Inside a GSE Assignment

In the higher education program, we can take a few non-higher education courses, and we are required to take at least one GSE course that is non-higher ed. This allows us to sharpen our skills in other areas of education and stay connected to the field overall. The K-12ers are, after all, technically in the same field as us! My foray into K-12 education has been through the Legal Issues in Education Policy and Practice course. In this course, led by the fabulous Dr. Buckley, we explore the role and influence of litigation, precedent and statutes upon education and education reform efforts. We have looked at how the courts have viewed (or abstained from viewing) the role of common schools, school finance reform, special education, segregation, and now, we are looking at homeschooling.

To be completely honest, the class of about 16 students is full of brilliant education policy and K-12 experts from other programs, and sometimes I feel a couple steps behind. I read, and I generally understand the reading, but the students in the class know their stuff. They know how to get right to the heart of the issues and bring out some of the most interesting topics of discussion. Sometimes they get to that point when I am still pondering the more basic questions about whether or not the courts should even be involved in these issue at hand.

As part of meeting the course requirement, everyone has to partner up with someone and give a presentation on one of the units. My unit is homeschooling and I am presenting today! I partnered up with the one higher education student in the class, so we are both a bit nervous about presenting on K-12 to those who probably know a lot more about homeschooling than we do! As a practice run, I want to go over some of the things we will cover right here on my blog.

We will start with an overview of the constituents that have a stake in the issue of homeschooling, or of directing childrens' education more broadly. There are three interested parties: the state, the parent and the child. Then, there is the question of rights versus interests.For example, if a democratic community of parents decide not to include particular topics in the local school curriculum, and the state believes the decision is detrimental to the interest of the child, when does the state have the right to intervene?

Then, we launch into some historical context using an article by Barbara Woodhouse called Who Owns the Child? as an entry point. In the article, Woodhouse looks at the implications of supreme Court cases, Meyer V. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce V. the Society of Sisters (1925). though the cases were not about homeschooling per se, they helped to establish a precedent for parental rights to direct children's education. here is how:

Meyer V. Nebraska was a Supreme Court case which deemed a law restricting the teaching of languages other than English to students under the eighth grade unconstitutional. The argument behind their decision was interesting. The decision handed down by Justice McReynolds included the following:

“The liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Two years later in Pierce, the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for a state to require students to go to public school, again because it infringed upon the rights of the parent to direct the child's education.Although these two cases had essentially nothing to do with homeschooling in their respective historical contexts, they have been put forth as support for the right of parents to home school their children. The cases, for the first time, created sa sort of right to parenthood in the 14th amendment (which would become very useful later).

The two cases raise questions that we still think about today. What are the interests of the community within the child? Are children the property of parents? Are they extension of parents? Or, are they individuals with rights? Again, if we look only at these two decisions, there seems to be a lot of support for parents rights, and the cases are deciding where to draw the line on state authority to infringe upon parents.

Then, my partner goes over a more contemporary case, Rachel, and some of the arguments about the constitutionality of homeschooling as they pertain to that case.The main article we use in this is from someone (who we do not agree with) who oppose the idea that there are some cases where is not in the interest of the child for the parent to home school the child (issues of abuse or threats to the child's welfare provide clear examples).

After that, I explore whether or not it matters why a parent chooses to home school. In short, I am asking; what about the interests of the state, the society? A democratic society is interested in having well educated, civically-engaged citizens who have been exposed to ideas of people different than themselves. If parents are homeschooling their children to protect them from the difference of ideas and people that exist in a diverse society, should they be allowed to do so? How do we decide this matter? Should the interest of the state in creating the future of its society come into play here?

Then, my partner goes over a third point of view, as presented by  James Dwyer. Dwyer's argument is that the dichotomy of parents' rights and states' rights is erroneous and irrelevant. we need to consider the rights of the child and the interests of the child. In practice, this is hard because children are immature and cannot be autonomous. Adults inevitably are a part of defining what kind of education children will have, but Dwyer argues that they should do i t not out of what will benefit or satisfy them, but what is ultimately best for the child. this is, in practice, quite difficult, but Dwyer does raise a pretty good point. He is saying that these cases, decisions and discussions should be framed in the interest of the child rather than the parent or the state.

Then, we do a short role-play example where the students are different parties to an interchange at a middle school where parents object to their children being taught about homosexuality.

Thank you for letting me practice. And, pardon the fact that I know very little about K-12 education! I am trying! :)

Wish me luck on the presentation today at 2!