that they would raise the price of admission with the new voucher program.
On the face of it, one would think that state funding to aid familiesâ migration to the free market would be a positive. Of course, from that statement alone, itâs obvious that anything state-funded canât be free market; these are diametrically opposed ideas. But just for argumentâs sake, letâs consider with the prevailing idea that more money given yields more opportunity for choice.
Wouldnât this bring costs down? Likewise, shouldnât all U.S. families be on board with vouchers, ESAs, tax-credits and the like?
For some time now, many in the home and private school world have been sounding the alarm on these so-called school-choice policies. The primary issue raised concerns parental autonomy vs. state accountability (tantamount to coerced regulation). Letâs face it, when any policy is put on the books for spending, rarely does the growth of regulation shrink or go away. It typically grows. Regulation always follows funding.
And we want it that way, right? If the government is going to spend our tax dollars, donât we want them to track the money and assure us it is spent responsibly? Again, this regulation over parental choice is the very reason why private options exist.
State-Funded âChoiceâ Will Inevitably Inflate the Cost of Private Education
However, there is another principle that private educators warn of: State-funded “choice” will inevitably inflate the cost of private education.
Consider the fact that all organizations need money to sustain their work, whether for the short or the long-term. As long as decisions donât sink the buy–ability of a product, given the opportunity, companies will consider how better to fund their work.
This is exactly what is happening with St. Paul Catholic in Florida. After Gov. DeSantis (R) signed into law the stateâs newest voucher program, representatives of the school stated, ââŚwe decided that we need to take maximum advantage of this dramatically expanded funding source.â
âSo instead of paying $6,000 per child, families at the school who are St. Paul parish members will now be charged $10,000 per child. Nonmembers will be charged $12,000 per child, instead of $7,000. Discounts for multiple-student families will be eliminated. Based on those numbers, and factoring in the $4,000 tuition increase, St. Paul could bring in nearly $1 million more in the school year starting this fall. Voucher critics said the decision was predictable, and expected more private schools to follow suit…â
Of course, one might argue that this still mitigates the cost of the program (likely only to aid families who can still afford it), and this would be true⌠at least for the present. However, keep in mind the annual increases in private K-12 and higher education.
From my experience working in higher ed. (public and private) âŚnot only does tuition tend to increase every year, but institutional administrators always also factor in going rates for other similar institutions competitive in the same fields. Also, keep in mind that it isnât necessarily popular to gravitate towards the cheaper education option. Rather, many opt for the more expensive programs because cost often indicates quality (i.e., people reason, “the greater the cost, the better the education”).
Moreover, even if tuition doesnât appear to increase on the surface, an increase in tuition paid might occur even if the sticker face remains unchanged. These increased, hidden dollars are typically reflected in other ancillary fees and like charges.
Currently, it can be a little hard to examine the U.S. statistics due to the infancy of these programs.[1] However, many who claim that there is no data for inflation should rather backtrack that notion. Barnum notes that some school choice programs (ones with unrestricted subsidies) âlead to price increases yet no change in enrollmentâŚâ He continues, ââŚprivate schools did not admit additional students, but did raise tuition â by an amount the researchers estimated to be roughly the same as the public subsidy.â[2]
Consider Ty Rushing who recently reported how Iowaâs private schools hiked their tuitions in response to Gov. Kim Reynoldâs (R) voucher-ESA plan.
âWhile some private schools introduced minimal tuition increasesâHoly Trinity Catholic School in Fort Madison increased tuition by less than a percent for parish members and about 3% for non-parish membersâothers swung for the fences including one Dubuque school that increased tuition by 40%, or an Anamosa school that literally doubled tuition.â[3]
Of course, I donât blame them for wanting to better their programs, increase their functionality and provide adequate salaries for teachers. But one canât deny the obvious connection. Brian Mudd (who denies the connection) even argues,
âIn attempting to discern what the impact of school vouchers may mean for tuition rates it’s helpful to see how much capacity there is within the existing private schools as itâs unlikely rates would be increased unless theyâre at capacity with demand outstripping supply.â[4]
Yet, this is exactly the state of hundreds of private institutions needing to make ends meet.
