Papers

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)

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 5 of 11: Continuing a Root Cause Search

December 26, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks, Papers Mental Health, Tennessee Legislation

(We continue to consider potential root causes contributors to the mental health crisis as begun in the prior installment.)

Simultaneously with these economic forces, many today are entering the work force with a strong desire and expectation to achieve work-life balance. Maybe their parents’ example of overworking for years leaves them with a longing for time and experiences of life outside the office. Maybe they have been told that they can have their cake and eat it too in terms of work success and extracurricular fulfilment. They often expect the benefits and wages of having invested years in a position at the very beginning of a career and may become disillusioned or resentful when those rewards are not forthcoming soon enough. The basic requirements for productive employment collide with the desires for a fulfilled life to create another source of stress. Their responses of angst or wanderlust for something better creates stress for both them and the businesses they work for.

Again, many hope that achieving such a balance will bring mental wellness and fulfillment. The realities of our fallen world places great obstacles in achieving this balance. The striving after such balance creates more stress and magnifies other challenges to mental health. Sacrifices must be made to achieve such balance, often leaving these life balance seekers looking for more. They too must go further upstream to find mental wellness. That upstream insight, which can only come from a spiritual view of reality, can then guide them in overcoming the obstacles they wish to overcome.

With more information to process, more work to do, and more challenges to pursuing life fulfillment, some of us can find ourselves giving less attention to our physical well-being. For some work leaves less time or less energy to exert our bodies in activities that not only make us feel better physically, but could improve our mental health (many studies support this). Given the reality of aging and the reality of bodily dysfunction in a fallen world, lack of attention to our physical health will eventually reduce our capacity to handle the demands of life.

Even for those who press past the challenges, devoting the time to their physical health which leads to what society considers physical fitness, this only touches on the surface of the mental health crisis. Healthy bodies contribute to healthy emotions but are not enough to guarantee it. Going upstream from physical fitness into whole person fitness is still required. A proper view of physical fitness will lead to a proper response to caring for the whole person, body and spirit.

The pressures of life can also leave us with less time to gather with family or friends, thus resulting in less emotional support that could protect against threats to mental health. Having others who provide perspective on life’s challenges, even if they just offer sympathy, empathy, and compassion makes the stress less burdensome. Having relationships which provide tangible support when jobs fail or when financial hardship hits means that the stressed individual is protected from falling into mental illness. In contrast, not having such relationships creates a sense of isolation which amplifies the stress rather than limiting its effects.

Between the closing down of churches during the pandemic and the fracturing of many churches over politics and social issues, the fabric of life which held society and individuals together is wearing thin and giving way for many of us. Social isolation has become all too common, preventing many from meeting their inborn need to socialize. The societal safety nets of church, community, and government programs which try to catch the individuals who fall into mental illness cannot presently bear the weight of so many who are finding themselves on such life downward spirals.

Simply bringing these isolated people physically together would seem a promising approach, but so many attest to the feeling of greatest loneliness in the midst of a crowd. Many are already surrounded by other people yet feel quite lonely and isolated. Being located physically together does not guarantee a sense of belonging together. The connection must go further upstream, although the increasing isolation does need a response. Again, incorporating a spiritual view of reality is required.

In the background of technology changes, work demands, life fulfillment expectations, and social isolation, society has devalued family as a foundation of society’s functioning. The attempt of a revolutionary mindset to be discussed in the next section has attempted to undermine a traditional view of family and either restructure it or destabilize it into non-existence. Families physically spread out at greater and greater distances thanks to the higher educational system and the world of labor. Families spread out socially as teens are socialized to become their own person without regard to their parent’s legacy and beliefs. Families spread out in what they stand for as the old-fashioned husband and wife with children are replaced by whatever combination of men, women, children, animals, or even inanimate objects. The stabilizing force of family cohesion dissipates as each spreading out weakens the family structure and its supporting function. Divorces multiply. Depression and anxiety grow. Children grow up without models or support to overcome their life struggles. They grow into adults unable to withstand the pressures of life, succumbing to more and mental illness unless some other force intervenes.

