Elaborating on the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper

“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)