February 2024

Postmodernist Seeks “What Works” – Veith Jr.

February 27, 2024 Eric Potter Quotes Quotes

“Whereas classical scholarship sought the true, the beautiful, and the good, the postmodernist academy seeks “what works.” – Veith, G. E., Jr. (1994b). Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Crossway, p. 58.

When scholarship still held to Christian values regarding the value of truth, beauty, and the good, they sought after these things in life, work, and their studies. As Christian values faded from the halls of academia, first modernism sought to replace Christian truth with scientific truth. Then post-modernism sought to throw out the concept of truth all together. Without truth and a transcendent point of reference, they also lost any recognition of beauty or good. The postmodernist falls to seeking what “works”, at least for the time and situation. The true and the good are what gets them what they want, but beauty is lost from this equation.

Elaborating on the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper

February 24, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts, Papers

“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

– Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

The case of Wisconsin v. Yoder serves as one example from a line of legal precedents upholding the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. In this case, the state of Wisconsin legislated a compulsory school age which conflicted with the religious beliefs of Amish parents thus pitting the interests of parents against those of the state. The Supreme Court upheld the fundamental rights of Amish parents to rise above that of the state as the court determined that doing so would “…not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society. Pp. 406 U. S. 229-234.” The Amish children were therefore not required to continue under the state’s compulsory school laws after a specified age. We have this United States Supreme Court precedent only because the Amish chose to stand up against this encroachment of their First Amendment freedom of religion. Many other Supreme Court cases have upheld similar parental rights as noted in the appendix at the end. Today, parental rights in Tennessee need to be considered in light of our state’s school choice voucher efforts. However, before focusing attention on Tennessee’s voucher efforts, an understanding of the history of the school choice movement prepares you to see the present in the fullest light. Such a historical review is beyond the scope of this essay, but can be surveyed in a separate essay on Whole Person Whole Life (Potter 2024[a]) and further investigated through its bibliography. For now, be aware that this movement began in the 1950s with Milton Friedman’s essay “The Role

[a] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/a-brief-overview-of-the-school-choice-movement-in-america/

of Government in Education[b]”, gaining steam with his work in the 1980s along with the work of others on the conservative side of politics including President Ronald Reagan[c] (Cavanagh 2004, Pear 1985). Besides the conservative movement, in the late 1960’s progressives also developed plans for use of progressive vouchers to promote equity and diversity in education[d] (Forman 2005). Both sides of the political aisle have taken various voucher positions working towards different goals over the decades.

Presently, the use of vouchers is a part of many school choice programs in various states and political advocacy groups with funding from wealthy sources have been working in the states for decades promoting school choice legislation. Only a longer essay can trace these beginnings to the present-day advocacy groups and do any justice to the story’s complexity. For now, this very brief history with its proponents and opponents brings us to the present situation across the nation with 32 statewide school choice programs currently active[e] (2023-2024 Trends). Each has its own nuances in terms of how many students are involved, how much money is granted, what regulations are enforced, and more. Various state programs have faced legal challenges, mostly overcoming them. The outcomes of voucher programs have varied in each state, but none have produced impressive success stories much less serve as models for other states. A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Failures[f]– Part 3 Of 4”.

TENNESSEE

Having a broader understanding of school choice across the nation is helpful, but as Tennesseans, we must examine Tennessee’s own history. We have long possessed freedom in our state to choose from a variety of options for schooling our children. Presently these include public schools, private schools, charter schools, and various forms of homeschooling. We can begin however to understand our state’s view of education, by looking back to our 1870 Tennessee constitution where it addresses education in Section 12 of Article XI.

Article XI. Miscellaneous Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee

[b] https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf

[c] https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/reagans-legacy-a-nation-at-risk-boost-for-choice/2004/06 https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/reagan-proposes-vouchers-to-give-poor-a-choice-of-schools.html

[d] https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/2530?show=full

[e][4] https://schoolchoiceweek.com/trends/#h-texas

[f] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-failures-part-3-of-4/

“Section 12. The State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools. The General Assembly may establish and support such postsecondary educational institutions, including public institutions of higher learning, as it determines” (Fleming).

Here we see that the state has assigned itself a responsibility to provide “a system of free public schools.” To this responsibility, they added the Compulsory school laws of 1905 and 1913 (Langley[g] 2015) which mandated the age range in which children would be required to attend a school of some form. Private schools and homeschooling had been in place from the state’s early days even prior to these laws, but in an effort to build up the public system, these compulsory school laws were added along with other changes both legislative and administrative. Homeschooling reemerged as an official option in the 1970s and 1980s when parents challenged the compulsory attendance law and won the right to fulfill this compulsory law by homeschooling. In court cases, parents stood on their right to determine what their children were taught rather than submit their children to various unacceptable subjects being taught in the public schools. This and other laws bring us to today where parents have a number of options limited only by finances, admission standards, and residential location.

However, these freedoms are being threatened by the School Choice movement not only within our state, but also through the influences of national organizations. Today, at least eleven education reform entities are working in Tennessee to influence both the executive and legislative branches as can be seen in these links (Friedman[h] 2023 and Beaman 2023). Today, organizations like the American Federation for Children working in Tennessee have school choice talking points reminiscent of the progressive voucher plans in the 1960’s with their goal for diversity, equity and inclusion.

Under the influence of these national groups, state legislators in 2019 aimed to increase the opportunity for more public-school children to access the non-public school options by creating a pilot program in two counties (later expanding to a third) in which approximately 2000 students would be granted what they called a scholarship that could be used towards options besides the public school they were assigned to. The state overcame legal challenges in the courts to establish these small-scale programs which continue to this day. To enroll, parents sign a contract with its stipulations in order to access this money which can be spent only for expenses approved by the state. The Governor’s website[i] boasts a 91% satisfaction rate in support of expanding the program, although no other study reporting objective educational outcomes has been cited.

[g] https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/research/histories/a-history-of-homeschooling-in-tennessee/

[h] https://tennesseelookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Charter-school-connections-4-2.pdf

[i] https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/11/30/the-27-1-million-clash-between-education-reform-and-public-school-advocates/

In November of 2023, Governor Lee proposed to extend the as yet unproven pilot program to 20,000 students from any school district in the state. The proposal at the time of this writing is only available as principles as the formal legislation is not yet publicly available despite being announced months ago. The Governor’s website and unofficial leaks of the proposed legislation offer the following hints. The 20,000 students would receive approximately $7000 to be used towards private school tuition or other approved academic expenses. In the first year of operation, preference would be given to lower-income families, but then opened to all demographics. A contract would be signed in which the parent agrees to abide by the program’s rules or risk loss of benefits. The Governor and other leaders have publicly stated that the money to fund this over $140,000,000 program will not decrease funding to public schools already provided through the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement Acct of 2021 (enacted in 2023). Neither the source of these funds for the present 20,000 students nor for the future goal of offering to all of Tennessee’s students is yet clear but is rumored to be from the state’s general fund. A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Tennessee School Choice – Parts 1 through 3”.

The information that we have available primarily comes from the Governor’s Education Freedom website and leaked drafts of the legislation. The closest official look we had was a temporary posting of a bill that was removed and later reported as an accidental release. Without official language in a submitted bill, few if any legislators will publicly comment on their opinion. At this point, besides rumors, we only have two matching caption bills SB2787 and HB2468 which propose a study to determine the “benefits” of school choice. While these bills only propose a study at this time, a caption bill allows amendments up to and including a full replacement of the bill with the full program proposed on the Governor’s website. The public has had no real opportunity to review and consider the full legislation’s exact wording and may not if the legislators utilize the minimum 24-hour notice for amendments before the Education committee hearings on either Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. The lack of transparency regarding this bill concerns THEA and the homeschoolers it represents and should concern all citizens of Tennessee.

As we are kept in the dark by our legislators, we have our Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner, Lizette Gonzalez-Reynolds, leading the department which will be responsible for implementing the program. She fellowshipped in 2021 under a national organization, 50CAN, which is behind the movement for school choice (50CAN[j]) and has worked in several positions across the nation where she advocated for school choice. Her position on school choice reform should be evident, and informal reports indicate she is lobbying at the capitol to garner support from various legislators offering to show them the bill’s draft.