Many groups strongly emphasize a restoration of the family as an answer to the mental health crisis. While this gets closer to the root as will be discussed in the final section of this series, an upstream answer to what is family and how to bring the family back together is required. Restoring family as a foundational aspect of society requires a response, but is not the whole work of untangling the knot. A restoration of family must include a spiritual understanding of what family is.

As if we needed one more factor, we have the pressure which the government has forced upon us in its constant attempt to help us and protect us from ourselves. While laws to limit sinful behaviors are needed to an extent, the extent to which government attempts to control can become a burden rather than a protection. State and federal governments have a role in maintaining civil order, but their demand for the “rights” of real and imagined minorities again creates undue burdens on individuals and businesses. Requiring handicapped access is one thing, but forcing compliance with immoral beliefs so that someone does not feel triggered by differing views goes too far. The “Nanny State” has long moved from the mirage of a doting lady watching over little ones into the specter of a controlling and aggressive tyrant bent on micromanaging what it thinks is best for everyone else. Rather than offering relief from the burdens of modern life, this “nanny state” mentality intensifies these pressures of life and destabilizes the natural supports of family, church, and community.

Still many others bemoan the growing influence of the government in contributing to life stress and thus to mental illness. They focus on getting government out of the way which is another basic issue, but this still leaves factors unaddressed. Mankind without any restraint leads to anarchy. Finding the proper role of government requires us to again go upstream in exploring the purpose of government and its role in our lives. We must respond to government’s contributions to the mental health crisis, but we must do so with a clearer and more robust worldview than just wanting the government to leave us alone. Examining government and its role through a spiritual lens is required.

Each of these materialistically oriented factors contribute to the dysfunctions of society leading to mental illness but biological factors impacting our mental health deserve their moments in the spotlight as well before going upstream. We must momentarily consider the toxicity of our fallen world in terms of the living environment which we are creating for ourselves.

While the technological, social, and other factors are contributing to stresses and overburdening human limitations, the physical environment we are fashioning around ourselves as individuals and as a society is eroding our bodies’ abilities to withstand such stressors. In the quest for the next technological breakthrough, chemicals are often produced which disrupt the normal functioning of our bodies. The resulting inflammation, changes in metabolism, changes in brain function, changes in hormones, and more all alter our homeostasis, or balance of biochemical functions. Our resilience to withstand the other previously mentioned stressors is diminished as conscious and unconscious resources are diverted to the effects of these toxins. Besides the technologically produced toxins, our desire for aesthetics and youth drives the market demand for personal care products and cosmetics industries which introduce even more potential biochemical disruptors into our bodies. Besides these chemicals we breathe and put on our skin, we have created a whole world of food additives to preserve shelf life, enhance flavor, and make food more colorful. We then eat and drink to our own detriment from the formulations of the processed food industry. Our physical bodies are presently challenged as never before, and we wonder why we are struggling so much with overall worsening health, including negative impacts on mental health.

Removing toxins and sources of inflammation from our diet and our environment would definitely help but only so far. Removing these triggers for mental and physical illness would make us feel better, but still does not guarantee mental wellness when so many other factors are present. We must go upstream in not only finding the toxins, but understanding how we view our environment and how we view the stewardship of our bodies. We can respond correctly only with these improved understandings.

When we look up on this materialistically focused description of the potential root causes of the mental health crisis, we could feel a little hopeless. Technological advances and their impact on how we live appear inevitable. Inflation and the economic pressures of work life versus life goals seem unavoidable. The breakdown of family seems to continue unabated. The prospects of government’s increasing control of our daily life seems unstoppable. Environmental toxins appear to be encircling every area of life. These physical factors are at their core, just sources of more and more stress. Living in a fallen world will necessarily impress some elements of these or other stressors upon us. Remove one source and others will fill in the gaps. Pushing back on these societal changes mostly just creates more stress when one person or one family tries to live counterculture to everyone else around them. Addressing any one of these only untangles one little loop of the knot and their interconnectedness makes a potential starting point impossible to find. Rather than trying to simultaneously untangle all of these contributors plus others not mentioned, we must look upstream. If we can move upstream in the factors to something that underlies multiple of the previously listed ones, we can find a common source which when addressed would solve these factors as whole rather than in parts.

(In the next installment, we move upstream to look for spiritual root causes of the mental health crisis.)

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 4 of 11: Looking for Root Causes

December 20, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks, Papers Mental Health, Tennessee Legislation

(Having examined the mental health crisis from various angles in the prior two essays…”

Third, once the big picture view has solidified as much as possible in our mind, we must think logically in terms of causality and find what led us to this current state so we can start at the right place to untangle the mental health knot. Working past the superficial statistical and diagnostic layer, we need to understand the factors leading the collective society to these diagnoses and descriptions. To solve problems and lower statistics, we must aim at deeper changes than just these numbers. In medicine, we regularly consider whether genetics or the environment are contributing to a disease we are treating or diagnosing. In functional medicine, we search deeper for root causes, the deepest factor underlying a disease process which when addressed allows the body to move towards healing and restoration. Here in the broader world of mental health across communities, states, and our nation, we need the same effort towards root cause analysis. By understanding how our child’s shoelaces came to the present state and by asking the right questions we can simplify and accelerate the actual un-entanglement. Although the present complexity of mental health in our society immeasurably surpasses that of tangled shoelaces, identifying the contributing factors logically and chronologically for either challenge is required to formulate hopeful solutions.

Hints of contributing factors and candidates for root causes have already been seen in the prior examination of the big picture. We have societal changes which are impacting upon human capacities and expectations. Individuals and their various groups cannot sustain the weight of this burden being expected of them. Human beings have limits in time, energy, knowledge, emotional capacity, mental capacity, physical capacity, and resources among other limits. As our society seems to be pressing higher and higher levels of stress upon us, eventually the stress and burdens of life will overcome these limits. Life for many has become one big multitasking juggling act in which technological advancements, work demands, life fulfillment expectations, lack of self-care and relationship attention, isolation, family breakdown, and governmental pressures have combined with many other factors to push people over their edges into mental illness. This is layered on top of physiologic burdens of tons of toxic chemicals pouring into our world daily. However, despite their individual and collective contributions to the mental health tangled knot, none of these contributing factors actually get to the root of the problem.

Instead of serving as a root cause directly, each of these can be traced back to our spiritual view of physical reality which is where the untangling of the knot must begin. If you agree, then you can proceed to the spiritual explanation. If you are unsure or disagree, take the time to read the remainder of this section and better understand why the materially directed approach to untangling the knot only addresses portions of the tangle at a superficial level without going deep enough to address the knot as a whole.

Each of these materialistically focused contributors deserve some elaboration here. First, the hastening speed of technology drives our lives both at work and at home to accomplish more and more, while it promises to make our lives easier. Although technology has enabled us to do things unheard in generations past, technology also creates situations where are forced to move faster in more directions. Multiple lines of communication such as texting, multiple emails, and other instant messaging, on top of phone and face to face means we sometimes have multiple conversations going simultaneously. As technology moves faster, we no longer have the luxury of thinking for a time as we wait for computers to process or for others to respond. Now the multiple lines of communication can be rapid fire back and forth. This is difficult enough at work to keep up with. Even in our personal life with text or other messaging services, we feel awkward if a message is left unanswered for a few minutes. We can feel ghosted – and stressed — if someone misses an email for 3 days and doesn’t respond.

The amount of information we can access through the internet and smartphones can also overwhelm us. Knowing more about what is happening in another country where we can do nothing about the depressing news can lead to anxiety and hopelessness. This can later lead to guilt and regret. Simultaneously, excessive access and attention to the broader world’s events may draw us away from time with family and face to face friends leading to isolation and more shallow relationships. This can increase your sense of isolation.

These communication expectations are compounded by expectations that we should be accomplishing so much more given this technology. We expect greater returns from our time which is stressful on already stressed human capacities, and this makes us more heavily dependent on these technologies. We may keep up for a time until this technology falters. The complexity of technological advances then means that we need more experts to fix overly complex electronics or programs. The days of fixing something yourself are becoming rarer and rarer. Instead of being empowered by the technologies, we can become trapped by them. Emotionally the stress from needing the technology to meet our own and other’s expectations can outweigh the increased capacities they offer. Life with the technology can become more stressed than life prior to the technology.

While we could push back directly against technology in various ways, this approach has minimal chance of significant impact. The world around us continues to depend on technology’s present contributions to daily life and excitedly awaits the next innovation. We can develop better patterns of interaction with technology, but the impact will only go so deep as an individual effort. A clear strategy against the onslaught of technology requires a deeper understanding so that we know how to respond to inevitable changes to society brought on by technological advances. Ignoring the problem or responding with a simplistic approach will only make it worse. This deeper understand demands a spiritual view of reality.

Beyond the effects of technology on the demands of work life, several general economic factors and trends are combining to increase the pressure of contemporary life. To some degree the rising cost of living due to rising inflation presses upon nearly everyone. As a result of competing for these tightening budget’s expenditures, businesses are constantly working on efficiency and productivity leads to requiring more and more of employees. In the world of big business, many employees become little more than a cog in the machinery of the 100’s, or even 1000’s of employees who can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The pressures of having to work more and work harder to keep up the family economy while recognizing that your company’s leaders could replace you with a hundred others willing to do the same work can create a lot of stress, increasing the pressure for developing mental illness.

While we could voice louder and louder protest against the rising costs of living brought on not just by our human desire for more, but also by the clear mismanagement of our economy by government, this will not change the momentum of society. We can implement better budgets and set more realistic expectations for what we can afford, but at some point, we will cut all the excess and inefficiencies yet still face the need to work harder and longer for the basics of life. We must look at the economics of life that lead to inflation from an upstream viewpoint as well as understanding the purpose and function of labor in the flow of life. Only by taking a spiritual view of these realities can we respond in a deeper and longer-lasting way that offers hope of providing for ourselves and others.

(The next installment of this series will continue to examine these stressors)

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 3 of 11: Further Perspectives

December 18, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks, Papers Mental Health, Tennessee Legislation

(Continuing the examination of the mental health crisis from part 2 of this series.)

Looking next to the functional angle of mental illness’s impact, we see societal statistics describing how such illness alters one’s ability to function at home or in society as well from the personal angle. Considering marriage and its success rate as a good indicator of a person’s functioning in the home setting, survey results by researchers suggest that mental illness both decreases the incidence of marriage as well as increases the rate of its failure in divorce rates. In the report published in the Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia (Breslau 2011), researchers described their findings from a 19-country survey. All mental disorders studied demonstrated an increased odds ratio of 1.2 to 1.8, meaning a 20 to 80% increase in divorce. The negative impact of mental illness on life’s closest relationship of marriage can likely be extrapolated to other personal relationship struggles.

The ability of those with mental illness to function in broader society can be extrapolated from their capacity to handle employment. In an online publication by Psychiatric Services, Luciano and Meara report how the severity of mental illness impacted employment rates. Looking at data from a survey in 2009-2010, they found that while those without mental illness reported an employment rate of 75.9%, those serious mental illness reported only a 54.5% rate. Beyond this statistic, the percent of survey respondents with serious mental illness that reported incomes under $10,000 per year was 38.5% while it was only 23.1% in those without mental illness. From the positive angle, this shows that many individuals suffering with mental illness are pushing through and working under the burden of their illness, yet it does demonstrate that many appear hindered from life functioning by their condition.

At the personal level experienced by many of us, our own or our families’ struggles in mental health have hindered our functioning at these same levels of life. Other family members have had to step in to provide financially or to support others sufficiently so that employment is not lost. Other family members have dealt with the aftermath consequences of marriage discord and divorce. While mental illness is not required for divorce, when it is a part of the divorce, the challenges of life post-divorce family dynamics can be even more challenging for all involved. In each situation you live through or are living through, the shared weight lies heavy on many shoulders.

The spiritual angle completes the view that most people should consider in understanding the scope and magnitude of the mental health crisis. Examples of clearly sinful behavior which are known to correlate with future mental illness include abortion, drugs and alcohol abuse, and homosexuality. We must come to some conclusions of how to view mental illness in terms of sin as both a contributing factor for the person and in response to the person. On one hand, the majority who see little or no spiritual component to mental illness promote a dangerous and simplistic approach. They ignore this critical spiritual portion of the problem and thus undermine any hope of fully resolving it. By denying any spiritual component, they make guilt and shame challenging to deal with while preventing the adequate handling of sinful behaviors which contribute to the mental illness.

On the other hand, there are some who might lump any or all mental illness into the category of sin or its effects. This simplistic approach makes it easier in one sense to respond to all mental illness with a “repent and change your attitude”. So much harm is done by those in this camp as they ignore the factors already discussed as well as more to be discussed in the next section.

Between these two extremes, from those acknowledging the contribution of spiritual factors come a variety of potentially sinful options for responding to other’s mental illness. While lack of compassion for the weaker brother can lead to sinful responses, overindulgence of one’s sinful behavior can also hinder efforts to overcome such patterns of sin. Sometimes between these extremes, the emotional impacts of mental illness on friends and family may lead them to respond out of frustration, despair, or anger further amplifying the impact of sinful behavior and deepening a cycle for everyone involved. These sinfully inappropriate responses can further exacerbate both the depth of the mental illness and the obstacles to overcoming it.

Instead, we must consider a Biblical view of how we should respond individually and societally. When approaching an individual’s mental illness, the contribution of spiritual factors to the illness must be considered for full resolution. Then the societal response, whether at the level of a family, a community or a church as well as the national level, must not ignore these spiritual factors if a proper and successful response is to be implemented. A better approach of addressing the sufferer’s condition in the context of family and as a church will be discussed later.

As a physician caring for many of these individuals suffering with or without actual mental illness diagnoses, I can add a further angle combining both personal and professional. I look at the reported statistics on the increase in mental illness and can believe it as more patients present for evaluation in my office of these conditions. Simultaneously, we are seeing more of the secondary physical complaints mentioned earlier in terms of chronic pain syndromes, irritable bowel type complaints, insomnia, and more. We see how patients’ relationships are affected by their mental health symptoms as well as how they are struggling to function at home or at work. For those willing to discuss the spiritual aspect, we hear their guilt and shame for not living up to other’s expectations along with their occasional despair in feeling alone or losing hope of recovery. While we should never base a societal level response on the report of one doctor’s experience, my professional experience echoes the statistics being reported and I hear similar stories from other providers directly and indirectly. I agree that we have a growing problem that is not being adequately addressed.

Before we give up hope of such an exhaustive understanding and return to the simplistic solutions offered by the world, we should recognize that omniscience concerning the mental health crisis is not the goal, but sufficient understanding so that we can eventually move towards a solution to the crisis that has a chance of success. While we will never be able to identify and to fully understand the totality of factors contributing to even one person’s diagnosis of mental illness, we can understand enough about the nature of the individual’s condition or the societal patterns that we can plan and enact a response. Understanding the root causes in the next section will overcome the immensity of the big picture and allow an appropriate response. For now, if you want more statistics on the impact of mental illness on functioning, go to The National Alliance of Mental Illness website on its “Mental Health By the Numbers” page where many insightful statistics are offered. Statistics and experience show a growing problem. The situation affects mental, physical, relational (isolation), spiritual and societal health and function. The mental health knot is tightening while civilization unravels.

Having examined the state of mental health from these various angles already encourages us to look for upstream foundational causes of such a complex crisis. Each of these angles offers a different perspective which will lead us in the next section towards finding remediable root causes. The potential causative factors must somehow answer the challenges of these psychiatric, physical, relational, functional, and spiritual angles at the individual and the societal levels. We wean to untangle the whole knotted shoestring of the mental health crisis rather than just a portion of it.

Bibliography:

Breslau, J., et al. “A Multinational Study of Mental Disorders, Marriage, and Divorce.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, vol. 124, no. 6, 30 Apr. 2011, pp. 474–486, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011132/, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01712.x. Accessed 13 Oct. 2023.

Luciano, Alison, and Ellen Meara. “Employment status of people with mental illness: national survey data from 2009 and 2010.” Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) vol. 65,10 (2014): 1201-9. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300335

National Alliance on Mental Illness. “Mental Health by the Numbers.” NAMI, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Apr. 2023, www.nami.org/mhstats. Accessed 13 Sept. 2023.

Beyond a Simple Attitude of Submission

November 27, 2023 Eric Potter Papers Government

Excerpt #11 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

Given the length of the full paper I recently published on this site, I am posting excerpts which emphasize specific principles within the paper. Hopefully, these excerpts will not only encourage you to read the actual paper, but also think more deeply about the role of Romans 13:1-7 in our response to both Godly and ungodly civil government in our day and time. A proper understanding and obedience to Scripture is critical today as always. This particular Scripture has been mishandled in so many ways that a methodical approach to its exegesis is needed to avoid further error by both individual Christians and the broader church. The pressures being exerted upon true Christianity by the contemporary civil government demand a Biblical response informed by Romans 13:1-7 and the other Scriptures addressed within this paper.

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

Beyond a Simple Attitude of Submission

Besides an attitude of submission, believers are commanded in I Timothy 2:1-3 to pray for all peoples, including civil authorities, as this is pleasing to God (Duncan III). Not only is it pleasing to God, but immediately afterwards God’s desire for “all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” expands this to include spiritual benefits in addition to earthly ones (WCF, Nelson). This command sounds very similar to the one in the book of Jeremiah to seek the welfare of the city in which they were exiled, for believers are sent into the world not to be a part of it but to interact with it on many levels (John 17). When one combines this idea with Matthew 6:10-13, where Jesus instructs the disciples on how to pray, God’s Will for the shalom of all people becomes a particular portion of His Will to “be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

Several examples of obedient submission are provided in the New Testament. Jesus himself provides a model for submission to earthly authorities. He submitted to the jurisdictional boundaries of instituted governments by paying instituted taxes or acknowledging civil jurisdiction right to tax in Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 22:15-22, and Luke 20:25. Despite the command to obey government, believers are foremost commanded to work not for man, including rulers, but for the Lord (Colossians 3:23-25).

Examples of obedient submission to government within the bounds of obedience to God may be discerned in Scripture in examples where new believers continued to work for government institutions after their conversions. In Luke 19, Zaccheus is nowhere said to have forsaken his position of tax collector, only that he performed his duties righteously after having paid restitution. In Acts 13, Paul did not instruct the leader Sergius Paulus to resign from Paphos leadership, nor did Paul direct the Philippian jailer to quit in Acts 16. Paul exhibited these principles of obedience in how he behaved before the Roman government in Acts 25:10-12, Acts 24-25 before Felix, Festus, and Herod Aggrippa, as well as before Caesar in Acts chapters 26 through 28 (Bromiley, 545 ). The ISBE notes that in no Scripture does the New Testament forbid participation by Christians in civil government and cites the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius, “those in Caesar’s household”, as well as some already mentioned above as examples. The ISBE highlights that these believers exercised these privileges as individuals rather than as representatives of the corporate Church (Bromiley, 545).

The Response of Christians to Civil Government

November 22, 2023 Eric Potter Papers Government

Excerpt #10 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

The Response of Christians to Civil Government

The response of Christians and the Church after the first advent builds on the Jewish principles elucidated from the Old Testament, deepening them and furnishing further examples of how to obey God in the public expression of Christian life. Again, commands for submissive attitudes, exhortations towards prayer, and God’s reactions to both obedience and disobedience will provide the student of Scripture with great wisdom.

The exhortation towards an attitude of submission to ordained authorities stands out repeatedly in the New Testament. The primary New Testament texts addressing government make this clear. Titus 3:1 and I Peter 2:13-17 both stand beside Romans 13:1-7 as the most explicit statements regarding Christian’s obedience to earthly authorities. Romans 13:1-7 leaves no doubt that such an attitude is commanded by God. In I Peter Christians are commanded to “be subject … to every human institution whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors…” Peter also commands his readers to honor the emperor. Dale R. Bowne and Jon D. Currid, note that despite Peter’s calling civil government a “human institution”, he directs believers to obey their rulers. It has already been established that God delegated the authority to these “human institutions”. Therefore wisdom demands appropriate submission to God’s instituted leaders. Peter explains that by doing so they will silence foolish people (Hoffecker, 183). Titus 3:1 also directs a submissive attitude to rulers and authorities. No denial of this direct command is possible.

Summary of Old Testament Jew’s Response to Government

November 20, 2023 Eric Potter Papers Government

Excerpt #9 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

Summary of Old Testament Jew’s Response to Government

In summary of Jewish subjection and response to human government, several principles can be ascertained. First, they were to have a submissive attitude towards earthly rulers while praying to God in all matters including for provision through foreign powers and protection from these same powers. Second, they owed obedience first to God and then to human government only so far as obedience to God could be maintained. Third, when that obedience to God could be maintained, they were to seek the welfare of the government or culture ruling them. Fourth, should the government demand disobedience to God and His Law, the people could resist that government when led by God to do so through leaders appointed by God. Fifth, in contrast, resistance to godly government would result in judgment for those who rebelled. Ultimately, it all boiled down to obeying God. God, as ultimate authority demanded submission to His Will and Law.

Particular Applications to Earthly Authority: Second Broad Principle

November 6, 2023 Eric Potter Papers Government

Excerpt #5 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

Particular Applications to Earthly Authority: Second Broad Principle

The application of God’s authority may be seen clearly in the areas of His ordaining, directing, commanding, judging, and having dominion over all civil government. First, God’s creation or ordaining of government may be argued from several verses out of both Testaments. Daniel 4:17 describes God as not only ruling the kingdoms of men, but giving it “to whom he will”. Daniel 2:44-45 foretells how God would set up a kingdom which would overturn all the prior ones. In Jeremiah 27:6, God describes how he gave lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Romans 9:17 recounts God’s words to Pharaoh showing that God had raised him up for the very purpose of showing His power. Isaiah expresses God’s giving certain rulers to the people (Isaiah 3: 4-5). Additionally, when man tried to set up kings outside of God’s expressed will, God considered this disobedience (Hosea 8:3-4).

In spite of these examples some would argue that God only ordained institutions, not rulers. They do so to avoid accusations of evil against God. As proof of God’s individual ordination, I Kings 12:15 describes how Jeroboam’s rebellion and subsequent kingdom was “a turn of events from the Lord”, leaving no doubt that even a rebellion was under God’s rule as God had commanded Jeroboam to do so. The Bible’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as God’s “servant” in Jeremiah 27:6 and Jesus’ dialogue with Pontius Pilate in John 19:10-11 also confirm that God ordains not only offices, but the rulers that fill those offices (Cole).

God’s Law Limits Government’s Punishments

November 1, 2023 Eric Potter Papers Government

Excerpt #4 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

God’s Law Limits Government’s Punishments

Though the law of God was meant to curtail disobedience in all spheres, it also limits man’s punishment of the wicked to acceptable degrees. In Exodus 21:23-27 and Leviticus 24:18-23, the well-known lex talionis, often viewed in a negative light, actually prevented far more damaging punishments from being inflicted on the guilty. As Schwertley argues in God’s Law for Modern Man, the goal was justice. He also quotes Greg Bahnsen’s book, Theonomy, pp. 437-438 in further support of this. Deuteronomy 16:18-20 further confirms this intention by commanding the rulers to “judge the people with righteous judgment”, “not pervert justice”, “not show partiality”, “not accept a bribe”, and to follow only justice. Through this obedience they were to inherit the land which God had given them. The impartiality was to extend both to citizens of Israel and strangers in the land (Leviticus 24:22). Based on Deuteronomy 4:1-8 (particularly verses 7 and 8), Schwertley points out in God’s Law for Modern Man that the law was also meant to be a model for other nations. There the nearness of God was extolled as were the laws of the Israelites.

As further examples of its goal of justice, not punitive purposes, the Law included stipulations for self-defense in Exodus 22:2-4 and required atonement for unsolved murders in Deuteronomy 21:1-9. In fact, government itself could be the enactment of judgment as seen in Hosea 13:11 where God says that He would give a king to His people “in His wrath”. St. Thomas Aquinas noted this in work “On Kingship or the The Governance of Rulers” as he addressed how the people should seek help in resisting a tyrant (Sigmund, 25). Both Biblical narratives and propositions therefore demand the doctrine that God is the ultimate authority, ordaining civil government for mankind’s benefit through delegation and jurisdictional division.

Jurisdictional Spheres

October 30, 2023 Eric Potter Papers

Excerpt #3 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

(These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined. Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

Jurisdictional Spheres

Within each jurisdictional sphere, the responsibilities of the respective jurisdiction are governed by the Law of God as set forth in the Scripture. God’s Law defines the extent of their authority and their responsibility. The assumed division between “sacred” responsibility and “secular” responsibility is a false dichotomy . God’s law governs all people and all areas. Romans 3:23’s explicit declaration that all have sinned and fallen short implies that all were under some form of law in order to sin, so God’s law is for all people. Several examples demonstrate that all jurisdictions are under God’s law without distinct or complete separation between sacred and secular (Grant, 18-20). Under Israel’s theocratic government both the appointed judges of Deuteronomy 16:18 and the Levites of Deuteronomy 17:8-9 were addressed as judging the people in regards to both religious and civil matters. Both areas were ultimately under God’s Law (Hoffecker, 164). In the subsequent theocratic monarchy described in Deuteronomy 17:15, Israel’s king was to have both civil and religious duties. In I Corinthians 6:1-7, Paul admonishes fellow Christians to take their disputes before other believers in the Church body rather than before the civil authorities. In the New Testament, church members were therefore to judge civil matters between themselves.

The Scriptures then give explicit principles within various jurisdictions, which show that God’s law applies to each of these areas. Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 4:22-5:1 address it at the occupational level. The family is delegated educational responsibility in Deuteronomy 6:6-9 and Ephesians 6:1-4 while disciplinary authority is explicit in Proverbs 23:13-14 as well as other verses. The property owner or farmer is given responsibility for charity in Leviticus 19:9 and the church shares some of that charitable responsibility for widows in I Timothy chapter 5. At the civil authority level, it is also expressed. In Numbers 10, Moses as head of the people was responsible for using the silver trumpets to summons or alarm the people to different purposes. Jesus’ response to the paying of taxes also exhibits the rightful authority of civil government within its jurisdiction (Grant 24). The apostles’ testimony before the Sanhedrin in Acts demonstrates a recognition of civil and religious authority combined.

Elaborating on the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 5 of 11: Continuing a Root Cause Search

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 4 of 11: Looking for Root Causes

Present Mental Health Crisis, Worldly Solutions, and the Church Part 3 of 11: Further Perspectives

Beyond a Simple Attitude of Submission

The Response of Christians to Civil Government

Summary of Old Testament Jew’s Response to Government

Particular Applications to Earthly Authority: Second Broad Principle

God’s Law Limits Government’s Punishments

Jurisdictional Spheres

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

Papers

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe