Legislation Alerts

Deeper Dive into Tennessee School Choice Legislation Part 2

April 18, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

Preface and Call To Action: As we near the end of the 2024 legislative session in Tennessee’s General Assembly, tracking legislation can resemble a science fiction movie. The rules that normally regulate how and when proposed legislation can be brought up for a vote in committee or on the full house floors can appear to warp and bend to the point that a bill like HB1183 and SB503 could suddenly pop up in another bill’s amendment. While we are watching the Finance Committees of the House and Senate for the original bills, we are hearing rumors that the language of these bills could be added to other caption bills passing through the process and end up on the floor for a vote. Without getting into the rules-bending possible scenarios of a time warp movie, we are just asking you to email or call your one legislator today and be firm that WE THE PEOPLE do not want the bill to get any votes except a NO regardless of where the sponsors amend it.

Find your LEGISLATOR HERE to call and email.

Main Article:

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the second in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point two reads:

· 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.

For those of us disagreeing with modern society’s misinterpretation of the separation of church and state, we hold that the church must influence the state rather than the state dictating beliefs and conduct to the church. With the addition of this School Choice program, the state will instead be able to unduly influence what church related schools teach through funding and regulations. The religious practices of these religious institutions may be unduly regulated and limited by such state interference in their religious liberties. Both now or in the future, this door for limitations on the religious freedom of parents, teachers, and schools should be kept as closed as possible. The current amount of control exerted by the state government is already enough of a hindrance to religious freedom.

With a Republican supermajority controlling the legislature the current proposal for School Choice may seem innocuous at the present in regard to religious freedom. However, the same opportunity for influence could be rather disagreeable under different political circumstances. A general assembly or governor less friendly to religious freedom could one day walk through this School Choice funded open door and impose more restrictions on parents and on schools in the private and homeschool world. Also, given the worldview espoused by many current Republican legislators who ultimately believe the state has at least an equal fundamental right to direct children’s education, even now such an open door to state influence over church related schools is at the very least concerning.

You may ask for examples of how similar legislation has led to such limits on religious freedoms in other states. Examples in the references describes stories of religious schools which accepted school vouchers who have already faced lawsuits for Biblical positions on marriage. If this were applied in Tennessee, many church related schools would not likely be able to participate based on conscience. Then, due to the interconnectedness of Tennessee homeschool law, 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)[1]. Basically, the state directly or indirectly controls all education in the state whether public, private, or homeschool through the Department of Education and its compulsory attendance laws (see separate blog article for further explanation [2]).

While current legislators will claim that no such regulation of homeschoolers or private schools will be included in Tennessee, we have seen that type of homeschool controlling legislation in other states added in subsequent legislative sessions or through those state’s departments of education. Tennessee legislators have publicly and repeatedly stated that they cannot promise that such future regulations will not be added later. They know that future sessions of the General Assembly could add completely different rules and regulations on homeschoolers and private school children. Already in our current General Assembly in 2024, some legislators have proposed bills to add regulations to the currently active pilot school choice program. —– HB2409 and SB2268 — HB2450 / SB2273 (Tennessee General Assembly[3]). 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[4]”.

We must stand now and not allow any present or future restrictions on our religious freedoms as expressed in the education of our own children. As a separate article on the site describes, parental freedoms and religious freedoms are intertwined with the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children being inherently religious in nature both in its explicit command from God and logically foundational in the life and perpetuation of a family. School Choice legislation which opens a door for undue influence of the government in the jurisdiction of education and parental freedoms deserves our vigilant resistance.

References

[1] 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

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

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

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

Deeper Dive into Tennessee School Choice Legislation Part 1

April 17, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

Preface: Today, at the state Capitol, both the House and the Senate “plan” to hear and/or vote on the School Choice bills, currently known as HB1183 and SB503. SB503 has been delayed in its committees Monday and Tuesday of this week. HB1183 was delayed yesterday to be on today’s committee agenda. While there initially seemed to be nothing that could stop this freedom threatening overreach bill, we are seeing the effects of our pressure on legislators. The results of thousands of emails, who knows how many calls, multiple in-person visits, and our faces in the committee meetings opposing the bill are all taking their toll on their legislators resolve to pass this bill. Take a moment today to contact legislators on the Finance, Ways, and Means Committees for both houses today to say a loud “NO to HB1183 and SB503”. Thank you for standing with the parents of Tennessee in protecting their children.