[j] https://50can.org/national-voices-fellowship/fellows/lizzette-reynolds/

In opposing this proposal by our Governor, we do so not for simple dislike of its components, but due to the fundamentally different principles on which it operates. We hold that God gave mankind principles in His Word by which to live. These revealed principles include that God delegated the upbringing of children to their parents, meaning that parents have ultimate jurisdiction over and ultimate responsibility for their children, not the state. We assert that government funding and its regulations put the government in charge over the parent in the arena of private schooling. For this reason, the funding of public schools and the funding of private schools should be kept separate. In order to avoid entanglement with government control, homeschoolers should not accept any government funding. We offer an extended explanation for the five points mentioned in our white paper before adding further reasons not previously mentioned.

Elaboration on the 5 Points of White Paper Plus Additional Concerns

The Education Scholarship program will limit the parent’s educational choices to those the government and its experts approve of while advocates falsely claim that parents retain control over their children’s education.

In Tennessee, we currently have three separate educational systems which minimally overlap: public, private, and homeschool. Government funding with regulations will infuse money into the private and the homeschool sectors in such a way as to bring both under greater state control. The government funding will dictate what expenses are approved for these non-public options as determined under contract law. The parents, having willingly signed a contract with the state, will have little recourse should the state determine an expense is not permitted. The schools accepting the money will be bound by the regulations promulgated by the Legislature or the Department of Education. Furthermore, the parent’s choice of school will also be limited by private school’s freedom to not participate in the program. With all of these forces active, the history of school choice programs in other states demonstrates how state funding can alter Tennessee’s education options as it has altered non-public options in other states. See References (1,2,3,4,5,6,9). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole[k]”.

The Education Scholarship program will Restrict religious freedoms via government oversight particularly for Church Related Schools and the homeschool students using them as an umbrella program.

While disagreeing with modern society’s misinterpretation of the separation of church and state, we hold that the church should influence the state rather than the state dictating beliefs and conduct to the church. With the addition of this program, the state will be able to unduly influence what church related schools teach through funding and regulations. While this may seem innocuous at the present with a Republican

[k] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

supermajority controlling the legislature, such control could be rather disagreeable under different political circumstances. Also, given the worldview espoused by many current Republican legislators who ultimately believe the state has the more fundamental right to direct children’s education, even now such an open door to state influence over church related schools is alarming. In other states, religious schools which accepted school vouchers have already faced lawsuits for Biblical positions on marriage. Many church related schools will likely not be able to participate based on conscience. When private schools who run umbrella programs do participate, the umbrella homeschool student may become regulated through their umbrella program despite not taking any scholarship funds themselves. This potential for state regulation arises from the following hierarchy of education regulation. The Department of Education approves the accreditation agencies which oversee the private schools which then operate the umbrella schools enrolling most homeschoolers in our state. A 2018 presentation online from the Tennessee Department of Education describes homeschoolers in category IV church related schools to be “non-public school students” meaning those homeschoolers could be regulated as private school students (Tidwell 2018)[l]. While current legislators will claim that no such regulation of homeschoolers or private schools will be included in Tennessee, we have seen similar legislation in other states added in subsequent legislative sessions or through other state’s departments of education. Legislators have publicly and repeatedly stated that they cannot promise no future regulations will be added later. Others in the Tennessee state legislature have already proposed bills to add regulations to the currently active pilot school choice program. —– HB2409 and SB2268 — HB2450 / SB2273 (Tennessee General Assembly[m]). See References (10, 14, 15, 18). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Three Reasons to Oppose School Choice – Part 4 – Unintended Consequences[n]”.

The Education Scholarship program will increase government bureaucracy, education costs, spending, and eventually taxes without demonstratable, widespread, positive educational outcomes, and thus, is fiscally irresponsible.

The projected costs of a Tennessee program run into the 100’s of millions similar to the projections or actual numbers in other states like North Carolina where they predict a cost of over 500 million in the 2030s. Studies of school choice programs in other states have consistently demonstrated mixed results, not always positive, at best barely

[l] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/sbe_workshop_january_25_2018/1-25-18%201%2050%20Non-public%20and%20Home%20School%20Update.pdf

[m] https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/BillsBySubject.aspx?Primarysubject=1520&GA=113

[n] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-unintended-consequences-part-4-of-4/

positive. At most, programs show that 30-40% of school choice students outperform public school predictions while 30-40% fare equally and 30-40% perform lower than prior. The total average only sometimes demonstrates overall positive results. Despite having our own Tennessee pilot school choice program, we have no studies of educational outcomes on which this decision is being based. At the very least, such a study should be performed before expanding our program. See References (4,5, 7, List, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Judge a School Choice Book by Its Cover, North Carolina Edition” Part 1 and 2 as well as ”Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Failures- Part 3 Of 4[o]”.

The Education Scholarship program will harm rather than encourage free-market educational solutions by tying both public and private school funding to the government and its regulations.

The definition of a free-market is one which is sufficiently free that it fosters free choices. Limitations on who is allowed to compete limits competition. Ultimately private schools and homeschools who accept these funds will have to follow rules similar to public schools. Once these schools are forced to follow the same rules which have operated public schools, the benefits of private and homeschool options to innovate will be greatly hindered. Once the state begins dictating the curriculum and testing policies of non-public school choices, the choices will be effectively limited to what the state approves despite having created the abysmal condition of the public school system which presses Tennessee to create such a solution as Education Freedom Scholarships. See References (1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole[p]”.

The Education Scholarship program will create a contractual agreement between parents and the state which requires state approval for spending as well as financial record-keeping by the parents to avoid repercussions for expenses not approved by the state.

By signing a contract with the state, the parent acknowledges their obligation to fulfill certain requirements in this program. Once that contract is signed with the state, some freedoms are forsaken which lawyers (such as HSLDA) protecting the families cannot regain. Once the contract is signed, the parents will be expected to spend the

[o] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/judge-a-school-choice-book-by-its-cover-north-carolina-edition-part-1/

https://wholepersonwholelife.com/judge-a-school-choice-book-by-its-cover-north-carolina-edition-part-2/

https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-failures-part-3-of-4/

[p] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

scholarship money exactly in accordance with what the state approves. Expenditures outside the regulations will not be allowed regardless of how educational they might be. Year by year, the parent will be required to sign another contract in order to continue their participation although the Department of Education will be free to yearly alter the contract’s regulations. In other states, subsequent year’s legislative sessions have made changes to the regulations and the respective state education departments have made their own interpretations of what can be regulated or not. Various forms of record keeping have been required of parents in these programs. Altogether, the contracts have actually restricted the freedoms of parents and their children for the appearance of so-called school choice freedom. See references (1, 2, 3, 17). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Strings – Part 2 Of 4[q]”.

With the potential for this Education Freedom legislation to adversely affect homeschoolers and private school students, their parents should take advantage of access to their legislators through available channels of communication. Beyond this means available to all Tennessee parents, homeschooling parents should push for tangible representation within the organizations which write the regulations for their children’s education. This legislation must not place all control over regulations and contracts in the hands of unelected officials in the state bureaucracy to dictate what parents are allowed to do or to teach. Should this legislation session only pass a bill to fund a study of school choice in Tennessee, it should include parents from each type of schooling in the study process.

While we, the THEA, work to alert homeschooling parents of our concerns regarding this bill and work to prevent its damaging homeschool freedoms, we must recognize that many are working to push this legislation through our legislature. A different article (“Lots of Money Flying Around”, WPWL) describes the national organizations and the amount of funding they are pouring into Tennessee politics through both official donations to candidates and unofficial campaign support for candidates friendly to their cause. Organizations like 50CAN operate by training local advocates to promote school choice, but this only creates an illusion of local support. In reality, Tennessee is being influenced by outside organizations and funding which does not seem to be in line with our family values. As supporters of homeschooling in Tennessee, we seek an educational framework in which the worldviews of parents and their communities are free to express their God given right to believe and to teach children according to their beliefs. This is idealized in the Ephesians 6:4 with the Greek word “paideia” in which not only is knowledge passed on to the child, but more importantly an enculturation. In today’s terms, we might call it the passing on of a worldview. For this to happen, we must have both freedom for

[q] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-strings-part-2-of-4/

parents and freedom in the market to offer services and products in line with the parents’ beliefs without undue government influence. This legislation threatens to interfere with the religious freedom of parents and the schools which participate in this program. The legislation also brings those who choose to not participate one step closer to having the same regulations mandated for them. They will sooner or later be affected through ever-widening regulations and market forces resulting from the program’s implementation.

In summary, we advocate for retaining or expanding the freedoms we now have, rather than limiting them through contractual obligations inherent in accepting government funds, contractual obligations which would dictate what parents can or cannot teach their children. We advocate for true parental choice over state choice, parental choice which creates and encourages a broad system of opportunity rather than state choice which actually limits opportunities through monetary control of the market. THEA has been protecting and promoting educational freedoms in Tennessee for more than 40 years. During this time, the number of homeschoolers in our state has grown to estimates of 70,000 to 100,000 without the help of government funding. It is our position that ESA’s will damage educational freedom, not expand it, and will increase spending without real benefit. We adamantly urge homeschoolers to both refuse to participate and to join us in advocating against this proposed legislation as it now stands. Once that work is done, we further urge the homeschoolers of our state to join in an effort to make homeschooling affordable and accessible to all parents who want to leave the public school system. This is true freedom for parents and their children through expanding already existing private support to meet these needs.

For these reasons, THEA opposes The Education Freedom Scholarship Act

Bibliography in addition to the Original White Paper:

Friedman, Milton . The Role of Government in Education *. 1955. https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf

Cavanagh, Sean. “Reagan’s Legacy: A Nation at Risk, Boost for Choice.” Education Week, 16 June 2004, www.edweek.org/policy-politics/reagans-legacy-a-nation-at-risk-boost-for-choice/2004/06. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Pear, Robert, and Special To the New York Times. “REAGAN PROPOSES VOUCHERS to GIVE POOR a CHOICE of SCHOOLS.” The New York Times, 14 Nov. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/reagan-proposes-vouchers-to-give-poor-a-choice-of-schools.html. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Forman, James. “The Secret History of School Choice: How Progressives Got There First.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1 Jan. 2005, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/2530?show=full. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024

Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Failures- Part 3 Of 4. Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-failures-part-3-of-4/

“2023-2024 Trends: What Is School Choice?” National School Choice Week, 18 Jan. 2024, https://schoolchoiceweek.com/trends/#h-texas. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Fleming, Cynthia Griggs. “Elementary and Secondary Education.” Tennessee Encyclopedia, 8 Oct. 2017, https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/elementary-and-secondary-education/. Accessed 14 Feb. 2024.

Langley, Daniel. “A History of Homeschooling in Tennessee.” Coalition for Responsible Home Education, 2015, https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/research/histories/a-history-of-homeschooling-in-tennessee/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Friedman, Adam. “The $27.1 Million Clash between Education Reform and Public School Advocates.” Tennessee Lookout, 1 Dec. 2023, https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/11/30/the-27-1-million-clash-between-education-reform-and-public-school-advocates/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Beaman, Lee. “The Web Connecting Tennessee’s Education Reform Groups.” https://tennesseelookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Charter-school-connections-4-2.pdf

“Lizzette Reynolds.” 50CAN National, 50can.org/national-voices-fellowship/fellows/lizzette-reynolds/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://50can.org/national-voices-fellowship/fellows/lizzette-reynolds/

Tennessee School Choice – Part 1, 2, 3. Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.https://wholepersonwholelife.com/tennessee-school-choice-part-1-of-3/ https://wholepersonwholelife.com/tennessee-school-choice-part-2-of-3/ https://wholepersonwholelife.com/tennessee-school-choice-part-3-of-3/

“Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole” Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

Tidwell, Marcy. Non-Public Schools and Home Schools in Tennessee. 2018. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/sbe_workshop_january_25_2018/1-25-18%201%2050%20Non-public%20and%20Home%20School%20Update.pdf Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Tennessee General Assembly. https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/BillsBySubject.aspx?Primarysubject=1520&GA=113 Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

“Three Reasons to Oppose School Choice – Part 4 – Unintended Consequences” Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-unintended-consequences-part-4-of-4/

“Judge a School Choice Book by Its Cover, North Carolina Edition” Part 1 and 2. Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/judge-a-school-choice-book-by-its-cover-north-carolina-edition-part-1/ and https://wholepersonwholelife.com/judge-a-school-choice-book-by-its-cover-north-carolina-edition-part-2/

Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Failures- Part 3 Of 4”. Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-failures-part-3-of-4/

“Three Reasons To Oppose School Choice – Strings – Part 2 Of 4”. Whole Person Whole Life by Dr. Eric Potter. 2024. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-strings-part-2-of-4/

The following References support our positions from the White Paper. The numbers in parenthesis after each bullet point refer to supportive citations and match the White Paper’s numbering.

Marshall, Alexis. (2023, December 5). Autonomy vs. accountability: Not all Tenn.. Republicans are on board with statewide voucher proposal . WKMS. https://www.wkms.org/government-politics/2023-12-05/autonomy-vs-accountability-not-all-tenn-republicans-are-on-board-with-statewide-voucher-proposal
Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. (2022, September 2). Comment from Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/MATCH.state/posts/pfbid02o9K7YC11MQoSbYZPTzT81fL5oW3azYuAJmKY6Bu6ofyufYjLZLzcEjw4RQyJX71pl
Dragon, B. (2019, July 30). 6/12/2019 – Legislative update. Nevada Homeschool Network Homeschooling vs Government school choice Why we should care Comments. https://nevadahomeschoolnetwork.com/nv-esa-funding-bill-threatens-liberty-of-homeschooling/
Editor. (2023a, March 13). 2/21/2023 Legislative Update. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2-21-2023-legislative-update/
Editor. (2023b, April 6). 2023 Legislative Session: Takeaways. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2023-legislative-session-takeaways/
Coulson, A. J. (2010, October 4). Do Vouchers and Tax Credits Increase Private School Regulation? – Working Paper. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-8.pdf
https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-failures-part-3-of-4/
Hess, F. M. (2010). Does school choice “work”? National Affairs. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/does-school-choice-work
PewEduReport. (2017, March 21). Philadelphia’s Changing Schools and What Parents Want from Them. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/03/state-reforms-reverse-decades-of-incarceration-growth
Garnett, N. S. (2023, May 25). Unlocking the potential of private-school choice: Avoiding and overcoming obstacles to successful implementation. Manhattan Institute. https://manhattan.institute/article/unlocking-the-potential-of-private-school-choice-avoiding-and-overcoming-obstacles-to-successful-implementation
Truesdell, N. (2022, September 8). School vouchers for homeschooling are not conservative. Nicki Truesdell. https://nickitruesdell.com/school-vouchers-for-homeschooling-are-not-conservative/
McCluskey, N. (2013, June 8). Price Inflation Is a Real School Choice Worry. But Right Now, It’s More about Survival. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/price-inflation-real-school-choice-worry-right-now-its-more-about-survival
McClellan, H. (2023, April 26). Bill expanding N.C. Private School vouchers to all students moves forward in Senate. EducationNC. https://www.ednc.org/04-26-2023-bill-expanding-n-c-private-school-vouchers-to-all-students-moves-forward-in-senate/
Whole Person Whole Life Blog: https://wholepersonwholelife.com/judge-a-school-choice-book-by-its-cover-north-carolina-edition-part-1/

“One big debate in North Carolina (Associated Press 2023) centered around whether religious schools could receive government funding without violating separation of church and state. For now, it was ruled constitutional, and no school is restricted based on teaching religious beliefs in their classrooms. Time will tell if this freedom continues. Another debate that is still underway addresses whether participating schools can refuse entry to students who disagree with their worldview regarding issues like gender, marriage, and other cultural dividing points. This will be influenced by whether or not federal money is used as that money clearly contains thick strings regarding discrimination legalities.”