At the end of all this, maybe St. Paul’s decision doesnât seal the deal for many to correlate state funds and increasing tuition. Yet, the argument is not without warrant. It is worth everyoneâs consideration, especially those who grasp the current political climate, who understand the dangers of our ever-increasing debt, and who are concerned with expanding government overreach (which is embedded in all our collective COVID-19 trauma).
Holly Bullard, Chief Strategy Officer for Florida Policy Institute, states, âTuition is going to keep increasing, because theyâre going to keep raising the voucher amount.â With many raising the alarm, we should all heed the caution and prepare for tax increases to pay for these schemes.
[1] Hungerman and Rinz (Notre Dame and NBER) cite a study by Angrist, Bettinger, Bloom, King, and Kremer (2002), who find that winning a lottery in Bogot Ěa for a voucher worth $190 raised average private school tuition and fees by $52, so that every dollar of voucher funding raised tuition and fees by about 27 cents, close to what the point estimate here suggests (vouchers worth $820 per user on average increase per-student revenue by $280 at baseline, or about 34 cents per dollar spent on vouchers).
Edward Murray currently serves as Manager of Special Projects & Policy Research for Classical Conversations and The Homeschool Freedom Action Center. He is a native of Augusta, GA, and an alumnus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC where he earned his M.Div. He currently lives with in Newport News, VA with his wife and three children.
[Reprinted from the CHEC Homeschool Update, Volume 2, Issue #116, 2023. 720-842-4852. CHEC.org]
âIt does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.â â Samuel Adams
Early in our nationâs history, brushfires of freedom sustained our independence from a tyrannical empire. Other brushfires throughout our history brought forward a civil war, womenâs suffrage, civil rights, abortion rights, marriage rights, and, more recently, gender rights. Not all these brushfires fulfilled the desired rallying cry of freedom because they were not grounded in Godâs righteousness.
Today, a brushfire is sweeping across the nation calling itself âschool choice.â A majority of state legislatures introduced bills this year to establish programs to fund private schools and home education.
Not a True Choice
In the early years of the homeschool movement, a spark grew into a brushfire of freedom in large part because families were willing to sacrifice for the cause. For the Christians in the movement, Godâs command to disciple their children was the central driving force. They saw clearly the trajectory of the government schools and its goal of stealing the souls of their children. Despite the real threat of being imprisoned, following God was not an option; it was the only choice.
Purveyors of the school choice movement are trying to convince homeschoolers that government money provides a way for families to choose the best education for their children. But what theyâre selling is a false choice. All the choices they are presenting will be ruled by government bureaucrats. We all inherently know: what the government funds, the government runs.
Most of the âschool choiceâ bills introduced this year include bigger government and increased regulations for private and home educators who choose to accept taxpayer funds. Big, new government bureaucracies in partnership with private entities are built to manage the oversight of the funding. Requirements for homeschoolers using the funding often include frequent meetings with certified teachers, usage of curriculum tied to state standards, and yearly testing. Basically, itâs public school at home. A choice weâve already rejected.
True Brushfires of Freedom
It is time to rekindle the sparks that began the homeschool movement some fifty years ago and revive the brushfire of educational freedom. Government-funded programs will never bring Godâs truth to bear on the realities of this world. Brushfires begin within each heart and mind that is set on the truth of Godâs Word. Jesus set us free and gave us liberty; it is this truth that God commands us to set ablaze in our children.
School choice advocates are relying on the greed of man to propel their cause. Politicians, nonprofits, and governments benefit from the enlargement of the government-funded and run education system and the number of people growing dependent on it. Yet, our cause rests in the humility of utter reliance on God for our very breath and a growing awe of who He is. The time has come to set afresh the brushfire that first brought us freedom and to lead others â especially our children â to the liberty found only in Jesus.
Carolyn Martin, CHECâs Director of Government Relations, and her husband, Todd, began homeschooling their three children in upstate New York before moving to Colorado in 2004. Her passion is to see homeschooling remain free from government intrusion for future generations.
To learn more about Christian Home Educators of Colorado, please visit CHEC.org.
I recently wrapped up a year leading Challenge A with Classical Conversations (CC) students. On our last day, the students took turns reading their assigned persuasive essays. While each student chooses his/her own topic, two of the students had chosen the same topic.
But⌠**dramatic pause⌠they chose different sides!
