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
As I travel from state to state, I find two tables of homeschool resources: those that are total free-market options and those that are fully or partially taxpayer-funded. These resources could include tutoring services, classes, extracurricular activities, sports, fine arts, and so much more. What I have found remarkably interesting is that just like a gluten-free table, free-market options are either sparse or plentiful, bland or diverse.
An Illustration From My Gluten-Free Friends
Nearly every potluck I attend anymore has an accommodating table, based on the reality that a large segment of our population has chosen to abstain from gluten. We know there is a spectrum of reasons. Nearly every gluten-free consumer has some moderate to severe negative consequence they try to avoid, yet others take a proactive approach.
I also bet some are on the train becauseâŚwell, 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 neighborsâŚIf 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 have ever hung out with someone like this who has had accidental gluten contamination, you know why.)
Specifically, 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 Homeschooling?
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 tableif you donât find what you like in the free market? Some states provide an âall or nothingâ choice. In these states, no state-funded options are available for those who have chosen to homeschool.
Do you know what they DO have? They serve 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 cakeâby 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.”
Do you know what happens to our table when this is our outlook? Nothing. It stays sparse and bland.
What will drive change? The options are the following:
Families will set their âdietâ and commit to it before they ever attend the potluck
Families will ONLY chose the bland options, or…
Families will create better options, and more homeschool resources for the next generation
We all have a choice, and as we all know; all choices yield outcomes.
Lauren is a regular contributor. You can find Lauren’s other blogs here.
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.
Recently, House Bill 4130 was introduced to regulate homeschool families in Oklahoma. Americans must strongly oppose this bill to restrict and regulate families, because its narrative of abuse in homeschools is fabricated. This bill would introduce extreme government overreach into the realm of home education.
Homeschoolers have the fundamental right of autonomy to educate and disciple their children apart from state overreach. A more detailed analysis of this bill is coming, but due to urgency of action, here are some reasons to oppose it:
Children do not belong to the state, but to the parents.
Therefore, the Civil government has no authority or jurisdiction over homeschooling.
The reasons for restricting and regulating homeschooling are baselessly supported, fueled by fear tactics.
If passed, the state will require social security numbers and background checks for the purpose of tracking every home resident.
If passed, parents may be subjected to home inspection visits.
For these reasons, weâd like to stand with our friends at HSLDA and oppose Rep. Amanda Swopeâs bill.
To join our efforts opposing HB 4130, please contact Rep. Amanda Swope to let her know that you oppose this bill.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
This past month, I had the opportunity to speak to a Kentucky mom about her homeschool experience and the state regulations that Kentucky has in place for homeschoolers. I shared how Classical Conversations has strong feelings regarding state involvement in homeschooling. We believe that the state has no place in our classrooms and actively work to bar state intervention and influence. She asked me how much state regulation is too much, specifically in my state of Michigan. What a timely question!
Any State Regulation is Too Much Regulation
I explained to her that the position of CC is that any state regulation is too much regulation.
Recently, in Michigan, there has been a move to enforce homeschool registration, requiring homeschooling parents to inform their local government schools of their intention to homeschool. This Kentucky mom stopped me short and said, “Oh! We have that in Kentucky. Donât worry about it. I only have to fill out a form saying I am homeschooling and turn it in to our local school. It really isn’t bad at all.”
Many Michigan residents and homeschool parents share this opinion. What is the harm in filling out a simple form?
Before concluding whether a homeschool registration is “really bad,” we must first understand what Michigan lawmakers are proposing and why.
In December of last year, Dana Nessel, the Attorney General of Michigan, proposed on X[1]
âimplementing monitoring mechanismsâ onto homeschooling to âensure that all children, including those homeschooled, receive necessary protections [from abuse].â This demand comes after two families, the Flore family, and the Brown family, were allegedly found to have abused their children while homeschooling them. Nessel charged these parents with thirty-six child abuse crimes and with a conspiracy to commit these crimes [2].
In support of this announcement, House Education Chair and Representative Matt Koleszar wrote on X[3]
âMichigan is one of only 11 states that doesnât count or register homeschooled children, and abusive parents are taking advantage of that to avoid being found out. Itâs time to support all Michigan students and change that. Michigan cannot allow this loophole to continue.â
Their position is clear: Due to the alleged abuse of some homeschooled children, Michigan should enforce a homeschool registration bill â which would inform the state of who is homeschooling and where they are â so that it can protect the children within homeschooled families from abuse. Or, as Koleszar says so innocently in an interview on CBS[4], âWe just want to know where they [the children] are.â
This argument seems very convincing at first. If signing a form saying we are homeschooling will save children from abuse, shouldnât we just do it?
It is tempting to say yes; however, Michigan residents must oppose the homeschool registration proposal because:
the narrative is dishonest
state oversight does not protect children from abuse
state regulations always increase over time
The Narrative is Dishonest
It is important that we put the claim of Nessel and Koleszar â that abuse in some homeschool families justifies state oversight â into a statistical perspective.
Researchers have conducted many studies to address the question, “Do homeschoolers experience higher rates of abuse than public schoolers?â Each study has come to the same conclusion.
On the contrary, A Gen 2 Survey found that homeschooled students are 257%less likely to be sexually abused than their public-schooled peers.
This begs the questions:
What is homeschooling doing right?
What is public school doing wrong?
Additionally, if there is more abuse in the public school system, shouldn’t our representatives focus their efforts there rather than seeking to regulate homeschoolers?
State Oversight Does Not Protect Children from Abuse
The main problem Koleszar has with Michiganâs current âlack of oversightâ into homeschooling is that the state government does not know where a vast number of homeschooled children are. âThey have simply fallen through the cracks,” said Koleszar on CBS. Because of this, the Representative says that the state has no idea whether these children are being educated, cared for, or, God forbid, abused by their parents. The solution offered is to put these children on a government database.
