Charlie would never have favored a bill that uses force to promote ideological change. He recognized different viewpoints, and used persuasion, or withdrew without forcing his will upon others, as House Bill 1792 proposes to do.
The bill identifies controversial ideologies that are currently being promoted in public schools. That’s a serious concern which needs resolution. The bill creates a mechanism to file a complaint against a school employee or the district and hold due process hearings at the state Department of Education and then in court, if necessary, to remove books or ban controversial instruction from a school.
Very few parents will use this mechanism. Even if local efforts to resolve the issue have failed, most parents won’t legally confront their district, knowing that there will be retaliation against their child. Their fears are real. Hearings and court proceedings are adversarial, expensive, and benefit no one other than lawyers.
Nor should the state be asked to evaluate and potentially censor instructional ideologies, let alone judge a parent’s objections or conscience. The state will conservatively err on the side of the district, as they will be reluctant to force the removal of a controversial item from an entire school or classroom, because it won’t be just from a single child. This mechanism is particularly difficult when dealing with the cause of much of the recent problems, which is Social Emotional Learning behavior modification programs which are deliberately woven through the entire curriculum. How do you fix that?
Objections must not be limited to those ideologies identified by a legislature. There should be no restrictions upon one’s conscience or ability to object. Ideally, a resolution would not involve force.
Sadly, the ideological problem is systemic. Teachers’ colleges require courses in the same ideologies this bill prohibits. Ongoing certification requires teachers to be continually updated on these ideologies. That’s why the problems is widespread across the country. And, you’d be hard pressed to find textbooks that don’t promote the same ideological agenda. So, if you want to attack the root of the problem, eliminate teacher certification, which would break the chokehold the schools of education have. Private schools don’t require teachers to be ideologically groomed, neither should public schools.
The other half of a solution would be to restore our right to switch districts, leaving objectionable districts for another district, or create a new one. And take our taxes with us. We can take our child and our money out of a private school, why can’t we take children and taxes out of public schools? Sure, we have an obligation to fund public education, but not when it violates our conscience.
Legislators created open enrollment programs to allow students to switch to a more favorable district, Why don’t they allow us to bring our tax money with us or vote in this new district? Wouldn’t that simplify open enrollment accounting disputes between districts? Require parents to notify their town clerk by April 1st in order to switch districts, pay property taxes in the new district in June, and then attend school in September, along with the ability to vote and elect school board members in the new district. This creates communities instead of allowing students to gate crash.
Legislators created education freedom accounts to allow students to leave objectionable districts, but parents are not allowed to stop funding the objectionable district. Why not? Would it not alleviate the need for many of these EFAs if there were alternative methods of resolving district differences within the public school system?
New Hampshire had nearly 3,000 school districts in the late 1800’s when we were allowed to switch districts based upon rights of conscience. This occurred even after the separation of church and state in 1819. Since then the state has required district consolidation. Currently NH has less than 200 districts. There would be far less conflict if we decentralized. Our fundamental right of conscience requires that.
No force, no courts, no litigation would be needed. Parents wouldn’t be trying to a ban books or restrict teachers. There would be no need for injunctions or litigation, because this approach uses no force. It stands solidly upon parents’ fundamental right to direct the education of their children. No one would force others to change against their will. At the same time, a district should not expect support from those who object to their public instruction. It’s basic rights of conscience.
[The prohibition against compelling anyone to fund public instruction of “another persuasion” was remove by stealth from our state constitution, Art. 6, Pt. 1 in 1968.]
The evidence is clear: districts don’t listen to parents trapped in a district and compelled to fund it Without the ability to remove funding from a district, there’s no incentive for any district to respect the rights of conscience of families attending their schools.
