For the fifth through eighth grades of my education, I was homeschooled by my mother. After that, I attended a Roman Catholic high school, and intentionally came in third out of my class of 150-odd students (the valedictorian and saludatorian were expected to give speeches, and I hate talking to crowds). From there, I attended Georgia Tech, though my slacking off while in college ensured my GPA was sufficient to graduate, but not much more than that.
Better Half shares a similar history, only she was homeschooled from seventh grade until college, graduated from Georgia Tech with a perfect GPA, and went on to achieve her PhD.
Less anecdotally, homeschooled students across the country consistently score higher than their public-schooled counterparts (which is no great surprise, given how much our public schools have slid in recent years).
Of course, the fact that homeschool students do perform better than their peers, in addition to the fact that all parties involved believed that the children in this article were receiving above-average educations, did not really enter the judge’s mind when he passed down this decision:
A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children’s parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.
No, the judge in question made this decision partially because Thomas was “‘concerned about the children’s religious-based science curriculum’ and that he wants ‘the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution.’”, and partially because the judge thought “‘this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,’ Venessa Mills said.”
You have got to be kidding me.
I will be perfectly honest – my family was part of two homeschool support groups that were absolutely chock-a-block filled with all manner, types, and degrees of fundamentalists, but, last time I bothered to pay attention, it was their Constitutionally-protected right to be fundamentalists. Furthermore, my family and I never really fell under the “fundie” heading, but these groups were the largest (if not only) in our geographical area at the time, and they were perfectly polite, tolerant, and accepting of us, no matter how far from their beliefs we might have been. Sure, there were offers to attend their churches, and the occasional awkward “Are you saved?” question, but once we worked out some polite answers for all those infrequent oddities (“Thank you, but we have other plans,” and “Of course, and you?”), things went along more or less well, or as well as any organization made up of people can go.
The fact is, people are people, and while fundies might have some whacky-taffy religious and societal beliefs, they were still more polite, more understanding, and more supporting than the majority of families in the neighborhoods we lived in at the time.
And, again, it is their God-given, and Constitutionally-protected right to believe as they see fit, and to raise their children in whatever religion they see fit. Once the kids are up and gone out of their homes, they are then eligible for reorganizing their religious beliefs however they see fit, dabbling in other faiths, or continuing on the tradition of their families.
Apparently, however, Judge Ned Magnum is a litle familiar with that aspect of the Constitution.
Make no mistake – if the children were receiving insufficient educations, or if the mother/parents was/were abusing them, or soem other unlawful or inappropriate activity was going on while the children were at home, then they should definitely be sent to another school, and possibly out of the parents’ custody (assuming abuse, which is not the case in this incident). However, this was not the case, as the article indicated: “All sides agree the children have thrived with home school…” The entire problem the judge had with the homeschooling situation appeared to be religiously-oriented, and that is not only unconstitutional, but it is outright bigoted.
Hell, at the Roman Catholic high school I attended when I was younger, I not only had to take a religion class all eight semesters (of which only two semesters covered religions outside of Roman Catholicism), but we also had a monthly mass, in the school auditorium, to which all students (Roman Catholic, protestant, Muslim, whatever) were required to attend (though, of course, only Roman Catholics were invited to communion… another topic for another post). Both of those events took up valuable school time that could have otherwise been spent on more secular topics… or at least making our school days shorter, and yet no one seemed to really mind them. And I can certainly guarantee you that there is a religious private school somewhere in North Carolina, so why is this one homeschooling family being the target for a judge’s bias?
Yes, an argument could be made that the judge was taking into account the father’s desires, and was trying to come to an amicable solution… except no such solution exists in this case. The children are either homeschooled, or publicly schooled, and even the father could not illustrate any point on which the children were being under-educated… only nebulous concerns over the religiosity of the teachings. And, hell, this homeschooling schtick has been going on four years for this family, and the father just now starts to throw a hissy fit? Seems to me that the precedent has already been set, the “talk” has already been completed, and the tacit agreement (if not outright agreement) has been given.
This is a case that should be carefully watched by those interested in maintaining our religious freedoms, and preserving our right to educate our children as we see fit. Should the judge go through with his current, verbal plans, the possible future decisions based on that precedent could be… troubling.
recent comments