Parents play a fundamental role in their children’s education, but a lack of transparency from school districts makes it difficult for them to stay informed. Too often, parents struggle to determine how well their children’s schools are performing, how taxpayer dollars are being spent, and what is being taught in the classroom. School districts often make it financially prohibitive for parents to access the information they need to hold schools accountable.

The Solution

The fundamental right of parents to participate in and direct the education of their children should be affirmed in state law with the adoption of a parents’ bill of rights. The parents’ bill of rights would require districts to provide parents with clear information about what is happening in their children’s schools.

Key Facts

• In 2025, the Heritage Foundation ranked Missouri 45th in educational transparency among the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

• Sunshine Law requests sent in recent years by the Show-Me Institute seeking curriculum information from Missouri schools and districts were often ignored or met with demands for tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars to process the requests.

Which Rights Should Be Included in Statute?

At a minimum, parents should have:

• The right to know what Missouri schools are teaching.

• The right to know how Missouri schools are performing.

• The right to know how Missouri schools are spending taxpayer money.

• The right to choose the educational option that works best for their children.

• The right to know their children’s physical and mental health and to be informed when concerns arise. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to opt out of health measures not required by state law.

Public Schooling in Partnership with Parents

Schooling works best when parents and educators work together. However, school district policies increasingly undermine such cooperation through a lack of transparency. Missouri’s Sunshine Law is intended to ensure openness in public agencies, yet many school districts routinely claim that fulfilling Sunshine Law requests is prohibitively expensive, then pass those inflated costs on to the requester. This practice effectively blocks Missourians from accessing important information, such as which curriculum materials are being used in their local schools. There is also a growing trend among public schools to withhold information about student health from parents.

The state needs to take action to expand access to information among parents. School districts that fail to comply should be subject to meaningful financial and administrative penalties. Transparency and accountability in local government, including schools, should not be optional. The law must have strong, unambiguous consequences attached to violations of its provisions.

Policy Recommendations

• Pass a parents’ bill of rights into law so that schools and districts understand the rights and expectations of the parents and taxpayers who fund their operations.

• Ensure that the law includes “teeth” —real consequences for violations—so that it isn’t seen merely as a set of recommendations that can be violated without penalty by school districts.

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Kelly Williams-Bolar about her harrowing experience of fighting for her daughters’ education, which led to a legal battle that changed her life forever. After enrolling her daughters in a better school district, Kelly faced accusations of fraud and was ultimately charged with grand theft. After spending nine days in jail, Kelley was pardoned by the governor, who recognized the injustice of her situation. They discuss the systemic issues in education, the consequences of parental choices, and the importance of advocacy for educational equity. Kelly’s story serves as a cautionary tale for parents navigating the complexities of school enrollment and the legal ramifications of seeking better opportunities for their children.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Struggle for Education
08:22 The Legal Battle Begins
14:06 Consequences of a Fight for Education
22:13 Advocacy and Change
30:50 Reflections and Future Directions

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A Mother’s Fight for Education: Kelly Williams-Bolar’s Legal Battle and Time in Jail appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Future of the Department of Education with Ginny Gentles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Parents’ Bill of Rights focuses on five key areas: curriculum transparency, school choice, parental involvement, data privacy, and district accountability. High among those objectives is the establishment of an online portal where district curricula can be viewed by parents so that they are fully informed of the instruction happening in their schools. We discussed these issues at length before Missouri’s U.S. Civil Rights Commission Advisory Committee earlier this year.

The core of the problem, as we’ve revealed over the last few years, is that the current setup for finding out what’s going on in schools requires either a forthright district (or school) or a district that’s compliant with the letter and spirit of Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In essence, taxpayers have to ask about how their money is being spent – rather than simply receive or see it without having to beg for it. The potential result of the current law is straightforward, with districts playing games with responses or attempting to charge outrageous sums for the information.

Now it’s time for this important policy to become law. By empowering parents, improving educational outcomes, promoting school choice, enhancing transparency and accountability, and protecting student data privacy, the adoption of a Parents’ Bill of Rights could have an important impact on the state’s education system—and improve the relationship between parents and the schools they fund.

The post The Parents’ Bill of Rights: Its Time Has Come appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From each of your specific vantage points, what are the most important things for Missouri policymakers to consider when it comes to school choice?

Thank you Dr. Siddiqi for the question and thank you to the Hunt Institute, the secretary of state’s office and the planning committee for putting on this important event. It is an honor to be with you today talking about a topic that I am very passionate about–school choice.

The question asks about the most important things for you to consider when it comes to school choice. And I think there is nothing more important than this—choice is good. It is inherently good.

Now let me make sure you don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying private schools are inherently good and public schools are bad. I am a product of Missouri public schools. I went to K-12 in the Meramec Valley School District. I then took my bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Missouri Southern and Missouri State, both in elementary education. It was during this time, while I was teaching first grade in the Republic School District, that I became a supporter of school choice.

Yet, when I looked around at my students, at my colleagues, and at my community I was met with the unmistakable realization that the local public school is not right for everyone. It does not and cannot meet the needs of every student and the desires of every family.

Republic, coincidentally, will be playing for its first state football championship on Friday. Go Tigers.  Now, I was a soccer player, but even I can see the beauty of a town rallying around a football team. Public schools are, in many cases, the lifeblood of a community and they provide a valuable service. We can’t dismiss that.

So let me come back to what I started with—school choice is good. I do not mean that it is good because it will lead to better academic outcomes, although I think it will, and I think there is evidence for that. Rather, I mean that educational freedom—the ability to choose your children’s school is a good thing in and of itself.

We have grown accustomed to talking about education policies as utilitarian tools to something else. The science of reading is good because it leads to better reading acquisition. Trades programs are good because they prepare students for meaningful trades in the workplace. This policy or that policy is good because it will lead to increased test scores.

If we did look at school choice this way, we might say:

School choice is good, because, on average, there are small academic benefits for participants.

Or

School choice is good, because 26 of 29 studies showed that these policies led to positive competitive effects for those not participating in the program.

Or

School choice is good because parents love these programs.

All of that is true, but it is the wrong way to look at school choice. We might say school choice is good AND it does those things.

School choice is about empowering parents to make the best decisions for their children. It is about equipping individuals with their constitutional rights and with freedom of conscience to direct the upbringing of their kids. This isn’t a left issue or a right issue—it is a human issue. School choice is about freedom.

Now look, we don’t say “Free speech is good because it will lead to . . .” or “The ability to vote is good because it will lead to . . .” We say “free speech is good, therefore people should have it.” “The ability to vote is good, therefore citizens should have it.”

Educational freedom is good; therefore, people should have it.

Choice allows every parent to decide what is best for their kids and their family.

The post School Choice Is Good – Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[T]he new legislation, for example, would bar teaching “that individuals, by virtue of their race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, bear collective guilt and are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by others. . . .”

The legislation also includes a number of parental rights, including being able to access curricula, the names of guest speakers at the school, and information about collection and transmission of student data.

It sets up the “Missouri Education Transparency and Accountability Portal” allowing the public to access “every school district’s curriculum, textbooks, source materials, and syllabi.”

The package also requires the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to create a class for schools to teach about patriotism.

The vote wasn’t close at 21 in favor and 12 against, with two self-described conservatives strangely voting against the bill. Both explained the basis for their votes during the floor debate for SB 4, and to put it lightly, neither senator made a compelling case for opposition.

I’ll explore the bill more in-depth later, but I’ll say here that gripes about statutory language intended to ensure districts don’t get sued for publishing copyrighted material and penalize schools for noncompliance are unfounded and ill-considered. The senators should get better outside counsel than what they received here.

Chances are good that SB 4 will be tweaked and possibly improved by the House, which will take the bill up in the weeks ahead. Chances are also good that some schools and school districts will try to work around or undermine the intent of the law after it’s been implemented, necessitating follow-up legislation to close any loopholes that emerge. But even if SB 4 were passed as is, it’d still be one of the strongest parents’ rights bills in the country. Whenever it does pass this session, it will be a good day for taxpayers and parents.

The post Parents’ Bill of Rights Legislation Clears Senate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Senate Bill 4: Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If we are in a hypothetical war with low test scores, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) actions do not effectively inspire me to charge up the hill. We need our leaders to formulate concrete strategies and implement real changes to improve our education system. For an example, look no further than Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, and the Tennessee Commissioner of Education, Penny Schwinn.

Policy is guided by leadership, and Tennessee’s education-focused leadership has instituted free-market policies that would help Missouri students succeed.

Parental rights are paramount in Tennessee. New laws were enacted in 2021 for curriculum transparency and 2022 for protection against inappropriate materials in school libraries and classrooms. Show-Me Institute analysts have advocated for a parental bill of rights in the past, although Missouri failed to commit to this idea in the past legislative session.

Governor Lee has stated that: “We can fund public schools and provide alternate opportunities for children at the same time if we are committed to funding students and not systems.” In early 2022, Lee pledged to add $1 billion to education initiatives, including teacher salary raises (tied to accountability measures), increased funding for 110 statewide charter schools (in Missouri, about 60 charter schools exist and they are located exclusively in St. Louis and Kansas City), learning initiatives (e.g. new phonics program), and career and technical programs. This increased funding was conditioned on changing the state’s 30-year-old funding formula.

This past session, Lee’s pledge was fulfilled, as a bill with the additional money and the changes to the funding formula passed. Tennessee’s education funding is now calculated by student, not by system. Under the new formula, per-pupil expenditures are set at a base level of $6,870, and then additional funding goes toward individual student needs: special education funding, personal tutoring, or helping disadvantaged kids in rural and urban areas, as a few examples. This type of “backpack funding” assists schools that serve students with additional needs, helping districts and teachers. This type of funding system also helps pave the way for the expansion of comprehensive school choice, as parents who choose a new school for their children more easily have their funding follow them to their institution.

The actions of Tennessee’s leaders are generating results. Missouri used to be far ahead of Tennessee in terms of academic achievement. In 2011, Missouri scored about 8 points better on the NAEP in every category. Tennessee is now (as of 2022) four points ahead in 4th-grade mathematics, one point ahead in 4th-grade reading, and tied in both 8th-grade reading and mathematics. Missouri leaders could learn a lot from Tennessee.  We need concrete action, not just vague rhetoric about the problems in Missouri education. If something doesn’t change soon, Missouri students will end up getting left further behind.

The post Lead Us into Battle for Academic Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Arizona is one of the states that has been courageous enough to trust that parents can and should decide which school their children attend, regardless of their address. Arizona legislators started the first Education Scholarship Account (ESA) in 2011. Now, they have made the very bold move to expand it to every student in the state. You read that right—every Arizona student, if they choose, can opt to directly receive $6,000 in state funding to use at the private school of their choice.

Arizona already has a large network of more than 550 charter schools throughout the state serving 215,000 students. It also has tax-credit scholarship programs for low-income students and students with disabilities, and an open enrollment program. In the 2020–21 school year, more than 90,000 scholarships were awarded through these programs. Currently, there are just over 6,000 students using the Arizona ESA program, but that number is likely to increase dramatically. Given that there are just over one million public school students in Arizona, over one third are already participating in publicly funded school choice. Props to Arizona for opening it up to everyone.

Missouri has about 850,000 public school students. Currently, about 25,000 students attend a charter school in just two out of 520 public school districts in the state. Last year, nearly 4,000 students enrolled in the Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP) virtual program. Beginning this fall, the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship program will go into effect. About 3,500 scholarships granting up to $6,375 per student will be available to those who qualify. Even considering the 14,000 students in magnet schools, fewer than one in 20 Missouri parents can choose their children’s school without paying tuition or moving.

If Missouri is going to make any real progress in turning around our flat test scores and declining enrollment, we need to be an attractive state for families to raise their children. We need to trust parents and give them dominion over their children’s education and education dollars.

The post The Shift Toward Parents Continues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 1858: Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One notable thing about this MPBR legislation is that it’s being advanced as a “resolution” rather than just a “bill.” What makes a House Joint Resolution (HJR) different than a bill is that in contrast to a bill that would change state law and requires a governor’s signature, a joint resolution—if agreed to with the Senate —does not require a signature by the governor and is instead sent to the public. If approved by the public, the joint resolution’s language is then added to the state constitution. If approved by the House and Senate, a vote on the MPBR would happen either this summer or fall.

Although HJR 110 has advanced to debate in the House, when that debate will happen remains to be seen. It may get its vote in the next week, or it may get its vote in the next month; House leadership will determine the timeline from here. But given the friction in the Senate, I hope this resolution gets out of the House fairly quickly to provide some breathing room for a vote before the end of the session, should the Senate continue its slow grind. We’ll keep you posted.

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights Moves to the House Floor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Too often, local officials have resisted oversight of Missouri public schools and districts. School bureaucrats from across the state have pushed back against Sunshine requests filed by the public, including many from the Show-Me Curricula Project, and now lawsuits are flying. I’ve heard stories from concerned parents and teachers about their treatment by school officials and their fears of persecution for speaking up about controversial issues.

This is not how parents and taxpayers should be treated by our public education system. Enough is enough.

In an effort to put the power of schooling back in the hands of the public that funds it, today I am introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR).

The MPBR emphasizes two objectives—transparency and accountability—and sets out reforms that would allow taxpayers and parents to see exactly how their schools and districts are operating and what they are teaching. Titularly highlighting parents’ role in the education of Missouri kids, the MPBR is geared toward promoting good, responsive governance in taxpayer-supported schools and school districts. Certainly, many of these reforms could be just as easily applied to other local governments like cities and counties—and eventually should.

But the taxpaying public should have an unambiguous right to see what’s being taught to their kids, how schools are performing, and how money is being spent. Taxpayers and parents should be able to use every tool available to them to ensure Missouri kids can have a productive educational career and life. For that to happen, taxpayers and parents must have oversight of the educational bodies in our state.

As I’ve written before, the privilege of taxing comes with a duty of forthrightness and responsibility. Denying that forthrightness and responsibility is to entertain the idea that government rules the people and not the other way around. The MPBR seeks to proclaim unequivocally where power in our system resides—with the people—and to emphasize that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable preconditions to accessing tax dollars.

Stay tuned in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we go into greater depth on this initiative.

We’ve only just begun.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The parents of Missouri’s children have a fundamental right to participate in and direct the education of their children. In order to effectuate and protect those rights, the state hereby adopts an approach that affirms “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to ensure parents can see, understand and trust representations made by state and local education officials about their children’s education and equips parents with the tools to make informed choices to educate their children especially if, in their judgment, the unique needs of their children are not being met.

Those rights include but are not limited to:

• the right to transparent access to school and school district curricula and lesson plans, made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
  • Curricula shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the beginning of a semester’s classes.
  • Because they are often formulated up to the date of instruction, lesson plans shall be available to the public no later than 30 days after the date such course materials were taught. Parents nonetheless have the right to request such materials directly from teachers prior to that time.
  • The right to instructional material includes the right to transparent access to school and school district faculty and staff training materials, also made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on a website hosted by the state.
• the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • the percentage of all students scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the percentage of students in each reportable subgroup, including race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English language learners, scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the Growth score in English/language arts (ELA), measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 through 8
  • the Growth score in math, measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 thru 8
• the right to transparent access to school and school district financial information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • transactional data similar to that produced from an accounts payable report, and if practicable rendered in a manner similar to the existing Show-Me Checkbook website maintained by the Treasurer’s Office.
  • the district’s latest financial statements filed with the state.
• the right to transparent access to contract negotiations between the district and labor groups with whom the district is considering entering into labor agreement (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) including access to all materials used in negotiation and all finalized documents that describe the legal obligations of parties pursuant to an agreement. Such documents shall be available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
• the right to choose existing educational choice options provided by law that best suit the learning needs of their children.
• the right to request to opt their children out of the classroom for any presentation of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
• the right to control their children’s likeness in district materials, subject to exceptions like court orders.
• the right to control their children’s health and identifying markers, including but not limited to the right to opt out of health measures not required by state order or statute.

Failure by a school or school district to abide by these rights and expectations could subject the school or school district to financial penalties by the state and administrative penalties affecting the privileges afforded districts under state law.

Download a Copy of the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What a difference a year makes. A year ago, parents across the state of Missouri were likely not even aware that the last week of January is National School Choice Week. In Missouri, school choice—at least from what I can tell from following the state legislature—is exclusively a policy for poor kids in failing urban districts. Suburban and rural Missourians don’t need school choice because their schools are “good.” Rural districts in particular are often described as “loving” their local schools regardless of how they perform. They’re the center, the heartbeat, of the community. What they provide was good enough for my parents and my grandparents, and it is fine for my kids, so the story goes.

Unfortunately, that story fell apart in 2020. Thousands of Missouri students essentially sat out the last couple of months of the last school year, especially in rural districts with technological challenges. This year, as positive COVID tests and the need to quarantine wreaked havoc on school schedules, the number of Missouri students who only had the option of fully remote learning went from around 90,000 in September to 248,000 in December. Blended learning, in which students attend school for a few days a week, and which, as a working parent, sounds like a worst-case scenario to me, peaked at around 300,000 students last December. For reference, Missouri has about 900,000 public school students.

The point is that we are halfway through a school year in which students and families from all backgrounds and all types of communities across Missouri have learned the hard way what it feels like to have only one type of education available, whether it works for them or not and regardless of how often that one type changes. And good will is beginning to slide.

A survey of Missouri parents taken in early December found that over one-quarter of parents would give their child’s remote learning experience this year a grade of “D” or “F.” Parents are worried. Last school year, about half of Missouri parents felt their children were ahead academically and less than 7 percent felt they were behind. Just ten months later, only 18 percent of Missouri parents believe their children are ahead and a troubling 37 percent believe them to be behind.

This concern reflects an erosion of trust in the public school system. Just 47 percent of Missouri parents trust the public school system to make decisions that are in the best interest of their children’s education all the time or almost all the time. Last year, that number was almost 70 percent. Sadly, the percentage of parents who never or only rarely trust the public education system has gone up by 26 points in just one year.

The antiquated system of assigning every student to one, and only one, type of education based on their address has to go. If Missouri wants to rejoin the ranks of states that attract families and businesses, it needs to create a system of education that reflects current and future conditions, not the past. Parents should be able to use public funds to enroll their children in a charter school, a private school, a micro-school, or a virtual school. Parents should be able to access public funds to get the tutoring or educational therapies their children need. Regaining the trust of parents must be earned. It should start with trusting parents first.

Our neighbors get it. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds has committed to expanding K-12 education options for all Iowa students, including, but not limited to, open enrollment, education savings accounts, and expansion of charter schools. Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has expanded scholarship programs for students with disabilities to include religious schools and used flexible stimulus funds to help parents in need to continue to pay for private school tuition. In addition to having more than 40 rural and suburban charter schools, Arkansas allows students the option to transfer out of failing schools. And Arkansas, it should be noted, is brave enough to call them “F” schools.

For far too long, the Missouri legislature has listened to superintendents and school boards that want to ban any form of school choice happening in their backyard. but parents were put in charge of their children’s education this year. They’ve had some time to consider it. They have concerns. And maybe now the legislature should listen to them.

The post A Crisis of Trust appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Star’s “letter of the week,” titled “Sensible Sex Education Works,” provided a perfect example of this concept. In it, a retired healthcare executive from Johnson County, Kansas, implored the state to take action on preventing unwanted pregnancies.  Given that unwanted pregnancies are by definition unwanted, trying to decrease them seems like a good idea.

But he goes off the rails in his second recommendation when he argues that the state should “develop comprehensive sex education in our schools, with no opt-outs.”

No opt-outs.  Your children will be made to care.

Now, I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill here—it’s not clear that the author has any particular sway with any local education system.  Nor am I opposed to schools teaching sex education. But I am bothered by the principle that schools should be able to force certain value-laced information on children, parental preferences be damned.  

Kansas City would not be the first place where such a battle might be fought. In Fairfax County, Virginia, it took huge parental outcry to get an opt-out provision in the district’s sex education curriculum. Our friendly neighbors to the north have created mandatory sex education programs.  It’s not far-fetched to think that some school might try that here.

In 1925, the US Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that children are “not mere creatures of the state.” Just because someone believes that a certain sex education program would decrease unwanted pregnancies, that doesn’t trump a parent’s right to shape their child’s education.  If that means opting students out of sex education class, so be it. 

But more than this, it should mean that parents have the right to opt out of the traditional public system entirely, and send their children to the charter or private school of their choice. 

The post You will be made to care: Sex Ed Edition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am tired of this attitude about parents knowing what is best for their children . . . If their child broke his leg they would not try to fix it themselves even if they did not have health insurance. They would take the child to a health care professional. So what in God’s name is wrong with taking your child to an Education Professional?

On its face, this argument seems valid. Parents cannot be expected to have an expertise in all areas and in fact, they do consult with a variety of professionals to help take care of their children. Why, then, should education be different?

The problem with this argument is that in other areas of life, including the medical field, parents have some sort of choice. This is not always the case in education. In most areas, students are assigned to schools based on where they live. Some local public schools are wonderful, while some schools are woefully inadequate. We would not accept this type of system in other fields, so why do we allow it in education?

To answer the question that the author posed — “So what in God’s name is wrong with taking your child to an Education Professional?” — nothing is wrong with entrusting your child to the care of another. But let parents, not the government, make the decision on which “Education Professional” their child will see.

The post Let Parents Choose Their ‘Education Professional’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Did the state make the right decision to return the baby in the end? (I certainly think so. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.) Should the state have taken the baby away in the first place? (I don’t think so, although some might think the question of the baby’s safety required some type of action.) Should the state have the power even to consider doing what it did in the first place? In other words, should the state have the power to take a child away because of the fear of potential harm (let’s assume it is a legitimate fear), but absent any actual harm?

I think the third question gets tougher. That is not to say I agree with anything the state did here; I am merely posing the question. Should the state have any power whatsoever to remove a child from its parents because of the potential of harm, but before any real harm occurs? The problem here is that we can all come up with hypothetical situations that would probably lead to an answer of “yes” (i.e., the parents are meth addicts), but as soon as you say “yes” you are granting the state the right to make judgment calls. Inevitably, they will at some point use that judgment improperly, just like they did in this example. Let’s discuss this in the comments.

I have a few points I want to make — and I write all of this as a fairly new parent, myself. I think this statement by the mother is one of the most honest statements I’ve read in a while:

“I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent,” Johnson said.

Being a new parent is tough. It was certainly tough for me, and I am about as perfect a physical specimen as you will ever lay eyes on. I can’t fathom being a parent in the situation these parents are in, but I feel certain that the sense a parent has for the well-being of their children will trump the issues those children may face. Practically speaking, I would bet that a home designed for the blind would be just as well baby-proofed as anywhere. If other parts of their lives are a little trickier than they are for the sighted, those are the challenges of life. For example, letting a two-year old Mikaela run around at the park will be hard for parents who can’t see the child. Do they use one of those child leashes? Only go to parks with fully enclosed fencing, like DeMun park in Clayton? Take family or friends along with them?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. I do believe that the family’s love will overcome all these obstacles, and I think the involvement of the state here has been an outrage.

The post Should the State of Missouri Take Children Away From the Blind? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Working with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school — one not recognized by the German government — they expected to be punished with moderate fines and otherwise left alone.

But they soon discovered differently, he said, facing fines eventually totaling over $11,000, threats that they would lose custody of their children and, one morning, a visit by the police, who took the children to school in a police van. Those were among the fines and potential penalties that Judge Burman said rose to the level of persecution.

Reading these details of their story reminds me how fortunate homeschooling families in the United States are today. Some states impose more regulations than others; depending on where they live, parents may need to hold college degrees, to submit their curriculum for approval, or to agree for their children to take standardized tests. But it’s unheard of for the government to remove children from their homes forcibly and send them to school.

A sign of U.S. homeschoolers’ freedom is that when legislation is introduced that would affect them, the right to homeschool is usually not at question. And, secure in their ability to homeschool, parents can ask states for more than the right to be left alone. For example, homeschooling parents in Utah are currently lobbying for public schools to include homeschoolers in extracurricular activities. In Germany, parents fight to take their children out of the public schools; permission to bring them back for activities is the least of their concerns.

Supporters of homeschooling might point out that homeschooling can become an issue in divorce cases like this one in Missouri that Caitlin Hartsell discussed. It’s true; divorce courts do sometimes order a parent to send his or her children to school instead of teaching them at home. However, these decisions are not comparable to the harassment homeschoolers face in Germany and other countries. If divorced parents disagree about their children’s education, whatever the court ruling is, one parent will end up better satisfied and the other unhappy. Parents who want to send their children to public or private schools can be disappointed by these orders, and parents who want to homeschool are not immune from unfavorable divorce court rulings. What matters for homeschoolers in general is that divorce decisions apply only to individual families, and do not create new policies for everyone else.

The post Homeschooling Family in the New York Times appeared first on Show-Me Institute.