It is wrong to conflate responsible home schooling parents with individual parents who might be irresponsible.

It is pretty incontrovertible that one should not demonize a whole group just because certain individuals from that group might do something wrong. Yet, for one reason or another, whether it’s fear, or ignorance, or the well-meaning intention of protecting children, people frequently support unwarranted restraint of a group based upon the potential abuse of these individual wrongdoers.

This type of action is morally wrong. It causes harm to both the individual members of the group and society as a whole. There are many who feel that collective blame is a necessary evil in society, since it might increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. However, the problems it causes outweigh any potential benefit.

It is wrong to criminalize somebody who is innocent and who has shown no evidence to the contrary simply because they are part of a certain group of potential wrongdoers. All individuals have an equal right to freedom. Legislation that conflates responsible parents with negligent individuals is overt, collective discipline and punishment. This attitude is harmful to many individuals.

Harm of this type, perpetrated by authorities such as governments and police, is insidious, because these organizations are supposed to be impartial and non-discriminatory. Collective punishment by those in positions of power is particularly problematic, as those groups of parents that suffer the most at the hands of authorities tend to be socio-economically less well off than the majority, and have less access to sources of power. Thus there is less they can do to protest against unfair treatment.

Not only is collective punishment problematic in a legal sense, but it can have a very negative personal influence on those involved. There are lasting, adverse effects on citizens. There is a significant toll on individuals’ emotional well being as well. This is, of course, the case with all forms of discrimination. Emotional harm manifests itself in a number of ways. Individuals discriminated against often internalize that discrimination. These individuals might start to take on the persona they are accused of, through alienation and resentment. It is wrong to implicate all parents, when the vast majority is entirely innocent. It is certainly alienating. It creates a ‘siege mentality.’ It’s wrong for any parent to have to suffer in such a manner.

Not only does collective punishment have harmful effects on individuals at the receiving end, but it’s detrimental to society as a whole. Creating an ‘us and them’ mentality does not lend itself to the maintenance of a pluralistic society. In an environment in which social integration has not always been smooth, the perceptions that entire groups are guilty of crime has very damaging effects. When society needs these people, they will stand aside feeling alienated from the community.

This issue is particularly problematic, since the problems that many parents face may be overlooked through a failure to see complexities and differences, and through ‘one size fits all’ policies. In order to create a society that ‘cherishes both unity and diversity,’ it is fundamental that every attempt be made, especially on the part of the institutions of government, to reject the concept of collective blame, and to pursue an approach where a criminal, or even a group of criminals are viewed as exceptions and not representatives of the group as a whole.

Restoring the "Presumption of Innocence"

HB 1580 would restore the "presumption of innocence" (of educational neglect) for all parents who instruct their children at home.

NH parents are tired of legislators and others presuming … without any evidence or due process of the law… that all parents are irresponsible.

On its face their presumption is illogical... as well as unconstitutional. A child wouldn't fall for their line: "Please be responsible, but don't ever expect us to treat you as such."

It's primarily the parent's duty to instruct his child, not the state's.

This bill would provide an option for parents instructing their children at home, which is safe from unprovoked attacks like HB 368. The old regulations under RSA 193-A will remain in place for those who prefer that option. Having two options will allow parents greater flexibility and liberty.

ANALYSIS

This bill establishes that parents have a natural, fundamental right to determine and direct the education of their children. The bill also exempts children who are receiving educational instruction from a parent from the compulsory attendance requirements.

Compelling Interest

Compelling Interest

January 9, 2010

Does the state have a compelling interest in the education of children?

Several jurisdictions have used the doctrine of “compelling interest” to justify laws that force parents to answer to the state with regard to the decisions they make about the education of their children. Even though such august bodies as the Supreme Court of Canada have expressed this conviction, and made rulings based upon it, I must beg to disagree.

First we must examine the logic behind this legal principle.

The primary concern behind the state’s supposed compelling interest in the education of children is not, as some might think, that children have a “right” to an education. It is, rather, that individuals who do not receive a basic education will not be able to support themselves, in an economic sense, and will thus become a potential financial burden upon the state.

If we examine this concern, we see that it is based upon a false assumption. This is the assumption that because a tiny minority of parents may abdicate their parental responsibility to educate their children the state must oversee the education of all children to ensure that all children are educated to a level which will allow them to support themselves.

No one denies that a small number of parents, for whatever reason, are unable to fulfill their obligations to their children, and that on occasion the state becomes the parent of last resort. This fact does not, however, justify the state’s interest in the education of all children in existence.

In reality, the state has an interest in the education only of those children whose abandonment by their parents can be proven through an unbiased assessment. Such an assessment would allow for parents who chose to challenge the state’s allegations to have access to advocates and reasonable opportunities to present their evidence. It would also permit parents to call their own “expert” witnesses to support their decisions and approaches.

Such as assessment, to be unbiased, could not be conducted by agents of the state’s education system, as these agents have a clear conflict of interest, may have a bias against educational alternatives to public schooling, and often demonstrate a desire to capture as many children as possible for their institutions. (It is for these reasons that Graham Badman was a completely inappropriate person to conduct a review of elective home education in England, and that his report can neither be taken seriously nor used as a basis for legislation.)

If the state abided by these principles, very few parents would be proven to have abandoned their parental duties. It would quickly become apparent if a parent had truly done so. In such a system, parents who chose to employ unusual approaches, such as autonomous education, would have ample opportunities to demonstrate the value, and efficacy of their methods. But most of the time they would never be called upon to make such a proof. Because there would be no evidence that they were, in fact, failing to provide for their children’s educational needs.

When did we stop relying on the need for evidence that someone had committed a crime or violated the rights of someone else before we accused them? When did we decide that everyone is under suspicion?

I would like to turn this around.

In my opinion, the citizen has a compelling interest to ensure that the state does not erode individual liberties with excessive and unnecessary legislation. To this end, the state must be able to justify the necessity for any law that it proposes, and demonstrate that the law will improve upon the existing state of affairs.

Compulsory education laws have violated the freedoms of children and families for more than 150 years now, in many jurisdictions, and have created a system of public schools that fail those same children in every conceivable way. For many children, there is no escape. The children who do escape, because their parents take full responsibility for their learning, are often threatened by the long and sticky tentacles of the state’s insistence on its imaginary “compelling interest” in their education.

I deny that the state has any compelling interest in the education of children. The very fact that many, if not most, people accept that the state has such an interest is evidence of the type of education that state educational institutions provide, for a well-educated populace, familiar with the basic tenets of logic, and with a basic grasp of political history, would never agree that such an interest exists. The state’s only compelling interest in the education of children is to ensure that those children become servants of the state. And that is an interest that a free people must fight against.

I will close with the thoughts of a few other writers on the subjects of freedom, tyranny, and unnecessary laws:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. – William Pitt (1783)

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. – Justice Learned Hand

I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it. – Alexis De Toqueville

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. – Calvin Coolidge

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. –Winston Churchill

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. – Voltaire

And finally, from the great Eleanor Roosevelt: The war for freedom will never really be won because the price of our freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our Government.

There. I think they made my point for me.