Some of you might have heard of the recent child neglect case in California, which is making the news as rendering home schooling illegal in that state. It actually does not make teaching your own child illegal in California, since it is still perfectly legal to teach your own child in a full-time private day school (which does not require teaching credentials) or as a credentialed tutor. Many California parents teach their own children in full-time private day schools which are run out of their homes, have a very small class size, and remarkably, do not charge tuition. :-)

Anyway. Reading the court's opinion and the commentary surrounding this case has me all riled up. What are we, socialists here? This is some scary language, people! The court's opinion makes reference to the following quotes: "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare... [T]eachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition..."

Well, I'm not sure I would stand up to their test of having a "patriotic disposition." Would you? Would anyone I know? It's a pretty subjective criteria, really. Clearly, the assumed purpose of maintaining public schools and requiring mandatory schooling for our children has morphed through the years.

The first mandatory education laws were largely to ensure that children would not be denied the opportunity to learn because of interference from their employment. Yes, employment - as in child labor, in dangerous mines and stuffy factories. Another drive behind the initial mandatory education laws was the concern to assimilate immigrants. To make them more "patriotic." To make them more Anglo and more Protestant. (Thus the network of Catholic schools that arose and fought for their right to educate children of Catholic families in a way that honored their faith. We really have them to thank for the privilege of home schooling, today.) This doesn't sound too kosher today, but that's the way it was. I don't think our modern society with its values would put up with such a rationale for mandatory education, but it was a popular concern then. And then, of course, there were the concerns that still drive mandatory education today - that all children are given the opportunity to learn the things they need to know to function in our society.

Obviously, laws that require a child be given the opportunity to learn during their formative years are necessary and profitable for our society, and furthermore, they are simply the right thing to do to protect children who can not control how a parent might or might not provide for their education otherwise. However, mandating that a child must be present for a third of the waking hours of their childhood in a government supervised school while they are indoctrinated, I mean, educated in a government sponsored curriculum is not necessary to ensure this outcome!

We currently teach our Kindergartner and Preschooler at home. (What I mean to say is, my children attend a private school that operates out of my home, has no dress code, does not charge tuition, and has non-credentialed instructors.) Now, I may not be doing this is 5 years, and I may not even be doing this in 6 months. But I am confident that if we decided as a family that this was the best option for our children's education until they are ready for college, that we would in no way be neglecting them, and certainly not in any way that would justify government intervention. If I was denying my children the opportunity to learn the skills and knowledge they would gain in school, skills and knowledge that equip them to function as adults (and yes, even as good citizens) in our society, then it would warrant government intervention in the same way as if I was not providing the food or shelter or supervision that are necessary to ensure good physical health until they can be responsible for themselves. Intervening in these situations falls under the State's authority and mandate to protect its citizens from each other (even a child from his parent). But the State oversteps its bounds when it tells me I must hand over my child, turn over my sacred trust of supervising his upbringing, on their terms - which at present, means a third of his waking hours from age 6-18. I will insure that he gains the knowledge he needs to survive in our world, and much more in fact (and I have no objection to mandatory testing and record keeping to prove a child is indeed progressing and gaining the knowledge and skills required); but my right to liberty demands that I am not required to submit my child to whatever schedule or curriculum the State is selling at that particular moment in time. If I decide that what the State is offering in terms of education at a particular time is the best thing for my children at that particular time in their lives, then great, that works out nicely for all of us. But if not... they can't make me turn over my children!

I don't think I really understood the "militant" home schoolers until today, as I was reading the California court's opinion and the commentary in the news. I have never felt threatened by what was being taught in the public schools - I simply didn't look to it as my only option. But when someone starts to say that I must send my child there, and they start talking about a curriculum that is going to ensure good citizens who are loyal to the state, it gives me an eerie feeling. I thought things like that only happened in Marxist states. Because even if I am not particularly threatened by what the government thinks the curriculum should include today (or only mildly so), what might it include 20 or 50 years down the line, when my grandchildren or great-grandchildren are being force-fed it? Personally, I think my desire to preserve an America that allows parents to decide how their children will receive the education our society demands is downright patriotic. So maybe I do qualify to teach them myself after all.