When the second student finished reading his essay that argued opposite to the first, do you know what happened? Absolutely nothing! In fact, the entire class sat unfazed and the next student began to read his essay. They didnât rush to take sides, they didnât vote against or âcancelâ the minority opinions⌠no name calling, and no identity crises. These students havenât been taught to be offended.
They have been taught to look at the merits of an idea as a distinct thing, regardless of the person, their character, their tribe, their emotions, its perceived urgency, and the many other distractions that keep us from discerning the ideaâs own merit. We call these logical fallacies and our students learn how to set them aside and simply ask, âIs this a good idea, or not?â
The studentsâ ânon-reactionâ is so profound because, as adults in the classroom of the world, we know participants are almost always âtriggeredâ and public discourse seems to revolve around every angle EXCEPT actual merit. If we want to be virtuous participants in this sphere, the question we must first ask ourselves is, âIn what way do I need to remove similar logs from my own eyes?â With log-less vision we will see issues more clearly.
Another hinderance to our clear vision is social cliques. Our objectivity can be blurred when everyone in our perceived tribe seems to be unified in their position. A prominent topic that is plagued with these types of emotional baggage is âSchool Choiceâ.
âSchool Choiceâ is Misleading
Some advocates of âschool choiceâ begin their appeal through statistical argument. A recent publication opened with the 2022 Real Clear Politics Poll that argued that â72% of Americans support school choiceâ the ability of parents to choose the school that best fits their childrenâs needs.â
Why is this significant? First, this communicates the sentiment that âvirtually everybody agreesâ. If this premise was asserted in my Challenge A classroom, students would instinctively reply, âSo what?â This says nothing about whether the viewers should agree with this issue or not.â We call this a bandwagon fallacy.
Additionally, the term âSchool Choiceâ itself suffers from equivocation. Presently, educational options are legal and available in all 50 states, meaning that proponents equivocate âSchool Choiceâ with âtaxpayer funding for free-market productsâ.
The label âSchool Choiceâ forces critics to take an âanti-choiceâ position.
Can you think of another political movement that has lead this way? This idea has nothing to do with providing more choices. Its singular operative action is to require taxpayers to fund alternatives to the state-provided option. The question that needs an honest answer is, âshould they?â
Should taxpayers be forced to fund the free-market? Moreover, how do legislatures ensure that this money is being spent on the type of quality education that is in the publicâs best interest (âŚor for the governmentâs interest)? What accountability will follow this money to ensure it is spent the way these well-intended policies intend? Historically, how well has state government preformed this task with their current educational jurisdiction? To what degree could this idea potentially affect the cost and quality of educational options? Does the free-market stay âfreeâ once it is tax-payer funded?
Fundamentally, do we really want to expand state sponsored/regulated education, or expand actual free-market educational choice? As the emotions rise among voices on both sides of this issue, remember that the collective conversation does obligate participants to regard âsidesâ or emotional manipulation. This issue, like all issues, ought to be about ideas and not the people who hold them. This IS about a choice: the choice to lay aside these culturally acquired discernment liabilities and use those beautiful, classical tools from Challenge A.
Lauren Gideon is the Manager of Grassroots Advocacy for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their 7 children on their small acreage where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
What is one thing public education and home education have in common?
The obvious answer would be . . . education. However, as we see in Vladimir Leninâs ominous promiseââGive me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole worldââperhaps 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:
“Our 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 people . . .
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 ourselves . . . .
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.”
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.
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 itâ(Proverbs 22:6); 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, and has been clearly spelled out in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4of the United Nations Agenda 2030, with which the United States has cooperated:
“Our 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 âEnsure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for allâ 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.”
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 parentsâ 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 nationâs 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.â
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 Kâ12 schooling systems.
Now is the time for families to cultivate and practice ownership and discipline with the honorable motive of self-governance and freedom.
Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, states, âIf a nation takes on the character of its people then our classrooms are ultimately about formation of citizens and souls.â 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.â3
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.
Regina Piazza is a thirteen-year home educator with Classical Conversations 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 Classical Conversationâs Florida State Advocate.
OCEANetwork is tracking five bills pertaining to homeschool freedoms in Oregon.
Four bills relate to school choice (government funding for private education) with a possibility of added regulations laterâsome with the goal of tracking every student in the state and obtaining their personal data.
The fifth bill deals with truancy fines for homeschoolers.
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.