This solution assumes that government oversight prevents the abuse of children, and we must address this assumption.
This is not the case.
For instance, consider the previous statistics that prove that there is more abuse in government schools than there is in homeschools. Students who attend public schools sit under the watchful eye of the government day in and day out. The state knows where they are.
Additionally, Michigan requires that teachers are all trained to spot signs of abuse and are required to report any suspected victims and abusers to the state.[5]. Do all these government regulations, requirements, and oversight result in lower abuse rates? The statistics prove that they do not.
But letâs set public schools aside for a moment and focus specifically on abuse in homeschools. Would state regulation decrease the abuse found here? Once more, the answer is no.
Nessel uses two families, the Flore and Brown families, as examples to prove why Michigan needs to register homeschooled children to the state to stop them from being abused.
Both examples fall apart when you learn that the children who were allegedly abused by their parents were adopted and foster care children. This is extremely significant because children in the adoption agency and the foster care system are already well known by the government â they know where they are.
Israel Wayne makes this point during an interview with CBS, saying,
âThe two families that attorney Dana Nessel is using as examples are families who adopted children out of the foster care system, and legally, you can’t homeschool children who are in the foster care system, so this is not a fair illustration. But these children were deeply known by the Department of Child Services. Actually one of the fathers in that situation was actually a CPS investigator by occupation⌠they were already on a government database, and so if they were truly child abusers (that has yet to be proven), they [the children]werenât protected simply because their name was on a government database.”
In the exact examples cited by Nessel and Koleszar we can clearly see that being on a government database did not protect these children from the alleged abuse by their parents. What makes us think the results will be any different if implemented at a much larger scale?
The issue of the abuse of children being undetected is a Child Protective Services (CPS) issue, not a homeschool issue.
Wayne concluded his interview by stating that a homeschool registration âis not actually going to do what is being claimed. This will not protect children.â
Regulation Always Increases
During his interview, Koleszar was asked an insightful question by the CBS host, “Well, I imagine a lot of parents would say “Surely, they are going to want to do more than just knowing where the children are,” I mean, receiving a letter that says this child is homeschooled, how would you make that jump from understanding if they are in a safe situation to understanding if they are being educated. Surely there would have to be some kind of home visits, some kind of interaction, right?”
He responded by saying, âItâs fair to say that, but I think right now the main thing we need to do is know where â we have a lot of children who have fallen through the cracks, and we just want to know where they are.”
This answer is extremely telling. Koleszar refuses to admit the probability of increased oversight in the future while recognizing it as a “fair thing to say.”
We have already seen how children being on a government database will not stop them from being abused. So, if Koleszar is really concerned with minimizing the abuse of homeschoolers, he will have to instill more and more regulations to have the chance to attain his goal.
Registrations will turn into home visits, which will turn into state tests, which end in a state-regulated curriculum. We have seen this progression in other states, like New York and Massachusetts, that now have extremely high homeschool regulations. HSLDA has researched homeschool regulations by state.
The only result that will come of this proposal by Nessel and Koleszar is an eventual increase in government control and oversight of homeschooling without the promised results of reducing the abuse of children.
The Solution
âThe present studyâs findings, along with prior limited research, indicates at least three things for policymakers and others to consider. First, there is no empirical evidence that homeschool students are at any higher risk of abuse than public school and private school students; some evidence indicates that the home educated might be at lower risk. Second, there is no empirical evidence that state control (regulation) of homeschooling does anything to reduce the potential for abuse of homeschool children. Finally, there is no credible empirical evidence that increasing any current levels of regulation of homeschooling would reduce the potential for abuse of homeschool students.” (Ray, 2018)
Michigan residents must oppose the homeschool registration proposal because
the narrative is dishonest
state oversight does not protect children from abuse
state regulations always increase over time
Instead of unnecessarily and ineffectively regulating homeschoolers, the state should enforce the laws and make use of the child protective services that Michigan already has in place to help protect children from abuse in all places.
âOur view is that we donât want to see abuse protected, we want to see every child protected. But we believe the best way to do that is to prosecute known child abusers with existing laws that we already have on the books. And so, we believe that child protective services and state agencies need to use laws that we already have rather than creating needless bureaucracy that wonât actually protect children.”
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[2] Nessel, Dana. “Attorney General Dana Nessel Charges 4 Adoptive Parents with 36 Child Abuse Crimes, Conspiracy.” Michigan Department of Attorney General, 4 Dec. 2023, www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2023/12/04/attorney-general-dana-nessel-charges-4-adoptive-parents-with-36-child-abuse-crimes-conspiracy. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.
[4] “Breaking Down Homeschooling, Childcare in Michigan.” CBS News, uploaded by CBS Detroit, 6 Dec. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/detroit/video/breaking-down-homeschooling-child-care-in-michigan/.
Core to our principles as homeschoolers is the fundamental right to autonomy in educating and discipling our children. However, year after year, representatives introduce legislation that ties homeschooling families to regulation and oversight in how we parent and educate. Even if the proposed law seems minuscule, be aware that once a law is on the books, 99% of the time, it grows, not the reversal.
If you think this isnât a significant threat, realize that several United States politicians, states, and teachersâ unions are bullish about increasing regulation for homeschoolers.
For these reasons, weâd like to stand with our friends at HSLDA and oppose Michigan Rep. Matt Koleszarâs proposal to require Homeschool registration. To find out how to join the cause, please click the button below and contact your representative.
Edward Murray currently serves as Manager of Special Projects and Research for Classical Conversationsand 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 lives in Newport News, VA, with his wife and three children.
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.
