Reality Check 101

            On September 4, the Washington Times gave a 10-year-old girl front page coverage.  The Girl, Amanda Kurowski, made the headlines from New Hampshire when District Judge Lucinda Sadler ordered her into the public education system.

            The order could have made some sense if Amanda were being poorly educated.  In some circles, it could have been justified by a lack of socialization.  However, according to the court’s own documentation, neither was the case.

            Since the Kurowskis divorced ten years ago, the mother, Brenda Voydatch, who has primary physical custody of Amanda, has maintained a conservative Christian home.  The father, Martin Kurowski, has challenged the home schooling saying in 2006 that Amanda’s strong Christian beliefs keep his daughter from enjoying her relationship with him.  Mr. Kurowski’s attorney now claims instead that it is simply about a social need for group learning, class participation and making friends.

            Oddly enough, even though the court ruled in Martin Kurowski’s favor, it documents the fact that there are no social or educational problems.  To the contrary, court documents recognized Amanda to be “generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level.”  At the time of the ruling, Amanda was already taking supplemental non-academic public school classes and participating in extracurricular activities.  In short, mother and daughter were hands-down successful and thriving.

            So what is the problem?  At its core, the conflict is about religious values and the educational rights of parents.  Like millions of other parents across the country, a parent looked at our secularized public education system and decided to opt out in favor of a better way.  Along with growing numbers of other parents who are home schooling or scrambling to get into charter schools or can afford private education, she decided to exercise her education-related parental rights.

            The offensiveness of Judge Sadler’s ruling is not rooted so much in her presumed authority to draft a new public school student as it is the reason for her decree.  If  Brenda Voydatch were neglecting or abusing Amanda’s intellectual or social development, the order could make a little sense.  Instead,  Sadler and Mr. Kurowski found a way to apply their disdain for a 10-year-old girl’s faith to education.

            The court stated that Amanda maintains “a vigorous defense of her religious beliefs” which suggests “she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider other points of view.”  A court fact finder submitted the opinion that Amanda lacked “youthful characteristics” in part because she “reflect[ed] her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.”

            There are lessons here for the rest of us.  Somewhere along the way, too many parents have been lulled into believing the education myth that they are partners with schools.  In reality, parents are to be in charge not in a partnership.  They are the guardians and supervisors of their children’s hearts and minds; not school boards, state boards, federal agencies, or any court.

            The U.S. Supreme Court once famously acknowledged that “the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.  The child is not a mere creature of the state.”  Even the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

            Whether SCOTUS and the U.N. realized it or not, they were inadvertently recognizing Divine design.  Children are creatures of their parents and no one else.  Vibrant faith in a child, even stubborn faith, is God’s expectation; essential to education, not an educational hazard.