Why not let an independent investigation settle the matter?

Being Frank, By Frank Ameduri

I'm writing this week's column as a sort of companion piece to a recent editorial. One reader took exception to the piece, and was concerned that I might have been hiding behind the fact that nobody signs our editorials. In fact, nobody signs any editorial in any newspaper to my knowledge. At any rate, the editorial supported the tracking of homeschool students for the purpose of ensuring they receive a quality education. The reader responded by asking a few questions of his own, and I'd like to attempt to address some of those questions here -- not as the view of the Frontiersman, but as my own opinion.

The first question the reader asked is an easy one. Are [homeschool parents] really opting out of society simply because our children don't attend public schools? The answer is, "No." It's not opting out to choose an alternate education process for your child, especially if your intention is to maximize your child's educational experience. The question here is not whether homeschooling is a good idea or not, but rather whether homeschoolers should be tracked and tested to ensure they are receiving at least the same level of education that public school students get. As long as your homeschooler is getting equal or better education at home, you've nothing to fear. It's not opting out of society to drive faster than the speed limit -- it's also not an act of oppression when a police officer pulls you over and writes a ticket.

Some of the reader's other points raised some more difficult, and intriguing questions. He accused public schools of showing " … an increasing antagonism to the traditional Judeo-Christian values that were espoused by our forefathers." Just to clear up a popular myth, I'll submit a few quotes from some of our notable forefathers:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -- John Adams.

" … an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ .. the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" -- Thomas Jefferson.

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -- James Madison.

"Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." -- Ethan Allen.

I point those perspectives out, not to call anyone's personal spirituality or religious convictions into question, but simply to establish that, while many of our forefathers were men of faith, they had no intention of founding a government steeped in Judeo-Christian values. In fact, many of those men considered themselves Deists, rather than Christians -- not a subtle point to miss. Their interest was in creating a government based upon laws and upon the notion of personal liberty -- which, in regard to religion, meant freedom from state-sponsored religion as much as it meant the protection of personal religious observation. It is a point so essential to the survival of democracy that one simply can't be considered separate from the other.

While it would be wrong for the government to interfere with parents' decision to educate their children in religious beliefs at home, it is certainly not wrong to establish minimum academic standards for all children, and to establish systems to ensure all children are meeting those standards. While we prefer a government that is as unintrusive as possible, we must also accept that there are some reasonable intrusions. It is not reasonable for the state to mandate the values parents impart to their children, but it is perfectly reasonable for the state to protect children from physical, emotional and sexual abuse. On that note, the Spectrum author bemoaned the fact that society turns its back on Christianity when it rejects corporal punishment. I don't know what to say to that except that if you truly believe state-sanctioned spankings make for a better society, please remember that my children are off limits.

The next affront to Christianity, according to the Spectrum author, takes the form of welfare. "The Biblical command," he writes, "is that if you don't work, you don't eat."

Here's a little ditty from Jesus Christ, according to Matthew: "Then the King will answer, 'I tell you the truth, anything you refused to do for even the least of my people here, you refused to do for me." I'll leave it at that.

One of the most interesting points in the Spectrum piece was the assertion that "Education is neither a right nor a choice, but a privilege." To support the notion he writes, " … in developing countries [education] is viewed as a privilege." I have to think, perhaps that's why they're still "developing." Perhaps that's why some countries lacking public education have been "developing" for centuries.

At any rate, I believe a quality education is not only a right, but that it is one of the principal responsibilities of an enlightened, or even a fully-developed, society. The writer accuses those who do not share his perspective of education, society and Christianity of being socialist or communist. I'm guessing he didn't learn that kind of intolerance in public school, or from his pastor, for that matter. Ignorance is always the best fertilizer for oppression, and a comprehensive public education system is the best weapon a free society has against ignorance.

Yet another question raised by the Spectrum author had to do with a perceived ownership of children. "To whom do the children belong?" he asks. I guess I'd say that children, being human beings, don't "belong" to anyone. Parents are most responsible for the raising of their children, but an entire community has a stake in the matter. If the fact that I trust teachers to help educate my children, or the fact that I help teach children by coaching sports, or the fact that I support the notion of clubs and other activities as positive influences on children makes me a communist, then color me red and call me comrade.

Our public education system is not perfect. Some of the blame can be placed upon the system itself; some must be placed upon a society that has prioritized self so far above community that we confuse cooperation for oppression; yet more blame rests with a collective laziness that leads us to throw up our hands and retreat from challenges rather than joining hands to conquer those challenges. Here's a big surprise for the Spectrum author. My children, who live with their mother in Colorado, are homeschooled, and part of their curriculum is religious in nature. I am comfortable with the education they are receiving. Some of their classes are in public schools, and I am also satisfied with that. I support parents' rights to choose the course that best serves their children. I also support the idea of public education. No matter what course you choose, I also believe it is perfectly acceptable for our democratically-elected government to demand and ensure that every child receives a quality education. In fact, I insist upon it. And Alaska's constitution does, too.

Frank Ameduri is a proud product of the public education system … so blame them.