15. Wayne, I. (2023, January 13). Hasidic schools – a lesson regarding school choice. Illinois Family Institute. https://illinoisfamily.org/education/hasidic-schools-a-lesson-regarding-school-choice

16. Whole Person Whole Life Blog

“So, let’s look at the outcome studies which compare students who received scholarships versus those who remained in the public school assigned to them. To be blunt, we have silence at this point as I can’t find any studies in Tennessee that make that comparison. The only thing that the state reports is that 91% of recipient parents are satisfied.”

17. State of Tennessee. (2023, November 28). Parents Choose, Students Succeed. TN Education Freedom. https://tneducationfreedom.com/#section-accodion-7’. Accessed January 17, 2024.

18. Gryboski, M. (2021, December 13). Maryland can’t Bar Christian School from voucher program over beliefs on sexuality, judge rules. The Christian Post. https://www.christianpost.com/news/maryland-christian-school-wrongly-denied-voucher-funding-court.html

19. Estimated from: Ph.D, Brian D. Ray. “How Many Homeschool Students Are There in the United States during the 2021-2022 School Year?” National Home Education Research Institute, 15 Sept. 2022, www.nheri.org/how-many-homeschool-students-are-there-in-the-united-states-during-the-2021-2022-school-year/.https://www.nheri.org/how-many-homeschool-students-are-there-in-the-united-states-during-the-2021-2022-school-year/

General bibliography regarding school choice research, not cited above:

Catt, D., & et, al. (2021, November 4). 25 Years: 25 Most Significant School Choice Research Findings. EdChoice. https://www.edchoice.org/engage/25-years-25-most-significant-school-choice-research-findings/

DeAngelis, C. A. (2018, Winter). What Leads to Successful School Choice Programs? A Review of the Theories and Evidence. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/what-leads-successful-school-choice-programs-review-theories-evidence

Dynarski, M., & et, al. (2018, May). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184010/pdf/20184010.pdf

Figlio, D., & Karbownik, K. (2016, July). Evaluation of Ohio’s Edchoice Scholarship Program. Fordham Institute. https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/FORDHAM%20Ed%20Choice%20Evaluation%20Report_online%20edition.pdf

Gleason, P., & et, al. (2010, June). The evaluation of Charter School Impacts – Executive Summary. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104030.pdf

Mills, Jonathan and Wolf, Patrick, The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement after Four Years (May 10, 2019). EDRE Working Paper No. 2019-10, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3376230 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3376230

Raymond, M. E., & et, al. (2023, June 19). As a matter of fact: The National Charter School Study III 2023. CREDO. https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-NCSS3-Report.pdf

Waddington, R.J. and Berends, M. (2018), Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program: Achievement Effects for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 37: 783-808. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22086

Appendix of Supreme Court Cases:

From Parental Rights Foundation https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/legal/parental_rights_tradition/

Case index:

Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.

– Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

– Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . . . It is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.

– Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society.

Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children.

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

– Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

– Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)

Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.

– Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

The liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in “this Nation’s history and tradition.”

– Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)

We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.

We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.”

– Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)

The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.

The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.

Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.

– Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life.

Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.

– Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)

“The best interests of the child,” a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion-for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others.

“The best interests of the child” is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.

– Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)

In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children.

The Fourteenth Amendment “forbids the government to infringe … ‘fundamental’ liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”

– Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.

In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville’s determination of her daughters’ best interests. More importantly, it appears that the Superior Court applied exactly the opposite presumption.

The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made.

– Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

A Brief Overview of the School Choice Movement in America

February 19, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

Tracing the history of the modern School Choice movement in America becomes a monumental task given the sheer number and variety of experts who have weighed in on this subject over the last 70 years. The issue is tied up in the whirls and whims of politicians, economists, sociologists, psychologists, lawyers, and other leading experts weighing in on education policy. While School Choice, particularly vouchers, are often viewed as a priority for the political Right, both sides of the aisle seem to have found reasons to embrace School Choice vouchers. At the risk of over-simplification, the Right will usually hold up vouchers as a means of privatizing education through competition and the progressive Left tends to uphold vouchers as a means of assuring equity in education for those groups deemed disadvantaged. Underlying the pro-voucher arguments lies the tightly held assumption that the government should in some way control and provide for the education of children. Proponents of vouchers often focus upon the central role of the family in education decisions but behind each choice lies the bureaucracy of the State ensuring that the choices remain tightly controlled by the experts holding the reins of power.

By way of a brief overview, generally people place right leaning free market economist Milton Friedman’s essay “The Role of Government in Education” (1955) at the beginning of modern School Choice history. In this essay, he advocated for removing government as the administrator of education but was satisfied with government as the financier of education. For this end, he proposed using a system of vouchers to separate education financing from its administration, and although he prefers private school administration, he gives the government the right to lay down the basic minimal standards. (Friedman 1955). By the 1980’s, people like William Bennett, former Secretary of Education under the Reagan administration, looked to vouchers to “improve the efficiency of schooling as well as make possible the implementation of national standards…” (Bast et al 1997). Reagan himself promoted the idea (Cavanagh 2004 and Pear 1985). By the 1990’s, Dick and Betsy DeVos picked up the School Choice voucher issue as a means to improve education which for them included strengthening the public system through competition. They began mobilizing a philanthropically-funded, national political strategy to be carried out across the states, pushing various iterations of School Choice through political advocacy, campaign management, and political rewards (Wilson 2011). By 1995, Milton Friedman, founder of the voucher idea, had rejected compulsory schooling as a good idea but still held that vouchers could lead to privatization of education although he admitted in an interview that he could be wrong about that (Doherty 1995). By the late 1990’s School Choice was making its way into the states through the work of foundations such as those funded by the De Vos’s, and Right leaning institutions like the CATO Institute were writing policy debates over the use of vouchers as a means of separating school and state. The proponents of vouchers held that there was no other way to undo the public system and the voucher antagonists insisting that they would lead to more government control not less (Bast et al 1997).

While those on the Right debated the merits of School Choice vouchers, the left leaning progressives had made significant inroads into controlling the education bureaucracy. What has been their take on vouchers? Initially, those in the educational establishment tended to resist School Choice efforts- including vouchers- but this was not the only viewpoint. In “The Secret History of School Choice: How Progressives Got There First” an associate professor at Georgetown University Law Center makes the case, as the title suggests, that progressive advocates not free market advocates, had been making headway in the school choice game since the time of Reconstruction after the Civil War. Of interest for this discussion, progressive voucher proponents in the late 1960’s made plans for their use that differed somewhat from the stated goal of those across the aisle. “These early voucher plans were self-consciously designed to maximize equity and racial justice” (Forman 2005 p.1310). Under President Johnson’s administration, a group at Harvard’s Center for the Study of Public Policy received a grant to develop an “equity-oriented voucher system” (p. 1311). Basically, this plan included both public and private schools with voucher amounts increasing according to the student’s level of poverty. In addition, to prevent discrimination, the Jenck’s plan forced participating schools to only use their admissions criteria for up to one half of the entering class with the other half to be determined by lottery. For the progressive voucher system, in general, all schools would become public schools- even parochial schools. At the time, this plan did not lead to a widespread progressive voucher movement with only one school in San Jose using a modified version for 5 years with inconclusive results. The plan fell out of political favor. The Jenck’s plan may have fallen out of favor in the 1970’s but progressives may very well be looking at this plan today as the writer of this 2004 essay encourages in his conclusion (Forman 2005).

Indeed, the outlines of the Jenck’s plan seem very similar to the talking points found on the websites of the numerous organizations working today in Tennessee, with their billionaire, elitist donors providing ample resources with which to perform their political advocacy-some donors are considered more right and some more left leaning but the foundations that they support are busy pushing the diversity, equity, and inclusion mantra of the progressive voucher supporters all those years ago (see a list of some of the foundations at the end of this article). One such entity, American Federation for Children is doing extensive political advocacy in Tennessee and Betsy DeVos, having begun the groundwork for state-by-state political advocacy decades ago, served on their board until 2016 (AFC 2016). The organization’s obvious progressive slant on School Choice can be found on their website. Today, Governor Lee and the Tennessee legislators along with their political advisors seem to have amalgamated the right and left view of vouchers into the Education Freedom proposal as manifested by their reasoning and talking points.