Scroll to bottom of article prior to references for both committee’s contact lists.

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the first in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point one reads:

· 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. That lack of overlap has allowed the non-public systems, private and homeschool, to remain freer in their education of children. Government funding with regulations will infuse money into the private and the homeschool sectors in such a way as to bring both of these previously freer areas under greater state control. The private education institutions will be most directly and extensively impacted, but homeschools will also experience influences from the government. Over time, the three educational systems will come to resemble each other more and more, ultimately limiting parents to the government’s overarching control of what is allowed to count as education in Tennessee.

State government influence over private and homeschools already exists, but that influence will advance towards more and more overreach through various mechanisms already existent as well as new pathways created by this school choice legislation. The state, through legislation and through rules promulgated by the Department of Education now dictates what officially counts for a elementary and secondary education through official standards. While they directly administer public schooling through the local school districts, they indirectly influence private schools through accreditation agencies which they oversee through a state required approval process. The private schools then must be accredited through one of these agencies in order to operate in Tennessee.

For the homeschoolers, the state influences us through three different pathways. For the so-called independent homeschoolers, they must register under the local school district and report to that public school entity each year along with participate in testing mandated by the state. For those who place themselves under the oversight of a Church-Related School (CRS), they educate their children one step away from the state, but ultimately those CRS’s must be approved by an agency that must receive approval from the state. For those who enroll in a virtual school, they too ultimately come under a virtual school which must receive agency approval, again approved by the state. In all three cases, the state still stands over all of these homeschool options determining what is accepted as education in Tennessee.

Under the current laws and hierarchy, private and homeschools have enjoyed a decent measure of freedom although we can reasonably argue that more freedom would be better. With School Choice legislation as proposed, new regulatory factors arise which alter this current functional equilibrium. Such factors are mostly inherent in the foundational principles of the School Choice movement. For example, the government funding directed at private and homeschools 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. This cannot be avoided without creating problems as some regulations must always follow the spending of government money.

In another example, the schools accepting the money will be bound by the regulations promulgated by the Legislature or the Department of Education. Schools will be fined or excluded from participation if they are found to fall short of the dictated requirements. In order to comply, schools may adapt policies, alter curriculum, or be forced to hire additional staff to monitor compliance. These changes and more will filter down to affect not only the school choice scholarship students at that school, but most likely the other students as well.

Furthermore, the parent’s choice of school will also be limited by private school’s freedom to not participate in the program. This freedom for a private school to not participate is part of the initial legislation. However, the potential then arises for the state to one day legislate that all private schools must participate in the program if they determine that not enough private school seats are available to the school choice scholarship recipients. After that Rubicon of forced school participation is crossed, the potential for legislatively imposed quotas on the same schools may follow. The door is therefore left open for ongoing battles for parents and private schools defending their freedoms in every Department of Education rule-making meeting and each legislative session.

With all of these forces active, the history of school choice programs in other states demonstrates how state funding can alter educational options in other states. See References (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). A further explanation of this situation can be found at “Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole (8)”. This can happen in Tennessee just like it has altered non-public options in other states. Those alterations ultimately limit the educational choices for parents over time to just those approved by the state. The state cannot fund private and homeschool choice without undue influence which limits rather than expands parent’s choice over time, ultimately moving towards one choice of education, the government’s choice packaged in one of three forms: public, government-funded private, and government-funded homeschool.

Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List

House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List

References:

1) 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

2) 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

3) 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/

4) Editor. (2023a, March 13). 2/21/2023 Legislative Update. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2-21-2023-legislative-update/

5) Editor. (2023b, April 6). 2023 Legislative Session: Takeaways. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2023-legislative-session-takeaways/

6) 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

7) 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

8) https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

Legislative Alert – Vaccine Bill

April 15, 2024 Eric Potter Legislation Alerts Vaccine

Copied from Stand For Health Freedom’s Legislative Alert

Go to their page to take action on this bill.

