In my study of education, one of the most common
assumptions I find among scholars is that public educational
institutions do a better job of providing a liberal education,
one that helps students think critically about different
worldviews, than other forms of education. This assumption stems
less from evidence and more from the liberal hubris that state
institutions can and will accomplish most ends better than
nonpublic means.
One finds this belief on open display in a recent New
Hampshire case regarding homeschooling. The case concerns the
education of Amanda Kurowski and a disagreement between her
divorced parents. The mother has homeschooled Amanda and wishes
to continue to do so for religious reasons. The father is
apparently worried about the daughter’s “rigidity on faith” and
believes she “would be best served by exposure to different
points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to
critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and
cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those
systems will best suit her own needs.”
What is disturbing about the case is not a judge stepping
in to solve a dispute between parents. Unfortunately, when it
comes to warring parents, the court must make some decisions.
What is worrisome are the misconceptions Family Court Justice
Lucinda V. Sandler has about liberal, home, and public education
that she uses to make her decision. She ordered that Amanda must
attend public school, because “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her
religious beliefs…suggests strongly that she has not had the
opportunity to seriously consider any other point of
view.”
The fact that a child might provide a rigorous defense of
her beliefs actually demonstrates the strength of homeschooling.
I’d like to believe my nine year old son could mount a vigorous
defense of his faith, but I’m not sure he could right now (he
goes to public school). Being able to make such a defense,
moreover, is the first step toward critical thinking and not a
sign that it’s not developing. Before asking a child to make
complex judgments as an athlete or musician we must first make
sure he or she has mastered playing the basics. The same is true
for worldviews. In order for a child to begin thinking critically
about different worldviews, he or she must first understand his
or her own. Thus, it is not at all clear why the state should
favor an exposure to multiple worldviews at an early age versus
an in-depth education about one’s own religion.
In addition, merely because a child can mount a vigorous
defense of his or her religious beliefs does not mean that the
child has not seriously considered other points of view. Of
course, I cannot say that I know many fourth graders who are at
the developmental stage where they can “evaluate multiple systems
of belief.” We would need to find some empirical means, beyond
the prejudices of Judge Sandler, to determine whether Amanda was
less capable than other ten year olds in these sorts of
evaluations. Judge Sandler apparently used no such criteria. If
she did, she would probably need to lower her expectations. I
often teach college students educated in public schools who have
trouble with the sort of tasks she expects of ten year old
Amanda.
This leads to the second problem with Judge Sandler’s
views. She assumes that public schooling will actually provide
the opportunity to seriously consider other points of view. I
wonder if the judge actually attended a public school. In my
public school experience, I have found public most young kids are
too inhibited or scared to talk about their faith or worldview
outside of the classroom. In truth, the main education Amanda is
likely to receive would come from socialization or peer pressure
that would encourage her to engage in the basic American cultural
practices of other ten year old girls at her school. While I
would like to believe that such activities would include
discussing and “critically evaluating multiple systems of
belief,” my experience makes me inclined to believe that those
activities are more likely to be texting and talking to friends
about school, clothes, boys and the latest relationship drama,
playing sports or music, and enjoying the latest Hannah Montana
show.
Within the classroom, it is also doubtful Amanda will
encounter serious discussions about various philosophical or
religious worldviews. Teachers and textbooks tend to avoid
controversial issues. If anything, she will be socialized into a
secular world that largely ignores religious faith. As one
University of North Carolina scholar noted in his study of public
school textbooks, “The underlying worldview of
modern education divorces humankind from its dependence on God;
it replaces religious answers to many of the ultimate questions
of human existence with secular answers; and, most striking,
public education conveys its secular understanding of reality
essentially as a matter of faith. Indeed… at least in its
textbooks and formal curriculum students are
indoctrinated into the modern (secular)
worldview and against religion.” Sending Amanda to public schools
does not in any way ensure that she will receive a liberal
education.
Ultimately, Judge Sandler’s decision relies more about her
own biases than what we know about how to help children receive a
liberal education that prepares them “to critically evaluate
multiple systems of belief and behavior.”