Further, the funding sources for the numerous organizations advocating for some type of school choice in Tennessee includes a plethora of interconnected philanthropists and corporations- many who seem to benefit financially from public money infused into the private sector (Vogel 2016). Following the money and mergers of various organizations over the decades is an arduous and at times impossible task but today the organizations have a big financial impact upon the executive and legislative branches in Tennessee (Friedman 2023). According to a 2023 campaign finance estimate, together eleven “school choice” minded advocacy groups working in Tennessee have spent over 16.26 million dollars over the past 15 years influencing Tennessee politics and politicians (Friedman 2023). In another example of a national political advocacy group working in Tennessee, 50CAN, based in Washington D.C. openly takes credit for influencing Tennessee legislators toward School Choice options in recent years as well as openly advocating for a universal ESA to be passed in this calendar year (Magee 2022 and Magee 2024). By way of example, their donors over the years have included both right and left of center organizations like the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Carnegie Corporation and the left of center grant making foundation known as the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (Financial 2023, Influence Watch 50CAN, Influence Watch SVCF). The political pressure and money influencing Tennessee governance on this issue cannot be understated.

Bibliography:

Friedman, Milton . The Role of Government in Education *. 1955. https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf

Bast, Joseph L., et al. “Vouchers and Educational Freedom: A Debate.” Cato.org, 12 Mar. 1997, www.cato.org/policy-analysis/vouchers-educational-freedom-debate. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024

Wilson, Bruce. “Heritage Foundation, Dec. 3, 2002: DeVos Outlines Strategy in War on Public Education.” Www.youtube.com, 1 May 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt9FmMrvJ3A. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Doherty, Brian. “Best of Both Worlds: An Interview with Milton Friedman.” Reason.com, 1 June 1995, reason.com/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Forman, James. “The Secret History of School Choice: How Progressives Got There First.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1 Jan. 2005, openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/2530?show=full. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024

“Bill Oberndorf Succeeds Betsy DeVos as Chairman of American Federation for Children.” American Federation for Children, 30 Nov. 2016, www.federationforchildren.org/bill-oberndorf-succeeds-betsy-devos-chairman-american-federation-children/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

“HOME.” American Federation for Children, www.federationforchildren.org/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Vogel, Pam. “Here Are the Corporations and Right-Wing Funders Backing the Education Reform Movement.” Media Matters for America, 27 Apr. 2016, www.mediamatters.org/daily-caller/here-are-corporations-and-right-wing-funders-backing-education-reform-movement#ascafc. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Friedman, Adam. “The $27.1 Million Clash between Education Reform and Public School Advocates.” Tennessee Lookout, 1 Dec. 2023, tennesseelookout.com/2023/11/30/the-27-1-million-clash-between-education-reform-and-public-school-advocates/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Beaman, Lee. “The Web Connecting Tennessee’s Education Reform Groups.” https://tennesseelookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Charter-school-connections-4-2.pdf

Magee, Marc Porter. “Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA).” 50CAN National, 2 May 2022, 50can.org/goals-wins/tennessee-investment-in-student-achievement-tisa/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

—. “Week 198.” 50CAN National, 15 Jan. 2024, 50can.org/the-new-reality-roundup/week-198/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

“Financials.” 50CAN National, 2023, 50can.org/financials/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

“50CAN.” InfluenceWatch, www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/50can-inc/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

“Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF).” InfluenceWatch, 2023, www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/silicon-valley-community-foundation/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024.

Show Me the Bill

February 15, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts Government, School, Tennessee Legislation

We, the people of the State of Tennessee, as parents, grandparents, future parents, teachers, and if nothing else taxpaying citizens respectfully request that our elected officials temporarily serving us at our voting discretion immediately publish for public consideration the language for the Education Freedom Act.

This proposed legislation was first announced in November of 2023 by our Governor. The legislation filing deadline has passed with only 2 caption bills filed, SB2787 and HB2468. These bills only request a study of this school choice program to be performed, yet through accidental leaks we have seen potential drafts of a full program bill. Per legislative rules, the full bill could be added as an amendment with only 24 hours notice for public viewing before an Education Committee vote occurs in either legislative chamber.

This situation is considered unacceptable by the citizens of Tennessee who will be burdened by at least $140,000,000 per year expense for an unproven program to eventually impact the full population of Tennessee children for decades and change our educational system profoundly.

If our request for transparency and opportunity for dialogue is not granted, we will press our position until our public servants respond.

If you agree with me, go to the Education committee pages for each house and either email this or call their office. Also let others know.

House of Representatives Education Committee

Senate Education Committee

Superficial Non-Conformity

February 13, 2024 Eric Potter Quotes Quotes

“The simplistic way of not conforming is to see what is in style in our culture and then do the opposite. If short hair is in vogue, the nonconformist wears long hair. If going to the movies is popular, then Christians avoid movies as “worldly.” The extreme case of this may be seen in groups that refuse to wear buttons or use electricity because such things, too, are worldly.

A superficial style of nonconformity is the classical pharisaical trap. The kingdom of God is not about buttons, movies, or dancing. The concern of God is not focused on what we eat or what we drink. The call of nonconformity is a call to a deeper level of righteousness, that goes beyond externals. When piety is defined exclusively in terms of externals, the whole point of the apostle’s teaching has been lost. Somehow we have failed to hear Jesus’ words that it is not what goes into a person’s mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of that mouth. We still want to make the kingdom a matter of eating and drinking.” — R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God

None of us really knows what it means to live in non-conformity to the world. We swim in the fish bowl of a degraded AND degrading culture. Our culture is moving at such a speed away from Christianity that we must take drastic measures to follow Christ. We must swim upstream. It will be uncomfortable, but we were never promised ease and luxury in following Christ. We must stop choosing the easy route of non-conformity in regards to externals and live out internal non-conformity.

True Governing of the Gathered: General Principles

February 12, 2024 Eric Potter Gather Foundations

A fruitful gathering of people requires some common purpose and an ordering of the gathering towards the accomplishment of that purpose. Chaos or anarchy, despite the modern and post-modern insistence to the contrary, cannot produce purposeful fruit, as even the smallest of gatherings requires some mutual agreements, understandings, and cooperation. As the size of the gathering grows, the necessary systems of governing develop into more and more formal means until they arrive at the laws and constitutions of nations. This paradigm necessitates viewing the gathering not just as a physical and static collection of individual people, but as the dynamic ongoing relational life of a group of people functioning as a whole in some way. For proper functioning of such a gathered society, right ordering is needed and this requires some externally imposed order rather than just internal standards. For any group of created humans regardless of number, the order which governs their contributions and participation towards a fulfilling and satisfying purpose arises from the design of their Creator.

Throughout human history, gatherings of people come in all shapes and sizes but share common features. Whether 2 or 3 gather for coffee, 10 gather for a work project, 300 gather for a church service, 1 million gather into a city, or 300 million gather for a nation, some force of submitted order is needed to adequately govern their actions and interactions. Each of these countless varieties of gatherings necessitate some purpose even if only aimed at the simple pleasures of life. A gathering without a purpose becomes a coincidental accumulation of disconnected individuals who happen to be physically co-present. A gathering with a purpose, whatever that purpose may be, has the opportunity to effect that which the un-gathered or purposeless groups cannot do. In acting upon such an opportunity of purpose fulfillment, something more must be added.

Mutually agreed upon constraints must direct the collective effort towards the purpose. Each individual submits to these constraints as those governed by a drive to fulfill a purpose. In a family, governing constraints prevent certain behaviors that harm other family members as that would diminish the unity of the gathered family which is an accepted goal of a family. In a work setting, governing restraints prevent different employees from hindering the well-being or productive functioning of others. In a city, governing restraints prevent theft, libel, fraud, and many other destructive practices. Without the individuals in any given group submitting mutually to such constraints, little stands in the way of chaos and its fruitless efforts.

