That Class Discussion

I am sure most of you remember the class discussion that seemed to focus on my beliefs the other day. I want to just preface this by saying I really appreciate the people that took the time to talk with me during tutorial in a calm rational manner. It was enlightening, interesting, and pretty damn fun actually. If you're reading this, you know who you are, I don't want to embarrass you by calling you out, but thanks. Even still, at parts it did feel like some people were attacking me instead of debating my ideas. You'll never be able to change someone's opinion by raising your voice and laughing at them. There's a difference between a debate and an argument and that difference has a lot to do with respect. Just thought I'd put that out there before I continue.

First, let's look at the crux of the issue which a lot of you seemed to ignore. I was not arguing those people could not say whatever they like. I was not arguing they should have their children taken from them for their beliefs. I was not arguing that I had more rights than them. I never debated any of that, because the answers to that are pretty clear.

I said that they were depriving their children of an education deemed acceptable by the United States. Mr. Stewart told me to look up the laws based in Kansas, because that's where one of the families lived. So, I did.

The laws on homeschooling, I'll quote directly below:

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-1111(a)(2)

“The instructor must be ‘competent.’”“no such program shall be approved unless it fully complies with standards therefor which shall be specified by the state board of education.”“ If the sponsors of an instructional program approved under this subsection fail to comply at any time with the provisions of this subsection, the state board of education shall rescind, after a written warning has been served and a period of three weeks allowed for compliance, approval of the programs, even though the two-year approval period has not elapsed, and thereupon children attending such program shall be admitted to a high school of the school district.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 75- 409

“truancy occurs and is required to be reported when a child between the ages of seven and fifteen years, inclusive, is inexcusably absent from and inexcusably fails to attend continuously a public school or a private, denominational or parochial school taught by a competent instructor.”“has since retained the requirement only that the instructor be "competent," and has not adopted any additional requirement of certification”“The board of education has no authority, either express or implied, to evaluate the competence of an instructor of a private and nonpublic school, "

So, how does this actually come into play? Well, the case In Re Sawyer 672 played out the above perfectly. Anna Sawyer attempted to home school her son and daughter after her son failed second grade. She also had a toddler and a newborn in the home at the same time. The argument was proposed that the learning environment was not beneficial to the children. In fact, a psychologist claimed the children would both be better suited in a traditional school setting. Now, it says above that the board of education cannot decide whether an "instructor" is "competent" or not. That does not mean nobody can. Because, as the judge of this case said 

"if such a family arrangement will serve as a substitute for school, there is no compulsory school attendance". 

And, as we are all aware, school is not a choice. It is mandatory. The courts can decide whether a learning environment is suitable to the children.

The ruling in that case? The children were to be resubmitted into their school, or subsequent absences would count as truancy.

What happens if your child is counted as truant? According to Article 22, chapter 38 (minors), those children are now classified as "children in need of care". Link for those curious. This definition of neglect, while perhaps slightly less relevant, is interesting "failure to provide adequate supervision of a child or to remove a child from a situation which requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity". That sounds pretty loose to me, because who defines the capability of a child's maturity?

Anyway, what this boils down to? Those mothers who home schooled their children and prevented them from a suitable learning environment were not providing their children with "adequate care".
So, we can define whether someone is a good mother or not. In a lot of cases, unfortunately, this doesn't actually help the child. We can define what is a "competent" instructor, and forcefully enroll the children in education suitable (whether public or private).

It is all good and well to have your own beliefs, but when your beliefs start hurting innocent people (such as children, whether they are yours or not), society takes note. And, the law takes action. At least, we can hope. Because, we clearly saw those children home schooled, we saw those mothers teach their children things like this crazy clip (watch the movie Jesus Camp if you have time). That is an injustice.

Someone in class asked me why it was any of my business. I have a really clear answer I was unable to give. They are children. Often, it is near impossible for children to speak up for themselves, to help themselves. If we see an injustice, such as the purposeful removal from education at a young age, we really should speak up. Just because something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care. You could have been the child that believes the fall of Rome was due to interracial mixing, you could have been the child that believes homosexuality is a choice, you could have been the child that believed dinosaurs never existed. How sad would that be? That's exactly how sad it is. It's simply not fair. And, this time, the laws (whether they're executed or not) agree with compassion.

Anyway, sorry this was pretty long, but I guess it's a tricky subject. It was pretty enlightening for me to see the true extent of the court systems, and made me question a lot of the language we use to define things. Whose freedom are we protecting when we prevent children from learning? S'all I'm saying.