A bill is moving that we thought was dead . . .URGENT but EASY ACTION needed to preserve the sanctity of informed consent to vaccination for parents.
HB2902 passed in the House Health Committee because the committee members were given dangerously inaccurate information about vaccination law and informed consent. Please read our FACT CHECK on the legislator’s presentation. It’s important to know that the original language of this bill did not even include the term “informed consent”, only “consent”. It was amended to add “informed” after a sub-committee member said he’d only agree to vote for it if “informed” was included. But the addition of “informed” did not make the bill acceptable.
Last year, you all helped us pass the Mature Minor Clarification Act (MMCA) that made it very clear parental consent for vaccination is required for all children until they turn 18.
HB2902 undermines MMCA by:
- allowing doctors and other providers to abandon medical due diligence and violate the federal 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury act by obtaining consent to vaccination ONCE from a parent for “all future vaccinations”, bypassing all the protections of valid and ethical informed consent that should happen just prior to every dose.
- removing the one protection a parent has just prior to a vaccination. Manufacturers of pediatric vaccines and those who provide them are shielded from liability when the shots cause injury or death. The properly provided opportunity to give either informed consent or informed refusal is all that stands between a child and the drug industry.
Even the CDC does not condone advance consent to vaccination!
- MMCA does NOT prevent a parent from allowing another person to bring their child to a vaccination appointment, but if such a policy is arranged at a doctor’s office, the doctor is still obligated to provide a VIS to the parent, obtain proof of informed consent, prior to each and every dose of a vaccine, and document the information in the child’s medical record. This can be done in person or electronically.
- HB2902 also includes a definition of PARENT that would make nonparents with temporary authority over a child able to give consent to vaccination. Vaccination is a preventative medical intervention, not emergency medicine, and all vaccines come with the risk of injury or death. The vaccination decision can wait until a child’s parent or legal guardian is available.
- HB2902 has a “grandfather” clause for the Department of Children’s Services (DCS), allowing them to vaccinate children who were in their custody before MMCA passed — without getting informed consent from the children’s legal parents who retained medical decision making authority, and without getting a court order. The bill’s definition of parent may give DCS even more ability to circumvent legal parents.
- The state of TN should not make laws to undermine informed consent and that violate the requirements of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
- Contact your representative now and ask them to vote no on this bill.

Plot Twists in HB1183 for April 10th

April 11, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

At times, we can provide confident details. At other times, we can pass on the rumors. Today, we can provide a little of both. Initially we expected a 4/10/24 vote on the HB1183 School Choice bill in the House Finance, Ways, and Means committee moving the bill one step closer to the full House floor. Instead, we get an encouraging turn of events in that they bumped the bill 1 week to 4/16/24. This was a little surprising as the word on the street was that since the Governor wanted this bill, it was destined to pass. This is where the confident details end.

From there, there are rumors that they realized they do not have enough votes to get this passed so they delayed it. Some rumors hint that they may have to break up the costlier HB1183 version into smaller bites in order to garner enough support. We knew that the Senate’s initially cheaper SB503 version would sooner or later have to reconciled with its costlier house twin, but this latest development portends more hope for stopping the whole thing.

I don’t have any inside informant to confirm this, but it is common practice to delay a bill in order to avoid a “nay” vote. The supporters then work on the “nay’s” another week or two to talk them out of the “nay”. Therefore, the scenario above for HB1183 is very possible.

Regardless, we must keep up the pressure, emailing, calling, and showing up for the next House Finance, Ways, and Means committee 4/16/24 at 2pm. The bill is number 7 on the agenda that day and in person support with small “Say no to HB1183” signs will balance out the Americans For Prosperity Green jackets which keep showing up in support of the bill.

Forgive me that I have not had time to reformat the committee members into a clean page, but this link allows you to see all members and email them one by one or call their offices.

The “Stringless” SB503: What About Special Education Services?

April 3, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts Family, School, Tennessee Legislation

This Murky Area MIGHT Affect Everyone

According to the Senate version: SB503, Scholarship Amount- Allowable uses pg. 3-4

To receive the Scholarship or ESA the parent of the student applies to the Department of Education (DOE). It must be ensured that the student will satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirement by providing documentation of enrollment in a private school (I, II, III, IV, or V nonpublic category) or a public in a local education agency (LEA) outside the students normal assigned district (the Senate bill provides for movement between LEA’s as space allows).

In this section, of greatest interest to Private school students and Category IV Umbrella homeschool students is the following on pg. 4 (4) dealing with special education services. An ESA eligible student “by participating in the program through enrollment in a private school does not retain the right to receive special education and related services through an individualized education program” BUT “the students may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1414) to receive equitable services through an individualized service plan.” (Pg 4)

In the House Education Committee meeting there was significant discussion about the use of IDEA federal funds in private schools. The Commissioner of Education, the Deputy Commissioner, and House legal staff and even legal staff from the Department of Education were not able to answer definitively if the federal funds being used by one ESA student in a private school or homeschool would bring the entire school or the homeschool under federal regulations. See below for further information on this complicated issue. This is apparently an open question even though the legislation passed both the chambers with this language in place.

While a soon to be attached visual will likely be required to understand the following flow of funding for service to children with disabilities in either public, private, or homeschools, the following description walks us through the present practice in schools and the proposed flow under the new EFSA program. Currently, children with a disability qualify for funding to cover services such as speech therapy, tutoring, occupational therapy, and other therapies through the implementation of an IEP (Individualized Education Program) funded by the state and enacted by the public school in the LEA. Under both current law and the proposal in SB503 under consideration, if a public-school student with an IEP leaves the public school to attend either a private school or a homeschool, they lose access to that IEP and its services/funding. In the private school or the homeschool, the child with a disability can instead access funding for similar services through a federal program called IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) that is then titled an ISP (Individualized Service Plan). These facts are clear and seem to be corroborated by testimony by the legal services representative of the Department of Education during the recent House Education Committee discussion of HB 1183 on March 6^th, 2023.

From this point, the implications of this funding are unclear both in the language of HB1183 and SB503 (sister bills). Based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Grove City v Bell (1984) (https://time.com/6835607/grove-city-supreme-court-conservative-education/) an institution of higher education which accepts federal grant money for student tuition must agree to certain Title IX non-discriminatory regulations on that money by signing a form. If that same legal ruling is applied to a child with a disability who receives service funding through the IDEA federal funding, what regulations will be required of the student, their parent, or their private school as a student in a private school or umbrella school? It is possible the entire school comes under federal regulations but the legislators in attendance at the committee meeting did not receive a clear answer from their own legal counsel nor from the legal services representative for the Department of Education.

Prior to passing the legislation as written in SB503/HB1183 which follows the same legal logic of severing IEP service funding when a student leaves a public school for a private or homeschool, parents and private schools need to understand how they may be impacted by federal regulations should a student with IDEA funding attend their school or become a part of their homeschool. They need clear answers to the following questions.

For a student with a disability who receives EFSA funds and then receives services funded by IDEA through a public school or its LEA, what strings of regulation will they be expected to comply with?
For the same student, what strings of regulation will be applied to the private school or umbrella school in which they are enrolled?
For the school noted in #2, will other students be impacted by such regulations?
Will the private school ever be the provider of such services and thus regulated by the federal government through IDEA?
Will the money for IDEA ever be distributed directly to the parent and what are the regulatory regulations for the parents and/or their umbrella school in such a situation?

SB503 Call to Action: Pop the Bubble Before It Pops Us

March 27, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts Family, School, Tennessee Legislation

Have you ever watched the bubble gum blowing contests where the giant bubble pops and covers the blower’s face and head? In contrast, smaller bubbles just blow up in front of them with less of a mess.

The School Choice bill SB503 resembles just such a comparison as one reads the fiscal note for it. Senator Lundberg’s accepted amendment served well to lower the initial cost by involving the cost shifting of TISA funds between public schools and from public school funding to the scholarship fund. The first-year gum bubble price tag looks more manageable than the House HB 1183 version which tries to blow the double bubble of school choice and adding over 200 million to public school efforts.

If this SB503 stopped at such a smaller bubble only costing less than 100 million dollars, the bubble’s impact would be slightly easier to swallow, but following years promise a much bigger bubble. While the House’s HB1183 sister bill version offers an explicit growth rate of no more than 20% per year pending appropriations, the SB503 version could grow to over 500 million in 2 years. A calculation of the house bill’s growth rate would take 9-10 years to reach this size even though it starts at 400 million. A 500-million-dollar gum bubble in 2 years could truly explode in the face of taxpayers.

While one can appreciate the Governor’s stated intentions of providing all the children of Tennessee parents (emphasized, NOT Tennessee’s children, as the children belong first to the parents rather than the state) with the best education, the price tag for this program is a bubble blowing contest winner and loser. The price tag bubble will make it look like we are pouring money into education, but its rapid expansion threatens to burst in our state budget’s face.