These constraints upon a gathering can be limited or extensive depending on the size of the group and its purposes. Small gatherings and simple purposes require fewer constraints. Larger gatherings and more complex or more extensive purposes require greater constraints in terms of their number and force. The breadth and depth of necessary constraints inevitably grows as one moves from the former to the latter. Informality often reigns in the smaller and simpler gatherings. Culturally shared expectations and morally derived guidance require little to no formality. As size grows and purposes develop in complexity, eventually some explicit and formal constraints are added. Working groups in a business combine efforts, having agreed upon a vision and the necessary government for achieving such a vision. Agreements on work hours, salaries, inter-employee communication, responsibilities, accountabilities, and more must be verbally established or explicitly written down. These constraints remain as long as mutually agreed upon and as long as the individual chooses to remain in the group.

With the larger sizes of cities, states, and nations, even further constraints work their way into the daily life including the daily life of the smaller gatherings found within the larger gatherings. Each individual’s choice to leave the group requires a greater effort. Leaving a city, a state, or a nation requires greater effort than leaving a job. Each member of these larger gatherings are faced with greater consequences for transgressing the mutually agree upon constraints. Laws go beyond exclusion from a group but include loss of privileges, loss of freedom, or loss of possessions. Some of the constraints on the smaller groups arise from what is constrained in these societies on a larger scale. Cities, states, and nations impose their constraints upon the smaller groups such as who may gather with whom, where they may gather, and how they may gather. Gatherings which opposed or undermined the order and peace of the larger gatherings will be dissuaded or outright prohibited.

This manner of considering gatherings requires viewing them not just as a physical or static collection of people, but as a dynamic relationally interactive gathering functioning as a unit towards a purpose. The need for the previously described constraints arises from aspects beyond the need for simple physical proximity. People are more than a bunch of apples or oranges arranged in one box but interact in complex and dynamic ways with our thoughts, emotions, and desires influencing us continuously. This dynamic and perpetual interplay make any given future moment into a multitude of possibilities which grow in number as the number of participants in the groups increases. Even understanding the dynamics of small groups can challenge comprehension both at the level of data volume and depth of perception. Recording the circumstances of inter-participant interactions is hard enough. Understanding the multi-layered out-workings of these interactions over time is practically impossible. Understanding larger groups requires settling for less and less granularity in data comprehension. Even the use of supercomputers cannot fully plumb the depth and breadth in predicting results.

Once this complexity is appreciated, we must then recognize that religions and philosophies compete for the position of operational worldview in directing the gathered members and their respective gatherings. Each paradigm offers potential paradigms and explanations through which to understand reality. With these paradigms come moralities and constraints with their values and beliefs. Some attempt to raise out of the individual or the groups some innate and autonomous drive for group purpose. These fall short in that they usually hold little force for the participants to comply with their autonomous authority or end up with a multitude of individuals with conflicting paradigms. Others seek to impose an external constraint from a higher power of some sort. Such higher purposes can motivate and constrain far better than the post-modern individualism and autonomy previously addressed.

However, if the worldviews are just derived and contrived constructs rather than reflections of true reality, then such man-constructed worldviews will stumble at a variety of points in producing fruits for gathered. Many will see through their artificiality and only submit superficially. Without a mooring in reality, the constructs will continue to morph and not provide a lasting foundation on which to rest, i.e. serve only as shifting sands. Without a shared confidence in their reality, the gathered will not be driven towards as much fruitful production. Only with a worldview based in reality, one based in the Christian view of man as a created being under God’s authority, living out that being through doing in a dynamic perpetual society of life can real gathering produce real fruit for a real purpose. Proper governing of the gathered can only develop within such a shared Christian worldview.

With God and His directions for gathering, the actual gathering can lead to fruit which feeds the gathered. God’s guidance serves as the best constraints for the small and the large gatherings. In small gatherings, the purposes must be chosen which seek out what God’s Word sets up as right purposes. With such right purposes, not only are the individuals directed towards a Godly target, but both the individual in themselves and in relation to others can know their rights and responsibilities. With such insight, a right ordering of the dynamics of ongoing life leads to not only potential for fulfilling the purpose of the gathering, but also the higher purpose of relating rightly to God and our neighbors. In larger gatherings of daily life, the gathered should still look to the principles and orderings provided by their Creator. Choosing to violate these principles of God as Sovereign will frustrate, hinder and disable the proper productivity of the cities, states and nations.

In the end, we see a need for right purposes combined with right ordering of the gathered. If the gathered hopes for pleasurable fruit from their ongoing dynamic efforts, the paradigm for reality must come from outside their gathering, from something or someone larger than the largest group. It cannot just come from individuals within the group like a social contract. The higher purpose and the right ordering must come from a higher source than the gathering itself. Therefore, we as Christians must look for how to govern truly towards the Words of the One who eternally govern all things. If we are to govern ourselves and our gatherings, we must gather according to the constraints of our Sovereign Creator. The clay must submit to the hands of the Potter rather than attempt to fashion itself.

Next in the Series: True Governing in Specific Settings

True Gathering: Gathering Well in Specific Settings – Part 2 of 2

February 7, 2024 Eric Potter Gather Foundations

(continuing from part 1 where we considered the Biblical case for unity in diversity)

Having established the critical foundation of pursuing unity in diversity according to Biblical principles, we develop the practice of gathering by looking at several general settings where these principles should be applied. Head knowledge of general principles does not guarantee Godly fruit any more than peering into a mirror to see truth about oneself, yet walking away without changing one’s behavior (James 1:23-24). Instead, wisdom arises from repeated correct application of the principles to real life with respect to the specific situations encountered. The out-workings of gathering in unity and diversity with a common purpose as described in the prior essay will obviously look different in different settings. Comparing how different groups carry out such gatherings should help to better understand the common principles they share. We will start by considering the gathering of otherwise familialy unrelated individuals around common interests or goals. The reasons for these gatherings will be surveyed before looking at the principles which encourage unity in diversity among these groups. The special type of gathering of the Christian church will be considered before expanding out into somewhat more figurative gathering of communities, states, and nations. After these general examples of gatherings which we can in some measure choose, we return to the most basic of gatherings which we don’t fully choose, that of family. At the conclusion, we can hope to possess greater wisdom in how to practice gathering for good purposes.

Besides the natural bonds of family ties, interests or shared goals of an endless variety may bring people together with their commonalities overcoming other differences of geography, race, religions, and more. The strength of what is shared overcomes what is not shared, creating unity out of the diversity. With the wide ranges of purposes which may bring diverse people together, varying approximations towards a Godly practice of gathering are reached. Before considering the gathered church as a special case, we look at other common purpose driven gatherings. These demonstrate varying degrees of goodness in their gathering depending primarily on the purposes. Along the spectrum, gatherings around common purposes may focus on a simple interest like a book club or a common service goal like serving the homeless or even a common policy stance in the broader community like pro-life or a common activity like some sport. Each form of organized and ongoing gathering into clubs, teams, organizations, serves some shared purpose. In each group. They share a set of goals that may be good or bad or somewhere in between. Given the extremely wide variety of how these groups gather, only generalizations can be made here.

With these generalizations regarding purpose in mind, truly good gatherings will also aim to carry out these goals without intentionally harming individuals within the group for the sake of the broader group. Unity in diversity requires this practice of mutual benefit. While the gathering does not have to offer equal benefits for all involved, all who strive for the shared purpose should agree that they share some degree of benefit in terms of the purpose and practice of the gathering. Therefore, the gathering for a shared purpose should attend not only to striving for a good purpose, but also carrying out in ways which minimize detriment to the individuals within the group. We do not want to be a part of a gathering which has a good purpose yet generally harms its members, thus favoring diversity over unity. Neither is God pleased with such a practice of gathering.

We first look at how practices aimed at unity in diversity and mutual benefit work out in a church family. Similar dynamics play out as within a physical family described at the end, but the church family ties are more malleable and more dissolvable similar to the gatherings of unrelated individuals to be described next. People leave churches for good and for bad reasons with less impact on permanent ties. They may still connect with individuals from the church, but not the church as a whole. At times a departure may produce a full break with the individuals of the church. Today’s mobility for work means many departures from the church, which typically hinder long term ties from forming. Yet, short of geographical changes, there is an intention of God for the gathering of a church body to maintain integrity over time. The members are known as brothers and sisters in Christ (Matthew 12:48-50). The Bible provides instructions on how one is to behave towards the other (I Corinthians 11, love your neighbor, forgive trespasses, the Ten Commandments, and more). Over time, bonds should form which the participants should not want to break, and affection builds which may surpass familial affections. If one’s literal family is not Christian, there will be more eternal or spiritual commonality with the Christian brother or sister than with the family member. Unity of common faith will grow out of the diversity.

Moving to a wider scope of those gathered into a formal or informal local community, such gatherings will look and operate quite different than within a church body. In the community setting, much more diversity will exist in terms of worldviews and lifestyles. In such communities, one will find it easier to leave the gathering by simply moving and have less direct interaction with others as there are more participants who do not regularly, if ever, meet together. One’s actual physical interaction is limited to a few within the community. Still there are inherent Biblical expectations and accountabilities as for the church gatherings. Love your neighbor still applies. Love your enemy still applies. Forgiveness of the repentant still applies. The Ten Commandments still apply. In addition to these basic relational expectations, some further mutual agreements arise from the community’s gathering. Informally, cultural expectations of etiquette and communication develop. Formally, communities agree upon local laws for their bordered area of residence. While the unity of a community may be less intense and deep than a church family, unity must prevail over diversity if the community is to endure and to prosper.

In these settings, the purposes of the wider community will be broader than within a family or church and thus may be in less agreement with the values of individuals within that community. Therefore, more potential for conflict arises as individual values are pitted against group values or individual values are pitted against one another. To deal with these conflicts, the community will have more formal means of reconciling differences through courts and the like, yet the basics of conflict resolution from less formal groups will still apply. In all of this, there will still exist a goal of a limited unity in a broader diversity working in some measure of cooperation together. For this to work the gathered must follow the designer’s design.

As we consider even larger groups such as states or nations, much more diversity and inevitable lack of physical interaction arise in which some dependence on cultural norms continue but more formal laws and regulations are needed. Such formal laws are needed even more where cultural norms are shared less strongly or where greater diversity leads to greater conflict. Some sufficient force must maintain unity in spite of the greater diversity. Under these circumstances, the state or nation must share a purpose and share at least some values. A nation of all differences will likely not stand solely on sheer commonality of geography (Matthew 12:25). Some enduring common cultural values must be shared. For perpetuation of such a gathered state, an enculturation is required in which sufficient values are shared by the majority such that the unity of the gathered does not depend solely on the formal laws of the ruling government. While the formal laws of a nation may make temporarily or permanently leaving its boundaries more difficult, formal laws will only bind outward compliance of behavior but not the inward consent of one’s conscience. A unity working within diversity is still needed such that the diversity does not drive apart the unity of the gathered even at this scope of gathering.

Returning now to a smaller setting of family gathering, it will look different than with non-family gatherings. We must acknowledge a connection with family that cannot fully be broken away from, a unity we are born into only choosing such unity in the case of marriage. We see explicit accountabilities commanded within family relationships as we read the Bible including children to parents (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2-3), parents to children (I Timothy 5:8, Deuteronomy 11:19), and between relatives (I Timothy 5:8). While these responsibilities to family do not overtake the calling of submission to our Creator, there exists a connection between family members gathered in which time has tied life and memories tightly together. Interactions between family members have deep echoes as one cannot influence one family member without indirectly impacting on others in the family. The participants in a family gathering must recognize their accountability to God’s design for family interactions as they have duties which they cannot simply ignore, neglect or deny. These bonds of family should be strengthened intentionally rather than ignored or misused.

In each of these settings, there are not only good purposes, but also good or bad practices of gathering. Unity must overcome the diversity of a gathering’s individuals through applying the simple principles found in the Bible. As mentioned, loving one’s neighbor, following the 10 commandments prohibitions, and pursuing unity are needed. Other essays over time will press further into these areas, sometime focusing on one setting or another and different aspects of specific gatherings. Some essays will challenge current ways of gathering and some will try to point towards higher ideals of gathering. All are intended to point towards God’s intent and our accountability to Him. Therefore, allis meant to bring us closer to what is not only a “should” but a goal of what is truly best for us as individuals and as groups. We are currently headed in the wrong direction in today’s society and need some redirection. We need to stop and look at the map given to us and reorient ourselves so we can move in a far better direction.

Next in the series, True Governing of the Gathered

True Gathering: The Biblical Case – Part 1 of 2

February 5, 2024 Eric Potter Gather Foundations

We walk through life, daily choosing with whom to gather based primarily on the purpose of the gathering. Beyond the need to choose a good purpose, the method or practice of how we gather deserves our attention as well. While gathering to coordinate evil deserves to be judged as inherently wrong regardless of how well organized it may be, on the other hand a gathering with a good purpose deserves praise only when successful in the method or practice of carrying out the gathering. Although we might hope that gathering to harm would be carried out poorly, we would clearly hope that gathering for a good purpose is implemented as well as possible. However, examples of good gathering done poorly abound. Gathering that is not considerate of another’s needs may be hurtful. Gathering that is more focused on one individual within the gathering may be hurtful. Gathering of immature individuals acting immaturely can produce significant strife. In order to practice good gathering, we should strive for a Biblically based unity in diversity that is grounded in Biblical principles of how to treat one another within that practice of gathering.

In part one of this two part essay we consider the goal of living out unity in diversity and how that practice undergirds gathering for a good purpose. After establishing this practice as foundational to gathering according to God’s design, in part two we work through what this looks like in some of the most common gatherings in which we will participate. This includes family, community, church, and other gatherings. We therefore start with the broadest principles and work down into how they are applied in various settings.

Society needs a new vision for how to practice gathering as the resistance against productive gathering has grown stronger in relation to the forces of attraction holding groups together. Today, groups from the size of 2 or 3 to thousands come together regularly for some common purpose. Even a nation of millions stands as a gathering of sorts for a common purpose of upholding shared values though they will not ever all gather physically in one location. Given mankind’s fallen nature, these gatherings can be done well or can be done poorly. Growing out of that fallen nature, the degradation of good interpersonal communication, as it contributes to the splintering of society into smaller and smaller groups, means that our society and its groups are less likely to produce good without the fruit of good gathering. Beyond the simple fallen nature, the ongoing polarization of conflicting views further drives people into smaller and smaller groups emphasizing disunity. In such a milieu, groups gather and soon dissolve or splinter as some conflict drives some away regularly. The diversity of opinion, preference, and personality overcomes the drive for unity in purpose unless a greater force counters the prevailing cultural momentum. God’s instructions for pursuing unity in diversity can provide such a counter force.

I thus begin a proposal for an ideal gathering, a gathering aimed at a good purpose carried out by practicing unity in diversity according to God’s instructions for treating one another. Such a pattern of unity in diversity does not require a perfectly homogenous coalition where no conflict and no differences exist. There are no expectations of a utopia where all place the other’s well-being above their own 100% of the time nor where all agree 100%. Neither would the majority want to force compliance to a given group’s external standard, but instead hope to permit a voluntary gathering for a good purpose to form, bringing together the beauty of diversity within a mutually edifying unity. Any potentially disruptive disagreements would be worked out by a conscious commitment of both sides to overcome such conflict. If such an ideal is to be met, the actualization of this ideal must be carried out in light of the design given to society by our Designer which depends on unity in diversity.

BIBLICAL CASE
Such a proposal for unity in diversity does not arise solely from human reasoning nor naturally from the evolution of society, but from a Biblical case that our Creator determined that we should live in such a manner. Living in accordance with God’s design comes when Christians live as one body made of diverse members within the bounds of God’s truth. We know this to be the case by examining God’s Word to see that he has given us multiple instructions in both the Old and New Testaments. These instructions can be divided into different groups: first, clear commands in how we are to behave towards one another; second, descriptions of the rewards of living in unity; third, commands against different forms of disunity; and fourth, the limits of seeking unity with others. The ultimate goal for unity in diversity can be seen in the final eschatological vision of “every tribe, nation, and tongue” united before God’s throne which illustrates the type of kingdom that God is building here and now (Isa 49:6; Phil 2; Rev 5:9; 7:9, 14:6).

First, God provides clear commands which point us towards a responsibility to live in unity despite the diversity we find in society. We can read that God ends distinctions even Jews and Gentiles in Galatians 3:23 and Colossians 3:11. The difference between being God’s people, the Jews, and not God’s people, the Gentiles prior to Christ, was abolished in that both groups were united in Christ without further distinctions as one people belonging to God. The fourth chapter of Ephesians again repeats the theme of unity in the Spirit as Christians live under “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (ESV v.5). In verse 16, our maturing into Christ likeness includes the image of living as part of a whole body made of different parts functioning seamlessly together. The image of one body made of many members is combined with idea of “Jews and Greeks, slaves or free” being unified in one Spirit as we read I Corinthians 12:12-13.

Both the Old and the New Testaments further drive home how unity will look for a body made of different people, some stronger and some weaker. The Old Testament instructed the Hebrew nation how to treat minorities among them, those who would not have had power to protect themselves (Exodus 12:48-49, Exodus 23:1-9, Leviticus 19:33-34, and Leviticus 24:22). In these verses, there was to be one law for Hebrew citizen and sojourners among them and justice was to be maintained regardless of status. Such a command to bear with the weaker broth is repeated in Romans 14 and 15 in the New Testament. Together these commands to pursue unity would be enough to hold us accountable to seek unity in diversity but God’s Word gives us more.

Second, we are also given promises of the rewards to those who seek unity in diversity. Psalm 133 provides a vivid picture of the bounty of oil being poured over our head in the blessings of God as occurred when oil anointed Aaron as high priest. The immensity of the blessing was described as dew settling on Mount Zion in that God would bestow His blessing, life everlasting. In Romans 12:3-9, we read of the variety of gifts divided between different individuals within the church body. Clearly, when we join those gifts together by the possessors living in unity, we receive greater blessings than we live ununified and absent one or more of those gifts in the church body. This image of God bestowing a multiple of spiritual gifts upon His church is repeated in Ephesians 4:7-12 and the benefits of such unity in diversity are emphasized in verses 13-16. On one hand, by utilizing the given diversity of gifts in one body, we will no longer be tossed too and fro by doctrinal winds or human cunning. On the other hand, this unity enables the body of believers to grow and build itself up. Clearly, the rewards described for unity in the body of Christ should encourage us to seek such unity in diversity yet God’s Words provides even further reasons.

Third, God commands us against disunity in a number of scriptures. James 2:1-3 clearly instructs Christians to avoid showing partiality based on one’s status in society. Treating the wealthy visitor different from the poor visitor clearly violates God’s will. In I Corinthians 6:1-11, God, through Paul, warns against Christians bringing lawsuits against other Christians. Not only does this cast a bad image upon the Church, but it shows that they are not obeying commands to reconcile rather than remain in disunity. Divisions within the church are also to be avoided as we read in I Corinthians 1:10-17. There Paul urges that those who are choosing different church leaders to follow are bringing disunity into the church which should not be there.

Fourth, with such commands to pursue unity and avoid disunity, God also sets limits to unity. In Luke 12:49-53, Jesus Himself clearly states that he will be division to the Earth. We know that this is based on how different people respond to Him in faith or not. I John 2:19 tells us that some left the fellowship of the Apostles due to the very fact that they were not really unified in the first place. Even among the Apostles, Paul had to confront Peter for the error of erroneously separating from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). To preserve the unity of the early church Paul had to separate himself clearly from Peter’s error. Similarly, the Corinthians were instructed to separate from the Christian brother who was acting in willful sexual sin (I Corinthians 5:15). While the ultimate goal was to restore unity in truth, it requires a disunity for a time. For this reason in 2 Corinthians 16:14-18, the Corinthians and thus us as well are told to not be equally yoked to unbelievers. The disunity highlighted by Christ’s words in Luke 12:49-53 meant that we cannot be bound to unbelievers as we can be with believers.

With these five points regarding God’s instructions for His children’s unity in mind, we return to the ultimate goal: the final eschatological vision of “every tribe, nation, and tongue” united before God’s throne being worked out in the here and now. We pursue this ultimate goal by seeking unity in diversity within the limits He has set.

Within this unity in diversity, we see wholeness despite heterogeneity in the practice of gathering. Consider the parts of a car which are vastly different one from another, yet unified in the functioning form of a car or consider the parts of our bodies in their variety, yet unified in the functioning form of a being made in the image of God. In these cases, the designed diversity actually contributes to the excellence of the unity. In either case, the individual parts could not function properly without the diversity unified into the whole. In gathering properly, we must bring together diversity for the sake of a greater whole than what a collection of homogenous individuals might do.

If we are to gather to do something greater than we can do alone or than what we can do with others exactly like us we must approach the practice of unity in diversity with awareness and intent aiming at Godly principles. We must be aware that we will at times disagree on the lesser issues even if we agree on the higher purpose. We must be okay with this reality. We must be aware that sometimes that other person is right and we are wrong but this does not change our worth or our role in the unity of the gathering. We must remember that even if we are the one in the right, how we work to unify requires a respect for the other as a person for they are made in God’s image (James 3:9-10). We are beholden to treat them according to the love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31 and others) as we both stand under a Creator to whom we are accountable (Romans 14:12). We must remember that the primary purpose is not our own success in a disagreement, but instead we should strive towards the higher purpose for which we have gathered.

Before considering several setting of life in which this unity in diversity must be applied, we can see that not only does striving for unity in diversity make logical sense, but cannot be denied as the Biblical standard commanded by God. As a good, loving, and wise Designer he designed the gathering of man to function most successfully when it functions according to the commandments He gave for society. The principle of unity in diversity enables the diversity of individuals to join efforts and resources for the fruit of greater good than the individual can accomplish alone. We will see how this should be applied in various settings in the next essay.

Next in the series, Part 2 of True Gathering: Gathering Well in Specific Settings

Open Letter to Tennessee State Legislators

February 3, 2024 Eric Potter Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

To our Legislative Representatives,

As Tennessee homeschooling parents, we are writing to inform you of both our stance against school choice and offer bullet points explaining why we oppose Governor Lee’s Education Freedom proposal. We know that you have many bills to consider and are pressed to delve into each one as deeply as you might want. We have written longer essays on this issue if you want references and more details.

Our Governor has proposed (though the final bill is pending at this time) a plan to extend the current limited school choice program to 20,000 students across the state and then to extend further in future years. We oppose the legislation for the following reasons:

This legislation will draw public and private education together through a single funding source. Sharing a single funding source will bring them under the same government control thereby limiting education freedom rather than extending it.
We have reviewed the available literature from multiple scholarly sources and found that the studies evaluating other state programs are not impressive. There appears to be little return on investment for the large sums of money being poured into this idea.
In other states, the public funding has created religious liberty issues for the religious schools receiving the money. This resulted in a 2-year court battle for a Maryland school. The religious liberties of parents may be hindered as well depending on regulations attached.
In other states, school choice bills have been passed only to be later modified by future legislation OR state education departments adding regulations which were not there in the original bill. This is a reminder of “pass the bill so we can see what is in it” as well as the ways bureaucracy can “mold” the bill to fit their own ideology.
Homeschoolers are generally very leery of government money directly to them or to their category IV umbrella schools that could bring regulatory strings. Most want nothing to do with this government money nor do they want to be caught up in secondary regulations springing from it.
This is ultimately an entitlement program which has the potential to grow into a monstrous expense for taxpayers as seen in other states we researched. We should say no now rather than wait until projections of 100s of millions become a burdensome reality on taxpayers.

Parents have been assigned by God the primary role in directing the upbringing and education of their children. We do not want the government to extend its control any further into parental freedoms to educate our children. The proposed but unfiled legislation by Governor Lee will ultimately lead to State Choice of children’s education rather than Parent Choice.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eric and Jennifer Potter

Postmodernist Seeks “What Works” – Veith Jr.

Elaborating on the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper

A Brief Overview of the School Choice Movement in America

Show Me the Bill

Superficial Non-Conformity

True Governing of the Gathered: General Principles

True Gathering: Gathering Well in Specific Settings – Part 2 of 2

True Gathering: The Biblical Case – Part 1 of 2

Open Letter to Tennessee State Legislators

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta