Give Me Liberty, Not "Choice"

If you’re new here, you might be surprised to learn that someone as critical of America’s public education system would oppose School Choice, but it’s true. I do. I want education liberty, and that means I’m what’s called a government school abolitionist. That means exactly what you think it means: I want to abolish the government education system in America, at the federal AND state levels. I truly believe children cannot possibly get the education that’s right for them, or that they deserve, as long as the state controls education, and as you’ll hear Courtenay Turner say in our interview: what the government funds, the government runs.

Public Education is Not a “Right”

In the clip above, Courtenay recounts a conversation she had with people involved in school “reform” at the state level in her new home state of Tennessee. They insisted public education is a “right.” Is it though? Let’s look:

* In the Declaration of Rights, which is the Bill of Rights of the Tennessee Constitution, there is no mention of Education whatsoever, never mind as a “right.” I read it twice, all 36 sections. Not a peep.

* However, somewhat ironically, the same Declaration of Rights does say the following:

* Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

* Section 22. That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and shall not be allowed.

* After the Declaration of Rights, Article XI, Section 12 reads: 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.

So what Courtenay Turner said — what they tossed her from the meeting for saying — is actually correct. The Tennessee state constitution says that the state “shall provide,” it doesn’t say the parents or the children must take. Additionally, when these people referenced “children’s rights,” they were either imagining them or inventing them to support their argument.

There is no language in the document referencing “children’s rights” to anything other than the same right to due process their parents have (see Section 7 below):

That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.

In other words, unless and until the state has evidence that parents are willfully neglecting, exploiting, or otherwise harming their children, they have no authority under this constitution to force the children of Tennessee out of their homes, and away from their parents period, never mind for thirteen years, all day, for at least nine months of the year. If you’re still skeptical, read Section 8:

That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

So, at least in Tennessee, public education is neither a right to receive, nor an obligation to take, despite what Courtenay was told.

What’s more, the Bill of Rights of the United States — as properly-educated Americans know — guarantees due process to all Americans, regardless of where they live. Federalism aside, no state has the authority to nullify the following:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These facts notwithstanding, Tennessee has this compulsory education law:

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0520-01-02-.17 reads:

(1) Children entering kindergarten shall be five (5) years of age on or before August 15. However, a child does not have to enroll in school at five (5) years of age, but enrollment must occur no later than the beginning of the academic year following the child's sixth (6th) birthday.

(2) Any transfer student applying for admission who was legally enrolled in an approved kindergarten in another state and who will be five (5) years of age no later than December 31 of the current school year shall be enrolled.

(3) Pursuant to the Tennessee compulsory attendance law, all children must attend school between the ages of six (6) and seventeen (17), both inclusive.

How did this happen? That’s the funny part; It’s hard to tell. There is no single, definitive date for the passage of a Tennessee compulsory education law. Instead the state’s education laws and regulations have evolved over time to emphasize compulsory attendance. The Butler Act (1925) and Private Acts of 1929 (Chapter 735) demonstrate the state’s involvement in regulating education, while modern guidelines reflect the ongoing commitment to compulsory attendance. In other words, the rights-violations crept in, until they became law by default.

By the way, I strongly suggest you go check your own state’s compulsory education law here, so helpfully compiled by our federal Department of Education, to see how it’s worded. There are variations, mostly in the age range and number of years a child must attend, and what excuses parents may use to choose alternative means of educating their own children, but all compulsory education laws require that parents notify and/or send a written request to the state authorities who have the power to say “no.” Here is the text of the Tennessee law as of 2023:

Compulsory Education Laws are Unconstitutional

Now maybe I’m missing something — I am not a lawyer after all, just one of the “educated citizenry” we’re constantly told schools are meant to produce — but (c-1) sounds a whole lot like a violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Tennessee state constitution. The state is effectively telling all parents they are compelled to send their children to public or non-public school, which includes homeschool, or the state will punish them. In other words, parents of children between 6-17 have to tell the state how they’re educating their children, and presumably the state may and shall decide whether they approve. So let’s look at Tennessee homeschooling law:

This seems a whole lot like presumption of guilt. Consider the fact that a parent without a HS Diploma or GED is denied the right to educate their own children. You might be tempted to say “Well, they are unqualified,” but where does it say the state has the exclusive authority to define “qualified” for every individual, not just for those employed by the public “option?” In addition to defining “qualified,” they claim the exclusive legal authority to define the following:

* “school”

* “standards”

* “emotionally/academically mature”

* “curriculum”

* the number of days a parent should “teach” their own child

To me, even Tennessee’s homeschooling laws violate due process guaranteed in the United States Bill of Rights and the Tennessee state constitution.

If you’re wondering why no one has challenged these as violations in court, the answer is they have, it’s just gotten nowhere because —surprise, surprise — a population “educated” by the state is disinclined to see the state as the bad guy. Usually, when I argue that compulsory education laws are unconstitutional, I immediately hear a chorus of responses like:

* “What about parents who don’t do anything to get their kids an education?”

* “How will Americans be literate?” or the ever-popular “So you want people to be illiterate morons?”

* “I bet you want to repeal child labor laws too!”

* “Parents simply aren’t qualified to teach their own children!”

What those people are telling me is that after over 150 years of government run compulsory education, we already have a large population of people willing to hand over their rights without even realizing they’re doing it (never mind demanding that those in power give it their best shot to amend the Constitution first).

School Choice Relies on Compulsory Education Laws

So now that I’ve argued my case that compulsory schooling is unconstitutional, let me make my case that School Choice relies on the existence of that unconstitutional law. Let me break it down for you in a series of questions hypothesizing a state in which compulsory education law does not exist, and your due process rights are intact:

* What would be the justification for property taxes to pay for the public “option?” Why not raise the money using a lottery, but only to defray a modest fee for service?

* What would be the justification for forcing parents to enroll their children in a specific school based on their zip code or “transportation” zone?

* What would be the justification for government using your money decide what your child will eat for lunch (and sometimes breakfast) each day?

* What would be the justification for the government deciding how teachers are trained, certified, and legally shielded from lawsuit (qualified immunity)?

* What would be the justification for the government deciding what an “education” is across the state, for all schools, never mind the standards by which anyone decides whether or not your child has “succeeded” in getting one?

There are more questions you could answer to better understand the way compulsory education law is the foundation of School Choice, but these are the ones that matter most to my argument. My hope is your answers will help you begin to see that School Choice bills depend on the following outgrowths of state power:

* The people being compelled to pay income and property taxes to county, and the state for the ostensible purpose of “educating” children.

* The people being compelled to send their children to a state-approved “school” or being granted permission by the state to homeschool their own children.

* The people not having any legal means to avoid paying “school taxes,” even if they have no children, or are choosing to opt out of the public “option.”

* The people either not recognizing any of the above as a violation of their rights, or feeling helpless to defend their rights.

* The people feeling desperate for other pre-paid (what they sometimes call “free”) options for their children.

School Choice bills don’t propose to end compulsory education laws, nor do they propose a tax opt-out for parents, On the contrary! They propose subsidies for parents made up of a sizable percentage (but not all) of the taxpayer funds the state would have spent on each child for the existing public “option.” The remainder of the allocated funds would still go to the “assigned” school for that child, even if the child isn’t there to teach, and the School Choice lobby is apparently fine with this “compromise.”

Additionally, School Choice bills propose either the creation of a “public-private partnership” with a corporation that will distribute the public’s money, and oversee the “schools” and individuals “applying” to use it, or propose to grow the existing state departments of education to perform these services. Finally, School Choice bills accept the fact that the state will retain its authority to define the standards non-public schools (including homeschools) must meet before parents may use their child’s “school dollars” to pay for them.

None of the above equates to parents having their parental rights respected, never mind “restored.”

Call to Action: Demand Education Liberty!

We have an incoming administration that promises to make School Choice a requirement of every state, and they’re even floating the idea of putting School Choice lobbyists in the administration. I am giving the President-elect the benefit of the doubt that he simply doesn’t understand what I’ve written above, or has never heard anyone argue for Education Liberty before. So please consider this article a call-to-action to each and every one of you — if you agree with me, of course — to make your voices heard. Resist the straw man arguments that you hate poor kids, or want an illiterate country. By the government’s own admission, as shown by their own (now six year-old data), we already have a country in which only 31% of our graduating seniors are “proficient” at reading.

Epilogue: School Choice Serves the Globalist Agenda

This article is already longer than my usual, and in truth I should probably write a separate piece about how School Choice serves the globalist agenda to socially engineer free will out of existence, but for now I will leave you with a second clip of my conversation with Courtenay Turner to spark your curiosity.

Please listen at least to this twelve minute clip, and then go watch the whole show. Also check out Courtenay’s content about School choice.

The Reason We Learn is a reader-supported publication. Although I want to keep all my posts free because I don’t want to put a price on what I consider information that could help you protect your children, and our country, your paid subscription is greatly appreciated, and frees me up to create content more frequently! Thank you!

Get full access to The Reason We Learn at thereasonwelearn.substack.com/subscribe