Take a few minutes today to contact legislators on the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee today before they meet to discuss this bill on Tuesday April 2nd. Put a few of the following bullet points into your own words so they know we are all expecting them to protect our state from a budgetary explosion hidden in plain sight in SB503.

While education is important, the state budget is not limitless.
Passing SB503 which has the potential to balloon to over 500 million in 2 years, as admitted by your own fiscal note, is irresponsible.
We need a better plan than SB503 to rescue children from failing schools.
Say no to SB503 before it blows up all over our state budget.

Thank you for taking time to contact the Senators below. You can email (good), call (better), or make an in-person appointment (best). If you can come for the Committee hearing on April 2^nd at 830am at the Capitol, you can bring a small sign that says “NO to SB503”.

Blessings,

Eric Potter MD

Contact List for Members of Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee

Retractable Leashes in School Choice Legislation Call to Action

March 12, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts Family, Government, School, Tennessee Legislation

(Updated 3/22/24 with Correction at end concerning testing requirements)

Although having grown up in a rural county meant that I never needed to put a leash on my family pets, I do appreciate whoever came up with the idea of a retractable leash. You can strap the leash on and grant your pet of choice a feeling of great freedom until you shorten the retractable leash and they hit their allowed limit. Sometimes you can give them 20 feet of open leash, sometimes you have to shorten it to 3 feet so they don’t cause trouble.

Government regulations often operate much like a retractable leash, attaching accountability measures which initially seem quite permissive, but later get tightened down when they decide you are not doing what they think you should do. The school choice legislation before us in the 2 houses of the Tennessee General Assembly are a great example of such a retractable leash which will be placed upon the necks of those trying to escape their failing local public school. Not only will escaping families be held accountable to the program’s rules, but the private schools and homeschool communities which accept them will also have a leash attached to their necks.

Multiple public statements have been made denying the reality that government money always has strings attached. The strings are euphemistically labeled accountability measures. On face, this is quite absurd as the explicit content of the legislation in both houses places specific limits on the money’s use:

The money cannot go directly to the parent or student.
The money can be used only for expenses approved by the Department of Education and require receipts for reimbursement.
Expenses without receipts or which are not approved will require parent to return that money.
A parent or school which is believed to commit fraud in regard to the expenses may be remanded to civil authorities for criminal prosecution.
Schools which are not in compliance with DOE’s promulgated (and potentially changing) academic standards and regulations will lose the right to participate in the program.
Testing requirements are attached to HB1183 which comply with the federal ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). — CORRECTION AT END
Compliance with ESSA is required to receive federal funding with its strings.

Parents and their private schools should be concerned about these strings or leashes in their present form, but future prospects for the leash shortening are even more troublesome. We may (or may not) feel comfortable with the leash length right now, under the current administration and the current General Assembly, but the future holds no promises that future state leaders will allow such leash lengths to remain unrestrictive. Once the leash is attached to our neck through funding and the regulations which always follow such funding, we will have great difficulty extracting our necks from the leash when it shortens.

The best option is to avoid the leash being attached in the first place by rejecting the legislation and rejecting the promised money for educating our children.

Please take a few minutes to contact the House Government Operations committee and share the ideas above in your own words in opposition to this bill. You can email (good), call (better), or make an in-person / phone appointment (best). Their committee oversees the regulations written by various state government departments which would eventually tighten the leash. Tell Legislators that private school parents and homeschool parents DO NOT WANT a leash attached through this legislation, especially one which can be tightened later by future leaders. Their contact information is below. Parents can further warn their private school or homeschool umbrella program with this information.

Thank you.

Dr. Eric Potter

LINK to the Contact List for the House Government Operations Committee Members

CORRECTION 3/22/24

From details learned during Moms for Liberty legislative day 3/20/24

Posted separately on 3/22/24

You Learn Something New Everyday

In this brief post we offer a correction in part of our review of House Bill 1183. Because HB1183 has language dealing with the scholarships and even more language dealing with public education issues, we need to clarify the testing requirements for scholarship recipients. Previously, we noted that the testing requirements in the bill for the scholarship students follow the federal guidelines and testing schedule. However, that testing schedule is for the public education portion of the bill.

While the scholarship students in private schools will have their academic performance indicators monitored by the Department of Education, they are not required to test according to the federal guidelines like the public-schools. Instead, a third-party contractor will be collecting data from the private schools regarding the scholarship student’s academic performance per the school’s chosen measures. These will be included in a yearly report to the house education committees. We have been told that the third-party contractors will be prohibited from selling the student’s data for profit but do not see the language for this provision in the current version of the bill.

Despite its less rigorous testing schedule, the house bill still contains the same Department of Education approval oversight, DOE rules promulgation issues, and public-private funding concerns. Because the funding schema in this bill involves government money (not tax relief) being paid directly to private education institutions, it tips the balance of power over private education in favor of ever greater state oversight- especially in the future as the size of the program grows.

While some of the public education measures in this bill seem to have some merit, we continue to oppose the bill for reasons discussed. Let’s find another way to help children stuck in a bad education system, not extend the power of that system over the private sphere.

How Could This Affect My Private School

March 11, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts Family, Government, School, Tennessee Legislation

When a student uses ESFA funds to pay for a part of their private school tuition, the schools bring themselves more directly under the DOE and potentially lose their autonomy.

First, the schools will have to deal with testing issues. In the Senate bill, scholarship recipients must undergo annual testing using a normed referenced test approved by the state board of education as well as administering an English language arts test (TCAP or other DOE approved test) in third grade and a mathematics test (TCAP or other as approved by DOE) in eighth grade. Then, in eleventh grade they must take the ACT or SAT. Administering the tests is the responsibility of the schools on pg. 13 (b).

In the House bill, testing will be required for ESFA students. THIS WAS INCORRECT AND HAS BEEN CORRECTRED AT THE END AS WELL AS IN A SEPARATE POST. ——-ERROR REMOVED———– Right now, this is being set up as a state funded endeavor. The legislation gives the commissioner of education the right to establish the schedule for the statewide tests. No further information on who administers the test is given in the legislation. If a private school has scholarship students, presumably they will come under the administration schedule of the commissioner of education but this is not clear in the legislation. If federal funding ever comes into play, the schools may be brought under federal guidelines.

Second, the school is responsible for providing adequate receipts for documentation for all expenses paid with funds (p 14). They may not refund the parent but only the state account (p 14). Should the school have several students using the funds in various ways, the administrative overhead may increase depending on the rules and requirements established by the DOE regarding this matter.

Third, the senate bill gives the state board of education duty to “promulgate rules allowing the department to suspend or terminate a private or public school from participating in the program due to low academic performance, as determined by the department” (emphasis mine) (pg. 15 (2)). The school can then be removed from participating in the program. What other rules come into play regarding the school remaining open are not addressed but probably can be found in other legal codes and rules. The testing that the schools are required to perform is stated to be for information purposes only so it is unclear how the school’s academics will be evaluated. These rules will be made by the state board after the legislation passes. Direct oversight by the DOE who perhaps has a different educational philosophy from the private schools should be concerning to independent private schools.

Fourth, fraud protections extend to “any other person” who use funds deposited in an account in a way that is not qualified or “any other person” who misrepresents the nature, receipts, or any other evidence of one or more expenses could be made to pay restitution or may be brought up on criminal charges. The DOE is given the right to promulgate the rules regarding all these issues (pg. 15-16).

Fifth, for private students with educational disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding uses federal money to provide those services. One child using this money could bring the entire private school under federal regulations. This is a complicated issue that was left unanswered by the Education Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, legal counsel for the House, and legal counsel for the DOE. Both bills include IDEA funding for students with disabilities who leave the public system to go into the private system. Schools need to be aware of this issue and careful that they do not come under federal regulations. In conclusion, by taking this money, the private schools are taking on the responsibility of annual testing, adding administrative tasks and possibly legal consultation fees to their budgets, putting themselves under direct evaluation by the DOE for academic performance, and possibly opening themselves up to fraud charges if the money is not handled just as the yet to be promulgated rules allow. They also must be careful with the use of IDEA funds for special education student needs or could end up under federal regulations. Even more important, everyone should be aware that federal ESSA guidelines are being followed for testing schedules which sets the state up for being able to take federal funds in this endeavor in the future which could put private schools under federal regulations. Private schools need to count the costs carefully before accepting this money.

Stay Tuned for a Call To Action March 12th (tomorrow).

