History of American School Districts

A district school is a small country school organized to serve the needs of a particular neighborhood rather than a whole township. It was the original form of public school in colonial New England and New York.As the population increased, roads and transportation improved, and wild animals became less of a danger, the population scattered over the area of the towns. Most New England towns contained several villages as well as a widely distributed farm population. A town tax in whole or in part supported the school. Those who voted for and paid the tax required that the school be accessible to their children. Initially, the moving school, in which the teacher went to the pupils, emerged.

The divided school developed next, in which the school went for a portion of the year to a village. When these short school terms became permanent, the school district came into existence....

By the close of the nineteenth century, good roads made possible the consolidated school, which gradually replaced the one-room, ungraded district school throughout most of the country.

Monroe, Paul. "School, District." Dictionary of American History. The Gale Group Inc. 2003. Encyclopedia.com. 20 Nov. 2009 .

Don't you care about children who might fall through the cracks?

This is a reply to those legislators who are concerned about the potential for abuse and neglect of children by parents who choose to homeschool. There is no requirement in the NH home education law that the children have contact with anyone outside the family. A parent could exploit this lack of requirements to hide abuse or neglect – physical, emotional, educational. This is also a reply to legislators who express concern about the few children who are falling through the cracks, and who ask homeschoolers the question, "Don't you care about them?"

In response to concerns about the potential for abuse and neglect, I do not dispute them. It has happened, and probably will happen again. Any time an individual has a freedom, there is the potential for him or her to abuse another person's rights. The question is, does that potential rise to the level that requires the state to impinge on that liberty?

The people who wrote our constitutions believed that it was self-evident that people have the right to pursue happiness, and that they give up that right only when there is good cause. They created a form of government that would best allow people to exercise that right, and they enumerated many of the rights that they thought would best allow people to maintain that right. Subsequently, the courts found that our U.S. constitution gives people a fundamental right to privacy that encompasses the right to direct the upbringing of their children, and that right may only be encumbered in a way that meets the strict scrutiny test.

Legislators don't have to take our word, they can read the words of learned Supreme Court justices. Here is a link to a website with excerpts from relevant SCOTUS opinions, and below that are links to the actual decisions:

·       http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B3051ABFF-B614-46E4-A2FB-0561A425335A%7D

• 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)

As another homeschooler pointed out, the following quotes are pertinent to the points raised by these legislators:

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)

I ask three questions of legislators with the above concerns:

• "Our constitution tips the balance to the side of liberty. Does the particular regulation you are voting on meet the strict tests set by the courts that would justify taking away any liberty?"
• "Why, if the vast majority of homeschooling parents are doing a good job, does NH have a law that assumes the state must scrutinize every parent?"
• "Don't you care about depriving children of benefits if parents are not allowed to educate their children in the way that is best for them?"

Chris Hamilton

BeaverLodge Homeschool

Supreme Court decisions upholding the duty of parents to instruct their children

• 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)

Proposed PARENT FIRST Legislation

Summary of proposed legislation:

Parent's duty to instruct the child supersedes the state's duty

• re-establishes historic obligation of parent to instruct his child
• eliminates unequal treatment under current home education law
• elaborates parental duty by listing subjects (taken from current "home education" law) to be instructed in the same manner as the Connecticut statute
• parental duty to instruct (compulsory instruction clause) is clearly separated by "OR" from any obligation under the compulsory attendance clause

"Home Education" law remains unchanged

• at the parent's request, districts or nonpublic schools may work with parents
• parents have the option to notify and submit evaluations
• "drop outs" from 16-18 years old and their parents can work with the district
• laws dealing with truancy, negligent parents or child labor laws exist elsewhere in statute