CORRECTION 3/22/24

WE LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY

By Jennifer Potter

School Choice Infringes on Religious and Parental Rights

March 3, 2024 Eric Potter Current Inks, Legislation Alerts School, Tennessee Legislation

Behind any legislation, even well-intentioned legislation, which infuses public money into the private spheres of community and family life, lurks many dangers to liberty. This danger is greatest in the education of children because their education goes far beyond the mere transmission of neutral facts and figures floating around outside of meaningful context. Instead, children, as human beings and not mere data crunching machines, always receive facts and figures within a context or framework of meaning. These facts are always communicated- both implicitly and explicitly- in the context of a wider world and life view which answers the larger questions: religious questions of meaning and purpose such as “Why am I here?” and “How am I to live?” Education by its very nature is a religious exercise, which brings concern for the inalienable rights of human beings to bear upon this legislation.

In fact, it is in the education of children that we find an intersection between the inalienable right of freedom of conscience and of religion and the inalienable right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Education is an inculcation or passing along of a world and life view; again it is a religious exercise. Freedom of religion or conscience is clearly delineated in both the First Amendment and in Article One Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution. Therefore, in the state of Tennessee, parents are guaranteed the freedom to pass along their religious and life view as dictated by their conscience. Opening the door to further governmental mandates regarding parents and their children’s education endangers these rights. This ESA legislation, with its infusion of public money into the private schools and homeschools, opens a door for ever greater government infringement upon the God-given responsibility of parents.

Therefore, the interweaving of the inalienable rights of freedom of religion with inalienable parental rights within the arena of education demands that the government refrain from unconstitutionally inserting its power where parental responsibility lies because it is the sworn duty of our legislators to wield their power within the constitutional framework. Those proposing expansion to a universal ESA program in Tennessee must answer for their willingness to open a door regarding state usurpation of these ordained, inalienable rights and responsibilities of parents. Rather than institute tax relief measures for families, this legislation creates another government program, and we all know that government programs cost public money. Inevitably, this public money requires accountability from those involved. In this program, parents and private schools will be held accountable for outcomes measurement, but measurements require standardization for comparison between various cohorts. In this case standardized tests like the TCAP will be required by the state- perhaps first for those taking the money but which could later easily extend to every child in a private institution which accepts any ESA funding. Such bills have already been proposed. We do not yet know if private entities will be forced to take the ESA vouchers, though that measure has been proposed in the past. Universal accountability through universal measurement logically flows from putting public money in private institutions.

Here the inalienable rights of parents bump up against the public’s right to know the outcomes from the use of their public money. Although parents in the private system may hold significantly divergent worldviews from those appointed to the bureaucratic boards, because of the public money flowing into their private institutions, the door has been opened for government mandates to infringe upon the parent’s inalienable right to direct the upbringing of their own children- such as through mandatory testing which would fail to properly assess children in non-conventional educational settings. Therefore, in order to continually “prove” to the state that they have the “right” to rear their own children, parents will be forced to teach towards a test chosen by the state, regardless of their parental choice or their child’s needs. This use of governmental force upon the family violates freedom of conscience and parental rights.

Further, public money flowing into private institutions opens the door to government intrusion into the community and family, contrary to the Tennessee Constitution. Section XI Article 12 reads, “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.” It does not give the General Assembly the authority to oversee or delegate the oversight of education for those involved in private education- precisely what public money use will demand.

Much more could be said about the dangers of this type of legislation. Both my stated and unstated concerns are borne out by evidence from other states and by logical inference. ESA legislation as applied to private schools and homeschools through the infusion of public money into private education opens wide the door to impingement upon the inalienable rights and responsibilities of parents in directing the upbringing and education of their children, especially as inextricably related to freedom of religion. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, this plan fails as Parent Choice legislation; it should instead be called State Choice legislation.

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)

Deeper Dive into Tennessee School Choice Legislation Part 2

Deeper Dive into Tennessee School Choice Legislation Part 1

Legislative Alert – Vaccine Bill

Plot Twists in HB1183 for April 10th

The “Stringless” SB503: What About Special Education Services?

SB503 Call to Action: Pop the Bubble Before It Pops Us

Retractable Leashes in School Choice Legislation Call to Action

How Could This Affect My Private School

School Choice Infringes on Religious and Parental Rights

Elaborating on the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta