Two essay questions

timer Asked: Jul 3rd, 2018
account_balance_wallet $50

Question description

First read the Chad 102 Final Exam Summer 2017.pdf first, there are two essay questions.

Essay #1: No special requirement, read the instruction before you start.

Essay #2: You must read all the articles I have uploaded first before you answer the question.

No outside source is allowed for the Essay #2.Also read

FINAL EXAM SLO 2: Describe historical, social, political, and economic processes producing diversity, equality, and structured inequalities in the U.S. SLO 4: Recognize and appreciate constructive interactions between people from different cultural, racial, and ethnic groups in the U.S. The exam is worth a total of 45 points. It is based on all readings, lecture notes, and websites included in the course. For both essays include brief introductions and use citations to appropriate readings and lesson material to back up your answers. That doesn't mean you refer to the readings 1 time in your essays; it means you refer to them several times as you make various points. You don't need a reference section. Be sure not to plagiarize or use excessive quotes in any of your answers. Be as concise as possible in your answers. Rubric for grading your essays: A+ = excellent response, includes all content, highly referenced, organized, well written & concise A = very good response, includes all content, well referenced, organized, well written B = good response, includes almost all expected content, some references, pretty well written C = satisfactory response, includes decent content, 1 or 2 references, some typos/stylistic errors D = not satisfactory response, partial content, no references and/or poorly written F = unsatisfactory response, could have written the response without doing the reading, disorganized, not referenced, poorly written Essay # 1 (20 points) Research clearly shows that the rate of intermarriage (marriage among individuals from two different ethnic backgrounds) has increased dramatically, particularly in areas in which there is considerable ethnic diversity. On the other hand, most people tend to marry within their own group. Using the research (reading), argue for why people are attracted to those within their own group OR argue for why we might see this increase in interethnic marriages. (There are different ways to answer this, but be sure to use at least one theory from the reading in your response). If an inter-ethnically married couple (you can determine what 2 groups they are from, but one person must be an immigrant and the other a non-immigrant) were to have children, what are some of the additional concerns the parents might have in childrearing and in the identity development of their biracial child(ren)? Use references to readings & lessons to explain your points. (Approximately 2.5 pages - double spacing) Essay #2 (25 points) Part 1: Describe the historical, political, social and economic processes that promoted structured inequalities during the Jim Crow era. What were the impacts at the educational level for African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics? Part 2: There are still achievement gaps between students from higher status groups compared to students from lower status groups. According to the various articles you read in Module 3: Lessons 4-5, what are the problems (be sure to include the various perspectives all the authors in your readings have on this) and how can the problems be remedied in schools? Use many references (readings/lecture notes from this class ONLY) to all of the various appropriate readings to explain and argue your points. (3 typed/word processed double spaced pages) Save your exam with the format: name102Exam (e.g., Jabagchourian102Exam1) Do NOT send the exam piecemeal—send both essay responses in one document You need to turn your exam in to Canvas by 11:59pm on July 7.
No. 492 October 8, 2003 Our History of Educational Freedom What It Should Mean for Families Today by Marie Gryphon and Emily A. Meyer Executive Summary America has two strong, yet conflicting, educational traditions. One is our tradition of educational freedom, and the other is a strong, though shorter, tradition of state-controlled schooling. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris upholding school choice programs, more and more families are questioning whether state control over educational decisions is really best. Decades of public school failure in our inner cities have contributed to the recent increase in sentiment against standard state solutions to social problems, and the success of school choice programs in Milwaukee and elsewhere has challenged the conventional wisdom that families with low incomes cannot or will not make good choices for their own children. In this paper we examine the American tradition of educational freedom, following its ebb and flow at various points in our history. America’s ethos of educational freedom has always been strong, tied to our values of pluralism, tolerance, and free inquiry. But our legacy of freedom has suffered repeated assaults by individuals and groups who wish to use state control over schooling to homogenize American culture. We then examine recent victories for educational freedom, such as the historic Supreme Court decision upholding school choice and the introduction of new school choice programs around the country. Finally, we outline the most critical additional freedoms that parents and families need in the areas of school choice, private school freedom, homeschooling, and religious neutrality. Recent victories for educational freedom are encouraging but only a beginning. School choice is legal, but it is not widespread, and opponents of educational freedom are threatening to smother existing private schools in a morass of new regulations, which would dictate everything from curriculum to staffing. Supporters of educational freedom must not win legal battles while losing the public policy war. An educational freedom agenda including choice for all families, religious neutrality, freedom for private schools, and protection for homeschooling families will ensure that educational freedom provides real benefits to families who are harmed by current policies. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Marie Gryphon is a policy analyst and Emily A. Meyer is a research assistant in the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. Our freedom to determine what and how our children learn is important to preserving our political freedom in a constitutional democracy. Introduction make decisions for children that all parties agree cannot yet be made by children themselves? Either parents can make such decisions, or a government entity must. Liberal parentalists believe that parents are better able to make child-rearing decisions— including educational decisions—than the state. For example, no government actor, no matter how conscientious or exceptional, will have the time and motivation to choose a school for a single child as well as a parent will. By allowing parents to make child-rearing decisions, liberal parentalism and educational freedom help in the long run to preserve our free and pluralistic society. As the Supreme Court has warned, government control of education threatens to “standardize children.”5 Educational freedom is thus closely tied to the American tradition of the right to dissent from majority views and state orthodoxies. Our freedom to determine what and how our children learn is important to preserving our political freedom in a constitutional democracy. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris upholding school choice programs, more and more families are questioning whether state control over educational decisions is really best. Decades of public school failure in our inner cities have contributed to the recent increase in sentiment against standard state solutions to social problems, and the success of school choice programs in Milwaukee and elsewhere has challenged the conventional wisdom that families with low incomes cannot or will not make good choices for their own children. In this paper we examine the American tradition of educational freedom, following its ebb and flow at various points in our history. We then discuss recent victories for educational freedom. Finally, we turn to the importance of securing additional freedom for parents and families in the areas of school choice, private school freedom, homeschooling, and religious neutrality—a critical “to do” list for advocates of educational freedom if all American families are to secure its rewards. America’s educational history is the story of a conflict between two strong traditions.1 On one hand rests our tradition of educational freedom. For much of our nation’s history, control over education was entirely decentralized, and educational institutions were voluntary, cooperative efforts involving parents, teachers, students, and charitable organizations or local governments. Parents sought educational options for their children that harmonized with their religious and cultural traditions, and constitutional protections including freedom of expression, religion, and association helped to protect diverse educational institutions from state repression. On the other hand, we also have a very strong tradition of state-controlled schooling. The rise of the American public school accompanied large waves of immigration in the 19th century. Government control of schooling was thought necessary to assimilate the children of immigrants and to avoid conflicts over state subsidization of minority religious schools. In one respect the latter tradition has largely carried the day; well over 80 percent of American schoolchildren now attend public schools.2 But an ethos of educational freedom still exists in the United States. Although most children attend public schools, the U.S. Constitution protects the right of alternative private schools to exist, and the right of parents to choose them. Professor Stephen Gilles of Quinnipiac University School of Law links America’s tradition of educational freedom to an embrace of a broader intellectual tradition he calls “liberal parentalism.”3 Liberal parentalists believe that parents should be afforded maximum freedom to make child-rearing decisions, unless those decisions are plainly seriously harmful to the child. Contrary to the assertions of some critics,4 liberal parentalism does not stand in opposition to the notion that children have individual human rights. Rather, liberal parentalists and their critics both attempt to address the following question: Who should 2 Educational Freedom in Early America replaced in part by the more useful subjects taught in town “writing schools” and private vocational schools; the nature of economic life in the colonies generated demand for vocational learning over more traditional subjects. In contrast to the independent schools’ evolution, the semipublic town schools continued to adhere to traditional methods and subjects during this period.12 Charity schools established by philanthropists and religious societies existed in many parts of the country. Unlike the situation in England, opposition to educating the poor did not arise.13 The Lancasterian, or monitorial, system of instruction14 also furthered the spread of charity schooling. It proved to be an efficient and inexpensive way to educate large numbers of children.15 The system allowed pupils to advance according to their abilities in each subject, in contrast to the rigid grading system of later common schools.16 As urban populations grew, local voluntary associations seeking to assist needy women and children often took over the management of the “free schools.” Mutualaid societies formed around trades and religious denominations for similar purposes.17 Although the charity system contributed much to the education of the poor, it was far from perfect. Some reformers used charity schools to indoctrinate the children as they saw fit, often with the idea that their families were a harmful influence.18 Beginning in the 1790s, scattered Sunday schools helped provide basic instruction to individuals and groups that lacked access to weekday schools. Though they played a relatively small role in spreading literacy, Sunday schools did help fill the gaps in schooling opportunities for girls, adults, blacks, factory children, and frontier residents.19 With the spread of tax-supported public schools in the 1820s and 1830s, however, Sunday schools abandoned basic education in favor of religious teaching.20 While Protestant factions battled over the religious content of common school curricula, Sunday schools sought to make up for deficiencies in students’ religious education.21 Before the mid-19th century, schooling in the United States was an entirely local undertaking. Schools funded by tuition, charity, public funds, or some combination of the three coexisted, at least in densely populated areas. That mixture of schools did a surprisingly good job of spreading literacy and meeting the population’s other educational needs. Tuition-charging schools in particular produced curricular and other innovations that spurred the young nation’s economic growth. The establishment of state schooling systems curtailed this varied marketplace, however, and by 1900 had replaced it with an increasingly expensive and inefficient monopoly. A Variety of Local Schools In the colonial and early national periods, a range of schooling options met most citizens’ needs.6 Residents of small towns and rural areas in the North attended semipublic district schools, which generally allowed poor students to attend for free while charging tuition to those who could afford it. In the South, teachers selected temporary locations or were engaged by a group of parents to teach for a term.7 Most children in rural areas of the North and a substantial number of white children in the South attended school for at least two or three months a year.8 Parents had considerable influence in these rural schools, particularly because of the custom of housing teachers in student homes. Parents also played a significant role in the selection of teachers and textbooks.9 In populous areas, independent schools existed in various forms; often, teachers simply taught in their houses, advertising for pupils with signs or newspaper notices.10 The quarterly fees at most of those schools were within the means of roughly three-quarters of the population.11 Because teachers had the freedom to adapt courses and hours of instruction to student interest and convenience, those schools generated many improvements in curricula and methods. Over time, classical curricula were 3 Before the mid-19th century, schooling in the United States was an entirely local undertaking. The seemingly haphazard mix of schools that existed in the years before 1840 produced a surprisingly well-educated populace. to their detriment.33 In early 19th century Boston, black parents and white philanthropists established a free private school in the home of local black activist Primus Hall.34 Meant to serve as an escape from Boston’s public schools, the school quickly fell under the public school committee’s control. The loss of control over this and other segregated schools led African-American parents to petition the committee to end school segregation, a request that was continually denied.35 Local Schools for African Americans African Americans, because they were excluded from most free schooling,22 eagerly sought out Sunday schools, which generally held separate classes for black adults and children. In New York, blacks were 25 percent of Sunday school pupils by 1817.23 Sunday schools in cities throughout the South held classes for free blacks; during the 1820s, some even included slaves. Many of the students were adults, women as well as men.24 After Nat Turner’s 1831 rebellion magnified racial prejudices, however, many southern states prohibited teaching slaves to read and restricted the liberty of free blacks, ending black participation in white Sunday schools.25 Quakers also made notable efforts to help educate African Americans, founding numerous schools for the children of black freedmen between 1770 and the first decades of the 19th century. They even ran “mixed schools” for a short period after the Revolution.26 In northern cities during the antebellum years, abolitionist groups helped provide schools for black refugees from the South.27 Although white charity efforts were important, black communities in the urban North established successful schools as well. Many black-run Sunday schools were organized after the Turner revolt, which caused white Sunday schools in Washington, D.C., and other places to dismiss black children.28 White-run Sunday schools had in any case ceased to be of much use after the spread of common schools diminished their emphasis on reading and writing.29 Blacks also established weekday schools in many northern cities and towns. Most charged tuition, though some charity schools were also established.30 A surprising number of those schools appeared in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, where charitable organizations had been much less active than in New York and Philadelphia.31 Freemen in the South also made significant efforts to educate themselves, though in general black education was confined to private teaching and religious instruction in population centers.32 In a few places black-run schools were drawn into emerging public systems, generally Literacy and Parent Power The seemingly haphazard mix of schools that existed in the years before 1840 produced a surprisingly well-educated populace.36 By 1787 free male literacy was about 65 percent and probably greater than 80 percent in New England. By 1850 only 1 in 10 people identified themselves as illiterate on the U.S. census.37 Enrollment rose steadily during those years, particularly among girls.38 Findings from an 1821 annual report of New York State superintendents indicate that schooling was almost universal there, without being compulsory or free except to the very poor.39 That surprising success came at a time when parents were almost entirely responsible for their children’s education. Independent and, to a lesser extent, semipublic schools succeeded precisely because parents controlled teacher pay and made other important decisions. In the proposal for improving education outlined in his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith acknowledged this fact: every parish or district should have a school charging a small tuition, “the master being partly, but not wholly paid by the public; because, if he was wholly, or even principally paid by it, he would soon learn to neglect his business.”40 Since parents were in the best position to assess teachers’ efforts, they were the best group to control teachers’ salaries. Peaceful Prelude Before the appearance of state-sponsored systems, schools were not a source of conflict. Since most parents had at least some degree of control over their children’s education, they 4 work of semipublic, independent, and charity schools. Where they had once been informal arrangements, schools became institutions designed to achieve social goals.43 By the end of the 19th century, a clear line dividing public schools and the remaining private institutions had emerged. found arrangements to suit their needs: There were nondenominational schools, Quaker schools and Lutheran schools, fundamentalist schools and more liberal Protestant schools, classical schools and technical schools, in accordance with the preferences of local communities. Some had homogenous enrollments; others drew students from across ethnic and religious lines. In areas where schools of different sects coexisted, they and their patrons seldom came into conflict, since they did not try to foist their views on one another. They lived and let live in what were comparatively stable, though increasingly diverse, communities.41 Protestant Reformers The common school movement accompanied an era of dramatic social change, particularly the influx of immigrants during the 1830s and 1840s. From the dominant (Anglo-Saxon Protestant) viewpoint, that influx threatened democratic institutions. Protestantism, along with faith in capitalism and republicanism, justified school reformers’ wish to regulate morals and create a more homogenous population through public schooling.44 In other words, religious prejudice inspired the establishment of public schools.45 State aid to Protestant schools (and not Catholic schools) became politically difficult during the 1840s when 700,000 Catholic immigrants entered the country. Instead of providing aid, states established public schools with a pronounced Protestant bias.46 Catholics, of course, rejected those public schools and campaigned for public funding of Catholic schools. Compromise was impossible because reading the Bible without comment, a central feature of Protestant public schools, was simply unacceptable to Catholics.47 Angry protests ensued in 1840 when some Catholics petitioned to allocate a portion of New York City’s school funds (controlled by the philanthropic Public School Society) to parochial schools.48 The petition was defeated, and Catholic lobbying resulted instead in the establishment of supposedly nonprotestant public schools, administered by the city government beginning in 1841. In 1844 a Philadelphia school board ruling that Catholic children could choose to read from the Catholic Douay49 Bible resulted in a riot that killed 20. Blocks of Irish immigrant homes, as well as three Catholic churches, were burned.50 The public schools generally enforced their Protestant bias. In 1854 the Maine Supreme The Puritans’ educational experience illustrates this point. Their community-run and community-funded town schools had impressive success despite using local public funds. However, their curricula adhered strictly to Calvinist teachings, and such an arrangement would not have survived in the absence of a homogenous community. The Puritans’ presence in the New World was in fact due in large part to their exclusion from English schools and universities. Similarly, the Founders’ plans for public education aimed to create and maintain a homogenous society. While Jefferson and Franklin advocated the establishment of publicly funded schools, they did so on the basis of the assumption that English Protestant values would inform their curricula. At that time the Catholic Church (and Catholic education) was widely viewed as a threat to liberal society,42 which some of the Founders may have hoped public schools could counteract by enforcing Protestant views. Declining Freedom: The Rise of Government Schooling Beginning in the antebellum period, a system of “free” public schools replaced the net- 5 Protestantism justified school reformers’ wish to regulate morals and create a more homogenous population through public schooling. As public schooling spread, bureaucracies developed to regulate the new school systems. by age—are in fact a direct legacy from Prussia, a kingdom with little appreciation for the virtues of limited government and intellectual freedom.60 The popular notion that Thomas Jefferson was public schooling’s original advocate is incorrect. The Founders certainly thought that education was crucial for the stability of a republic, but that fact does not imply that they wanted most education to take place in school systems.61 Public education as envisioned by Jefferson was limited to basic elementary education for all in district schools. Further schooling at public expense was reserved for a talented few.62 Even though Jefferson failed to get a free-school bill through the Virginia legislature, he opposed Charles Mercer’s later bill because he felt it was too centralist.63 Court held that public schools could require reading from the King James Bible.51 In 1858 and 1859 students in New York City and Boston were expelled from public school for refusing to read from the King James Bible. By 1870 Protestant reformers, with few exceptions, were united in support of public elementary schools. They had decided that public funds could not be allocated to sectarian schools and that reading from the Protestant Bible was to be encouraged in the public schools.52 At first, some denominations opposed state involvement in secondary and higher education (because they sponsored schools at those levels), but church leaders abandoned their opposition by the end of the 19th century.53 Development of an Education Bureaucracy As public schooling spread, bureaucracies developed to regulate the new school systems. States began to prescribe methods of teacher training and certification and to hire school administrators. Compulsory attendance laws further consolidated state control.54 Advocates of public schools hoped that state involvement would attract more qualified and less transient teachers by establishing teaching as a profession.55 They also sought to use public schooling to achieve other important social goals.56 In his advocacy of reform, Horace Mann, perhaps the most prominent common school reformer, drew much of his inspiration from a distant source: Prussian Pietism. Following the advice of Pietist reformers, early German king and Roman emperor Frederick II made schooling compulsory for children aged 5 to 13 and declared all schools and universities state institutions.57 Prussian teachers were trained and certified by the state during the following centuries.58 After touring German schools in 1843, Mann worked to spread their pedagogy in America.59 One scholar has argued that all traditional elements of primary education—compulsory attendance, pupils raising their hands, collective instruction from state-approved textbooks, children grouped Winners and Losers Teachers and administrators vigorously supported the campaign for public schools. In fact, at least in New York State, the campaign for free schools apparently began in the teachers’ institutes.64 The teachers’ objective was to abolish rate bills (partial fees paid by parents) so district taxation would pay their salaries instead. Later, they lobbied for compulsory education. After both objectives were accomplished, teachers were able to earn higher salaries with less accountability to parents. The lower classes and ethnic and religious minorities, however, were losers. As state funding increased, charity decreased.65 Immigrants found that public schools sought to “Americanize” their children at the expense of their traditional customs and beliefs. And African Americans were condemned to the segregated system produced by post–Civil War conditions.66 Whether they pressed for integration or tried to make the best of separate schools, their charity schools were gradually absorbed by public systems.67 In the end, state-sponsored education was detrimental to white Protestant children as well. By ceding control to the state, parents had reduced private options, ensuring declining educational quality. As John Stuart Mill 6 Jewish and Italian immigrants, among others, were subject to widespread prejudice.73 World War I significantly exacerbated distrust of immigrants, particularly those from Germany.74 That anti-immigrant backlash was variously called nativism, or “one hundred percent Americanism.”75 Immigrants were seen as ideologically suspect and thus unreliable supporters of the war effort.76 National and local organizations sprang up to foster support for the war and to investigate individuals and groups deemed hostile to the American action in Europe.77 It was against this backdrop of intense patriotic fervor, distrust of immigrants, and a specific anti-German bias that laws banning foreign language instruction and private schooling arose.78 warned, states satisfy their own interests before those of the individual: A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exists at all, as one among many competing experiments.68 The English Only Movement World War I era nativist sentiment quickly focused on the domestic use of foreign languages. Stories circulated about U.S. Army conscripts who could not understand orders, because they had been educated primarily in a language other than English.79 Language was suddenly a national security concern, both because of the need for an effective fighting force overseas and because of fears that immigrant groups were subverting the war effort in foreign-language meetings and publications at home. Beyond that, language was seen as a barrier to intellectual assimilation during a period of intensely conformist patriotism. Professor William G. Ross of the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University writes that German Americans were, on the eve of World War I, “the largest, most cohesive, distinctive and self-confident of the nation’s non-British ethnic enclaves, cleaving to their language and traditions even as they adopted American ways.”80 German Americans thus often used the German language in social clubs, newspapers, and churches as well as in their parochial schools.81 Legislatures around the country began to crack down on the use of foreign languages. A law in Oregon effectively shut down foreign-language newspapers by requiring a lit- In practice, public education in the United States increasingly satisfied the interests of the people the state had put in charge, teachers and administrators.69 The Early 20th Century: The Struggle Continues The dawn of the 20th century saw an escalation in the battle between proponents of educational freedom and activists bent on using the law to restrict schooling. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively defended educational freedom from some of the era’s worst assaults, striking down restrictions on teaching foreign languages and even compelled full-time attendance at public schools, which operated as an effective prohibition on private schooling.70 Efforts to restrict educational options during this period sprang primarily from a continuing cultural backlash against large waves of immigrants from southern Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.71 By the turn of the century, America was accepting more than 1 million immigrants each year.72 Like Reconstruction Era immigrants, but unlike earlier arrivals, those immigrants were often not Protestant. 7 The dawn of the 20th century saw an escalation in the battle between proponents of educational freedom and activists bent on using the law to restrict schooling. The demise of the foreign-language laws marked the beginning of an era in which a safe haven existed in American law for parenting and family life. privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.87 eral English translation of every article to be printed beside the original. Nebraska banned the conduct of public meetings in languages other than English. 82 Many lawmakers focused on the use of foreign languages in private schools, believing that children “could not properly absorb American values and become good citizens unless they received instruction in the English language.”83 Eventually, 23 states enacted statutes regulating or prohibiting instruction in foreign languages. Several states specifically prohibited the teaching of German.84 Among those was Nebraska, which in 1919 adopted a law prohibiting any foreignlanguage instruction in public or private schools before high school.85 A teacher named Robert T. Meyer was convicted of teaching German to elementary schoolchildren during the time allotted to recess.86 Meyer appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing in line with economic liberty precedents embraced by the Court at that time that a prohibition on foreign-language instruction violated his right to engage in his profession. More important, Meyer argued that students and teachers had a personal liberty interest in the acts of teaching and learning without government interference, and that parents enjoy a constitutional right to control the upbringing of their children. Those last arguments—relating to educational freedom and family autonomy—formed the basis of the Court’s decision to strike down foreign-language laws. In doing so, it delimited a sphere of professional, personal, and family life that was protected from undue interference by the state: Noting that “the American people have always regarded education and the acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance,” the Court wrote, “[Meyer’s] right to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the amendment.”88 Because mere knowledge of the German language cannot be said to be inherently harmful, the foreign-language prohibitions were illegitimate. The states had no proper interest in restricting the liberty of teachers and students of German. Thus, the demise of the foreign-language laws marked the beginning of an era in which a safe haven existed in American law for parenting and family life. Not just foreign languages but any other areas of learning that parents and students wished to pursue were now protected from arbitrary state interference. That newly recognized personal freedom proved critically important in years to come, as the state schooling movement gained economic and political clout. Forced Public Schooling Throughout the controversy surrounding the teaching of foreign languages, a bigger question loomed: can states force every student to attend the common public schools? The ultimate goal of many groups supporting regulation of private schooling was the abolition of alternative schools. Members of such groups hoped that eliminating all private schools and forcing all children to attend public schools would “Americanize” the children of the nation’s many immigrant subcultures.89 Oregon pioneered forced attendance at public schools in 1922, when its voters approved an initiative requiring all children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend government-run schools full-time.90 While private schools were not banned by the letter of this law, they were effectively eliminated as options because children have only so many Without a doubt [the Fourteenth Amendment] denotes not merely the freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy these 8 its hostility on other ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Catholics.97 Oregon voters approved the so-called compulsory public education initiative by a vote of 115,506 to 103,685.98 The American Civil Liberties Union assisted the local Catholic Church as it, along with others, immediately challenged the new law in court.99 The Supreme Court decided that this law, too, interfered with the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.100 Many critics of forced public school attendance during this period recognized the threat that such laws posed to intellectual freedom in America. Much of the nationwide debate about compelled attendance touched on that issue. The Scottish Rite Masons argued, for example, that educating children “along standardized lines . . . will enable them to acquire a uniform outlook on all national and patriotic questions.”101 Yale University president Arthur Hadley agreed but disapproved. He saw compelled public schooling as “an attempt to give the majority of the people a dangerous power to restrict the diffusion of truth which it wishes to suppress.”102 Attorney Lois Marshall, arguing on behalf of private schools challenging the law, similarly warned that coerced state schooling “will lead inevitably to a stifling of thought.”103 Indeed, freedom from state orthodoxy in education formed an important basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down compulsory public schooling laws: hours each day to pursue studies. Supporters of compelled public schooling elsewhere looked eagerly to Oregon to set an example for the nation. Advocates of compelled public school attendance included a motley assortment of groups with both benign and suspect intentions. Professor Richard Seid of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law writes: The [compelled public schooling controversy] grew out of an attempt by two major interest groups in Oregon to prevent the creation of private schools as alternatives to public schools. One interest group, rooted in bigotry, was simply hostile to the prospect of religious schools, particularly Catholic schools. The other group was concerned that private schools in general would undermine the idea of an egalitarian public minded society.91 Although Progressives and Socialists supported such measures as a way to unify America’s working classes, darker forces played a more powerful role in support of the Oregon school law. Ross notes that only three groups actively worked to pass the Oregon initiative: the Federation of Patriotic Societies, the Scottish Rite Masons, and the Ku Klux Klan.92 The local Scottish Free Masons adopted a resolution calling for compulsory public education and circulated petitions to put the measure on the Oregon ballot.93 The Masons explained their support for the measure by stating that it would ensure “united interest in the growth and higher efficiency of our public schools.”94 But they, too, played on the anti-Catholicism common at the time, alleging in their journal New Age that the Roman Catholic hierarchy favored the abolition of public schools.95 Scholars have also established that the Ku Klux Klan played a prominent role in promoting the Oregon initiative campaign.96 Some have noted that, as Oregon had only a very tiny population of African Americans at the time, the state’s Klan organization focused most of The fundamental theory of liberty on 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 the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.104 Thus, the controversy over compelled public schooling tied parents’ liberty interest 9 Freedom from state orthodoxy in education formed an important basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down compulsory public schooling laws. life by separating children from their parents for a greater number of hours each day— hours that had no educational value to the children.111 Second, busing programs made school choice appear infeasible to school district administrators, who feared that choice programs would allow too many students to opt out of the long commutes. Ironically, busing eventually reduced integration, both in urban neighborhoods and in schools, because middle-class white parents left the cities for suburban school systems where their children could attend local schools.112 in raising children explicitly to freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom from official orthodoxy. Americans reaffirmed their right to think differently and recognized that educational freedom was critical to an intellectually diverse and tolerant society.105 Many parents complain that public schools now affirmatively promote moral relativism and extreme forms of environmentalism that are as offensive to their values as any alternative religious instruction. The Conflict over Racial Segregation The civil rights movement scored a critical victory for educational freedom in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. In that case, the Supreme Court held unanimously that states could not force children into separate schools based on their race.106 Unfortunately, the southern states responded with widespread passive resistance to the Supreme Court’s mandate to integrate their schools. For example, some states created sham “choice programs,” which in fact forced students into racially segregated schools under thinly veiled threats of violence against African-American families.107 Too often, corrupt local police departments failed to provide those families with adequate protection, preventing them from obtaining superior educational opportunities for their children.108 Frustrated with southern recalcitrance, the Supreme Court empowered federal judges to order local officials to affirmatively integrate their public schools “with all deliberate speed.”109 Over the ensuing decade, school districts finally did integrate their schools, in many cases under the direct supervision of federal trial court judges committed to stamping out the vestiges of racially segregated education. At the time, federally supervised integration strategies were necessary to overcome the racist refusal of state government officials to offer all students the equal protection of the law. Unfortunately, a side effect of federal supervision was the proliferation of race-conscious public school assignment programs that forced millions of children to ride buses to schools far from their own neighborhoods.110 Forced busing ultimately became detrimental to the cause of educational freedom in at least two ways. First, it increased the burden government education placed on family Educational Freedom, Religion, and Family Privacy Though educational freedom has never since been as dramatically threatened as it was during and after World War I, the remainder of the 20th century brought continuing challenges to parental autonomy. Public schools became more secularized, with mixed results. The trend was beneficial in some ways to religious minorities, including Jewish and Catholic students, because at least Protestant dogma was no longer taught. On the other hand, barred from teaching traditional religious values, public schools increasingly embraced nonreligious worldviews and causes.113 Many parents complain that public schools now affirmatively promote moral relativism and extreme forms of environmentalism that are as offensive to their values as any alternative religious instruction. Thus, special protection for the educational freedoms of religious minorities is still very important. Also, rising divorce rates over the last half century have forced the judiciary to make intimate determinations about which adults are responsible for children under the law. While some discretion when awarding child custody is necessary, too much discretion empowers judges to make decisions based on a parent’s personal religious, lifestyle, and educational preferences. Too much discretion with respect to parental rights empow- 10 state law requiring all children to attend school until the age of 16, and an important educational freedom case was born. Attorneys for Yoder and the other parents argued that the state statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish, both because it violated their Pierce rights to make decisions about their children’s education and because it violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Wisconsin’s compulsory education law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish, basing its decision on a combination of both the religious rights and the parental rights burdened by the law.118 Compulsory education laws such as Wisconsin’s are usually constitutional as long as they allow parents to select nonpublic alternative schools. States may require parents to provide some sort of formal education through high school, and thus parental rights alone will not justify striking down those laws.119 However, Amish parents also have an important religious interest at stake: the right to raise a child in accordance with the dictates of an established faith community. Although neither the religious interest nor the parental interest alone might be enough to outweigh a state’s interest in requiring universal high school education, those two important liberty interests worked in combination to render compulsory schooling laws unconstitutional as applied to the Amish.120 The Yoder case was important to the cause of educational freedom primarily because it provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to reaffirm the educational freedom rights set out in Pierce and Meyer decades earlier— rights thrown into significant doubt by the Court’s retreat from economic liberty rights dating from the same era. It is true that the Yoder Court failed to adequately describe the exact standard for success applied to an educational freedom claim standing alone, but Pierce and Meyer were also unclear on that point.121 Yoder moved the law in the direction of freedom because it ers judges to intrusively inspect and evaluate parents’ beliefs and to threaten parents who deviate substantially from consensus views. The public controversies of the latter 20th century illustrate that educational freedom is an inseparable part of a multifaceted conception of personal liberty—a conception that includes privacy, freedom of speech, religious freedom, and parental autonomy as well as educational choice. Education and Religious Freedom A conflict between Amish parents and state authorities concerning compulsory schooling laws in the 1960s was illustrative of the tension between the state interest in education and our highly valued freedom of conscience. Throughout their lengthy history in the United States, Amish communities have deliberately insulated themselves from the outside world, believing that modern society is built on values that directly conflict with the Amish conception of a virtuous life. The Amish embrace virtue over intellectual accomplishment, wisdom over technical knowledge, and community spirit over competition.114 They believe that the competition and complexity of the modern world endanger their salvation. Although the Amish acknowledge the importance of basic reading, writing, and computational skills, they believe that high school level course work nurtures habits and values inimical to the simple nature of Amish life.115 The Amish therefore disapprove of formal education beyond the eighth grade. Following the eighth grade, Amish children usually enter vocational training within their own communities to prepare for lives as farmers, craftsmen, or homemakers. Parents Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy were all members of traditional Amish religious communities in Green County, Wisconsin, in the late 1960s.116 In accordance with Amish beliefs, they each removed an adolescent child from school after the child’s successful completion of the eighth grade.117 The state of Wisconsin charged all three parents with violating a 11 Compulsory education laws such as Wisconsin’s are usually constitutional as long as they allow parents to select nonpublic alternative schools. phy regarding family life. That is, it empowers custodial guardians to make child-rearing decisions by restricting judges’ discretion to make lifestyle decisions for children in the course of domestic disputes. For example, if a parent decides to send a child to a Montessori or parochial school, courts must defer to that parental decision under Troxel. did not retreat from Pierce but did establish that, where a religious interest is at stake, parental rights to educational freedom will extend further than they will in the absence of related religious considerations.122 Government control of schooling was ascendant for most of the 20th century, but the pendulum has recently begun to swing the other way. Parental Privacy As nontraditional families have become increasingly common in the United States, important new questions have been raised concerning parental rights. Liberal parentalists believe that parents, rather than the state, should make child-rearing and educational decisions. But who are the child’s parents exactly, and under what circumstances must our legal system apportion parental rights among various individuals? Troxel v. Granville, concerning a visitation dispute between a mother and her former boyfriend’s parents, demonstrates the possibility for state interference in family life as a result of unclear parenting roles.123 The Troxel grandparents demanded visitation of their two granddaughters under Washington State’s visitation statute after their deceased son’s former companion married and chose to limit the girls’ time with the Troxels to facilitate bonding with her new family.124 The trial court granted visitation rights to the grandparents, but the Supreme Court decided that the grant of visitation had violated Ms. Granville’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing of her children.125 Any judicial decision about visitation must take into account the judgment of a custodial parent, rather than simply substitute a judge’s opinion for a parent’s opinion.126 Troxel is not a case about education. Yet it was an important educational freedom case for two reasons. First, Troxel clarified beyond any doubt that the parental rights recognized in Meyer and Pierce—including the right to direct the education of children—are “fundamental rights” under federal constitutional law.127 That means that they are entitled to a particularly high degree of judicial protection. Troxel is also important to educational freedom because it embraces the tradition of liberal parentalism as a basic judicial philoso- Recent Victories for Educational Freedom Government control of schooling was ascendant for most of the 20th century, but the pendulum has recently begun to swing the other way, away from state control and back toward parental control of education.128 Educational freedom has become more popular with both courts and policymakers. The Supreme Court Upholds School Choice Supporters of educational freedom often wish to empower parents through school choice programs. The constitutionality of school choice programs, however, was only recently established in a Supreme Court case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Opponents of school choice including the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the Zelman case to challenge an Ohio law authorizing a school choice program in Cleveland. They claimed among other things that the Cleveland school choice program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland program in a five-to-four vote.129 Looking back through decades of rulings, the Court separated its Establishment Clause cases into two categories. In the first category were programs that directly aided religious organizations or subsidized religious activities, 12 programs in recent years. Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program, established in 1990 and expanded in 1995, distributes vouchers to more than 10,000 students with family incomes at or below 175 percent of the poverty line.135 Similarly, the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program gave more than 4,500 low-income students vouchers of up to $2,250 for the 2002–03 school year.136 Two random assignment studies of the Milwaukee voucher program found score improvements among voucher recipients.137 Also, economist Caroline Minter-Hoxby found that Milwaukee’s public schools experienced dramatic increases in productivity, especially the schools that faced the most competition.138 Florida, the state most notable for choice initiatives, has two voucher programs: McKay scholarships for students with disabilities and Opportunity Scholarships for students attending failing schools (those that received an F on the state report card twice within four years). Nearly 10 thousand special education students in Florida now receive McKay program vouchers, the dollar amount of which depends on the funds spent on the student in his or her assigned public school.139 The amount of an Opportunity Program scholarship also depends on public school spending for a given student. Of the approximately 9,000 students eligible for Opportunity Program scholarships during the 2002–03 school year, 702 chose to attend private schools. (Another 909 students chose to attend other public schools.)140 Researcher Jay Greene found that schools in danger of losing students as a result of this program achieved standardized test score gains more than twice as large as those made by other public schools.141 Florida and Pennsylvania have enacted corporate tax credit laws to increase educational options. A corporate tax credit allows corporations to take credits against their tax liability for amounts they donate to scholarship organizations. The organizations then distribute the funds to children in the form of scholarships to private schools their par- whether on a neutral or on a discriminatory basis. In the second category fell programs that offered aid directly to individuals, who then made private choices about where to use the aid. The Court held that, while the former category of programs should be carefully scrutinized for evidence of church-state entanglement, the latter category of programs was constitutional so long as they met a few clear guidelines demonstrating that they are indeed programs of “true private choice.” The Supreme Court evaluated the Cleveland program using its traditional “Lemon test” for deciding church-state separation questions. First developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman130 and later modified in Agostini v. Felton,131 the Lemon test asks two things: (1) does the challenged program lack a secular government purpose, and (2) is its primary effect to advance or inhibit religion?132 If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then the challenged program is considered unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reiterated that, to demonstrate a secular public purpose, any “true private choice” program must be motivated by some legitimate goal, such as improving education, that has nothing to do with religion. In order to demonstrate that promoting religion is not nonetheless a program’s “primary effect,” the Supreme Court explained that a school choice program must offer only indirect aid to religious schools, that the benefits of the program must be made available to a broad class of beneficiaries, that the program must not be set up in a way that favors religious options over secular options, and that states must ensure that parents have adequate nonreligious educational options.133 The Court upheld the Cleveland school choice program in Zelman.134 But more important, the Court established a clear set of rules for school choice, encouraging state lawmakers to establish new programs around the country. New Choice Programs across the Nation Several states and cities around the country have enacted either voucher or tax credit 13 Florida has two voucher programs: McKay scholarships for students with disabilities and Opportunity Scholarships for students attending failing schools. Last summer’s historic Zelman decision has inspired lawmakers in several states to propose new voucher and tax credit programs. ents choose for them. In Florida this year, about 15,000 low-income students received scholarships worth $3,500; about 40,000 more applicants were turned away.142 Pennsylvania’s less generous program allows corporations to credit 75 percent of their donation, up to $100,000.143 In Arizona, taxpayers may receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $500 ($625 for married couples) for donations to state-approved scholarship organizations. The program has grown rapidly; in 2002, 31 nonprofit scholarship organizations distributed more than 15,000 scholarships (80 percent of which were given on the basis of financial need).144 Last summer’s historic Zelman decision has inspired lawmakers in several states to propose new voucher and tax credit programs. By December 2002, more than 40 voucher, tax credit, or charter school proposals had been introduced in state legislatures.145 This year school choice bills have been introduced in several states and in Washington, D.C., for which Congress will likely enact some sort of voucher program. Colorado is the only state to have enacted new choice legislation so far, however. There, low-income students who have failed the statewide exam and live in 11 “failing” districts may receive vouchers worth 75 percent of their local schools’ operating costs (85 percent in high school). Initially the program will be limited to 1 percent of a participating district’s enrollment; 6 percent will be eligible in 2007.146 Joshua Davey was a high school graduate in the state of Washington in 1999. He was awarded a Promise Scholarship by the state on the basis of his outstanding academic performance and his family’s moderate income.148 Davey matriculated at Northwest College that fall, where he declared a double major in business administration and pastoral ministries.149 However, the state of Washington rescinded his scholarship when it was discovered that he was majoring in pastoral studies. Washington’s policy of excluding theology majors from the scholarship program was based on the state’s constitution, which provides, “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.”150 The Ninth Circuit, citing Zelman, held that Washington had violated the rule of neutrality toward religion when it excluded theology students from its scholarship program.151 The Court also found that Washington’s interest in administering a program consistent with its own, different state constitutional rule was not sufficiently compelling to justify state discrimination on the basis of religion and struck down the state’s exclusionary policy.152 Davey stands for the proposition that a state that offers a choice-based aid program, such as a scholarship or voucher, can’t restrict the recipient’s choices on the basis of religion. The Supreme Court has decided to review the Davey decision during its 2003–04 term.153 If Davey is upheld, it will help to ensure that families participating in choice programs will have a wide array of religious and nonreligious choices available to them. Less Discrimination against Religious Schools America’s early history of using the public school monopoly to discourage non-Protestant education and the subsequent struggles of religious minorities such as the Amish illustrate that educational freedom is often closely tied to freedom of conscience. On the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman, the Ninth Circuit decided in Davey v. Locke that states may not discriminate against religion when they administer programs designed to foster educational opportunities.147 Educational Freedom for Families Today While recent victories for educational freedom are encouraging, they are only a beginning. Although school choice is legal, it is not widespread, and opponents of educational freedom are threatening to smother existing 14 ing that Florida’s Blaine Amendment itself violates the federal Constitution.158 The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has also recently filed a challenge to South Dakota’s Blaine Amendment.159 private schools in a morass of new regulations designed to dictate everything from curriculum to staffing. Advocates of educational freedom must not lose the public policy war while focusing on legal battles. After all, the courts can only establish a minimum level of educational freedom. They do not require maximum freedom. Nor should supporters of educational freedom be satisfied with incremental gains that benefit only a few families and may be easily lost. The suggestions that follow would ensure that a public policy based on educational freedom provides real benefits to families who are harmed by current policies. Choices for All Families Supporters of school choice reforms often point out that most families already choose their schools. They do so either by choosing to move to a neighborhood with a public school they like or by “paying twice” to send their child to an alternative private school using after-tax dollars. For those parents, a majority, the public school monopoly is more of a financial burden than a direct impingement on their civil liberties. School choice programs would benefit this group by making educational alternatives truly cost competitive, thereby increasing competition and improving overall school quality. Moreover, it is unjust to financially penalize parents who choose alternative educational settings for their children, and choice programs will eliminate that injustice. Far more important, however, is the introduction of school choice for families who, because they have low incomes, currently have no real choice at all. For those families, school choice is a pressing issue of personal liberty. Compulsory schooling laws, present in every American state, bind low-income families just as they bind all others. But unlike other parents, low-income parents lack funds to move to a more expensive neighborhood or send a child to an alternative private school. They also often lack sufficient time, educational attainment, and financial resources to homeschool their children, even in states where homeschooling laws are relatively liberal. As a result, low-income parents may be presented by the state with a terrible Hobson’s choice. They must either send their children daily to a single local government school, no matter how violent, ineffective, or religiously offensive, or be arrested for a violation of state law. Critics of school choice pro- Elimination of Blaine Amendments The rules for school choice under the federal Constitution are now fairly clear, even permissive, but many state lawmakers still face uncertainty about whether choice programs will be upheld under their state constitutions. The most common constitutional barrier to choice is the Blaine Amendment. Adopted during the rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Blaine Amendments are provisions that explicitly prohibit states from funding sectarian education, directly or indirectly.154 It is critical to educational freedom that those amendments be eliminated, because, for lawmakers, they create a dual roadblock to education reform. Because they prohibit states from adopting school choice programs that include religious schools,155 would-be school reformers in states with restrictive Blaine Amendments are unable to enact any form of school choice at all.156 Excluding religious schools from a generally applicable school choice program in order to comply with a state constitutional provision would violate the federal Constitution.157 To break down these remaining constitutional barriers, organizations that favor school choice are launching legal attacks against the Blaine Amendments themselves. The Institute for Justice has intervened on behalf of parents in a dispute over the legality of Florida’s Opportunity Scholarship Program, contend- 15 Many state lawmakers still face uncertainty about whether choice programs will be upheld under their state constitutions. high quality is to both parents and schools. By specifying what is and is not important for children to learn, state regulations threaten to homogenize private schools, eliminating the very variety that allows them to cater to the preferences of the families they serve. Many private schools already administer widely recognized standardized tests, such as the Stanford 9 or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, as one means of demonstrating their quality to parents. Because the individual private school chooses the test it will administer, the test reflects that school’s curriculum and learning philosophy. In Florida, where some legislators thought that schools participating in choice programs should be forced to administer Florida’s state standardized test, others pointed out that 95 percent of private schools surveyed already administered some commercially designed standardized test.164 Florida lawmakers wisely decided not to require participating schools to give the state’s public school exam. Supporters of increased regulation of private schools argue that private schools, like public schools, should submit to evaluations by school boards or other government officials. For example, the Colorado school choice law requires state evaluation of participating schools. School districts participating in the Colorado program must provide the state with regular reports conforming to state-sanctioned measures of student achievement.165 Supporters justify those and other regulations as “accountability measures” that level the playing field by making private schools “comply with the same standards” that public schools must. That “accountability” rhetoric, when applied to private schools, represents an antichoice political response to the No Child Left Behind Act,166 which demands that public schools collect and report student achievement data to federal officials in return for federal funds.167 The teachers’ unions have seized upon this argument as part of their tactical response to Zelman; they plan to use the rhetoric of accountability as a weapon against choice programs by demanding bur- grams who label them mere “financial subsidies” or welfare programs fail to appreciate the lack of legal alternatives to local public schools for many low-income families.160 The result—forced attendance at a government school under threat of arrest—is the antipode to America’s tradition of educational freedom.161 Advocates of educational freedom should view remediation of this injustice as their most critical mission. Choice programs should be universal, but they are most important for needy families. Lawmakers appear increasingly interested in regulating private schools. Freedom for Private Schools Zelman has encouraged state lawmakers to expand educational freedom for families through school choice programs, but another recent trend is endangering that freedom. Lawmakers appear increasingly interested in regulating private schools. But regulation of private school curricula, academic standards, or specialization threatens educational freedom by eliminating options desired by many parents. In the absence of a compelling state justification, supporters of educational freedom should oppose regulations that limit parents’ choices. Sometimes the new regulations are tied to school choice proposals and seek to make private schools “accountable,” that is, force them to generate and disclose the same statistics public schools do. In Colorado the first voucher program enacted since Zelman requires participating schools to administer state tests to voucher students.162 Gov. Mike Foster of Louisiana, a vocal supporter of vouchers, has insisted that any program must require schools accepting voucher students to administer to all of their students the state’s own standardized test and the national standardized exam used by the state. He advocated combining the resulting scores with attendance and dropout rates to give the private schools “performance scores” similar to those used to grade public schools.163 Private schools have always had to satisfy individual parents that they are effective. But the new trend of state regulation and evaluation will have the effect of dictating what 16 religion, thus creating an excessive entanglement in violation of the Establishment Clause. In any event, many if not most religious schools will refuse to participate in voucher programs that compromise their religious missions. According to a 1998 Department of Education survey, 86 percent of religious schools said they would not participate in a transfer program if students could obtain exemptions from religious instruction or activities.178 The same survey found that only one-third to one-half of private schools would accept transfer students if they were randomly assigned or required to participate in state assessments. Even fewer (15 to 31 percent) said they would participate if they were required to accommodate all students with special needs. Regulations thus threaten to significantly limit the options that choice programs can offer parents. Artificial tuition caps may also narrow the pool of private schools willing to participate in choice programs. The Texas proposal, for example, prevents parents from paying tuition in addition to the child’s scholarship.179 That provision immediately puts schools that charge higher tuition out of reach (unless more scholarship money is available). But it will also make all private schools wary of accepting voucher students, because they will have to rely on the legislature to raise the voucher amount in case of inflation or other changes. If lawmakers fail to do so, schools may be unable to continue their participation in the program. Moreover, small tuition payments by low-income families have been shown to increase parental involvement in a student’s schooling and improve academic outcomes.180 Advocates of educational freedom should vigilantly oppose standardization of alternative schools through rules governing curricula, standards, and specialization. If they do not, educational freedom may fall victim to a state-run educational system far less obvious than the present public school monopoly. densome regulations designed to stifle private school participation.168 For example, AFT president Sandra Feldman has promised to “work with local, state, and national policymakers to ensure that private schools that receive public funds are held accountable, just like public schools are.”169 Of course, few of those activists would support the converse proposition that public schools should be subject to the same accountability standard private schools are: satisfy parents or lose students and their education dollars. In addition to mandating testing, Colorado’s pilot voucher program directs the admissions policy of participating nonpublic schools.170 For example, schools may not consider disability of an applicant even if the school is ill equipped to serve the disabled child.171 Religious institutions may not consider the applicant’s religion, although part of their appeal may be a committed religious community.172 Participating Colorado schools must also accept applicants “on the basis of the order in which their applications are received.”173 Similarly, the Education Freedom Program measure now under consideration by Texas lawmakers requires schools to fill their available positions by a “random selection process.”174 Such rules will discourage private schools that wish to educate specific groups of students (disabled ones, for example) from accepting voucher students, lest they be forced to admit applicants they cannot serve. Provisions that prevent sectarian schools from considering religion in admissions may be found unconstitutional if challenged, because a voucher program may neither advance nor inhibit religion.175 Regulations that interfere with a school’s religious mission do just that. For example, parochial schools in Milwaukee must select voucher students by lottery and may not require a student to participate in religious activities.176 One scholar argues that enforcement of this “opt-out” provision would “generate precisely the sort of entanglement that offends the court’s Establishment Clause holdings.”177 In other words, regulating sectarian schools inhibits Freedom for Homeschooling Families Homeschooling, legal in all 50 states only 17 Many if not most religious schools will refuse to participate in voucher programs that compromise their religious missions. Advocates of educational freedom for families must guard against regulations that seek to homogenize or eliminate parents’ new choices one by one. It’s important to the future of educational freedom in the United States that its advocates resist efforts to eliminate homeschooling through teacher certification requirements or other impossibly burdensome regulations. If assaults on homeschooling such as that mounted by California spread to other states, parents may lose what in some cases will be their only viable alternative to the monopoly public system. during the last decade, has grown rapidly in recent years. 181 Despite a range of burdensome state regulations, conflicts between homeschooling parents and administrators have been infrequent; in many cases states have simply not enforced their own laws. But conflict will likely increase as homeschooling spreads, since districts often receive federal and state funds based on attendance numbers. California is one notable example. Its laws make it among the most difficult states in which to homeschool children—students must learn from a credentialed tutor, a stateapproved charter school, or a home study program supervised by a public school district.182 To circumvent the credential requirement, parents declare their homes private schools.183 Last summer the state’s Department of Education took steps to block that practice, warning homeschooling parents that they needed teaching credentials or a public school affiliation. In a memo to administrators outlining the new filing process for private schools, Deputy Superintendent Joanne Mendoza wrote that home schooling “is not an authorized exemption from mandatory public-school attendance.”184 The department recently retreated, however, when the new superintendent of public instruction announced that the state would no longer consider every homeschooled child a truant.185 Homeschooling regulations vary greatly from state to state but commonly include curriculum content or testing requirements. In some places parents are required to register with their local school district. A few states require parents to qualify as teachers.186 Compulsory attendance laws help officials to enforce those restrictions, allowing authorities to threaten homeschool parents with truancy prosecution. In one recent instance in Illinois, a regional superintendent sent police to the homes of homeschool families to demand that parents appear in court to demonstrate their compliance with the law.187 Because the laws governing homeschooling are so often ignored, such incidents occur unpredictably. Conclusion Opponents of educational freedom often cite America’s tradition of state-controlled schooling in an effort to show that parental control over education is a new, perhaps unAmerican concept. But those critics are wrong. America boasts a long, robust history of valuing and protecting educational freedom. That tradition is grounded in liberal parentalism, a philosophy that limits state involvement in intimate details of family life to benefit children and also to preserve social tolerance and limited government. Although in many respects the statist experiment in education appears to be on the decline, advocates of educational freedom for families must guard against regulations that seek to homogenize or eliminate parents’ new choices one by one. Instead, by working to empower parents with more choices and to afford schools more autonomy, those advocates may hope for a day when all families can fully enjoy the benefits of educational freedom. Notes 1. See Charles Leslie Glenn Jr., The Myth of the Common School (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), pp. 10–12. 2. See National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001 (Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 2002), Table 2. 3. See generally Stephen Gilles, “Liberal Parentalism and Children’s Educational Rights,” Capital University Law Review 26 (1997). 18 CT: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. 24, 33. 4. See, for example, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, “‘Who Owns the Child?’: Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property,” William and Mary Law Review 33 (1992). 20. Ibid., p. 24. 21. Ibid., p. 58. 5. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). 22. “The ‘Sabbath-school’ constituted an important factor in Negro education . . . the institution permitted its workers to teach them reading and writing when they were not allowed to study such in other institutions.” Carter G. Woodson, The Education of the Negro prior to 1861 (New York: Arno and New York Times, 1968), p. 124. 6. For a description of education options available during these periods, see Andrew J. Coulson, Market Education (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1999), pp. 73–75. 7. Carl F. Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780–1860 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983), p. 13. 23. Boylan, p. 23. The percentage is based on membership in the New York Sunday-School Union Society. 8. Ibid., p. 15. 24. Ibid., pp. 23, 28. 9. “Since the teachers were often billeted in rotation in students’ homes, they were a captive audience for parents’ questions, criticisms, and praises.” Coulson, Market Education, p. 74. See also Kaestle, p. 22. 25. Ibid., p. 28. 26. Coulson, Market Education, p. 75. 10. Coulson, Market Education, p. 74 27. Woodson, pp. 127, 150. 11. Kaestle, p. 30. 28. Boylan, pp. 25–28. Because these schools’ work went unreported, their influence is unclear. According to Woodson, Sabbath-school “began as an establishment in the white churches, then moved to the colored chapels, where white persons assisted as teachers, and finally became an organization composed entirely of Negroes.” Woodson, pp. 124–25. 12. R. F. Seybolt, Source Studies in American Colonial Education (Urbana, IL: Arno, 1925), in Readings in Public Education in the United States, ed. Ellwood P. Cubberley (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970), pp. 89–90. 13. “Yet in England there was an extended, passionate debate over the wisdom of educating the poor, and in the United States there was virtually no debate. The advocacy of mass schooling for social stability . . . was the mainstream reform view in America during these years and was virtually unopposed.” Kaestle, p. 33. 29. Boylan, p. 26. 30. “The concentration of the colored population in cities and towns where they had better educational advantages tended to make colored city school selfsupporting. There developed a class of self-educating Negroes who were able to provide for their own enlightenment.” Woodson, pp. 128–41. 14. The Lancasterian system used student monitors to instruct small groups of younger children, allowing a single schoolmaster to run a school with hundreds of children. 16. Ibid, p. 43. 31. Woodson describes an American Union for the Relief and Improvement of Colored People representative’s 1835 visit to Baltimore, when “he was informed that the education of the Negroes of that city was fairly well provided for.” Woodson, p. 142. 17. Coulson, Market Education, p. 75. 32. Ibid., pp. 122, 128. 18. Charity organizations “favored literacy and moral instruction as tools for combating the problems of crime and vice. Parents were often seen as adversaries in this context, for the reformers tended to equate poverty with apathy and immorality, and wished to isolate children from the presumed harmful influences of their families.” Ibid. 33. Ibid., p. 149. 15. Kaestle, p. 41. 34. James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton, Black Bostonians (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1979), p. 70. Primus Hall was the son of Prince Hall, legendary black Boston activist and founder of the African Masonic Lodge no. 459 in Boston in 1787. Ibid., pp. 29–30. 19. Anne M. Boylan, Sunday School: The Formation of an American Institution, 1790–1880 (New Haven, 35. Coulson, Market Education, pp. 76–77. 19 55. Kaestle, p. 132. 36. “Though memorization and repetition made up a greater part of the pedagogical method than is generally thought best, the nation’s schools were generally considered effective.” Ibid., p. 84. 56. Ibid., p. 105. 57. Michiel Visser. “Public Education versus Liberty: The Pedigree of an Idea,” 2001, grams/students/essay/2001winners/visser.html. 37. Ibid. 38. Kaestle, p. 25. 58. Kaestle, p. 73. 39. E. G. West, Education and the State: A Study in Political Economy (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1994), p. 302. 59. Visser, p. 2. 40. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Random House, Modern Library, 1994), p. 843. 61. Kaestle, p. 199. 60. See generally Visser. 62. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (New York: Norton, 1982), pp. 146–47. Jefferson proposed to divide each county into districts, called hundreds, each of which would support a tutor. Residents of the hundred would have been entitled to send their children to the tutor for free for three years, after which they would have had to pay fees. Then, of the boys whose parents were too poor to educate them further, the best student in each district school would have been eligible for further schooling at one of 20 grammar schools. Twenty boys would then have been selected to finish grammar school; 10 of those would have continued to William & Mary College. 41. Coulson, Market Education, p. 85. 42. Lorraine Smith Pangle and Thomas L. Pangle, The Learning of Liberty: The Educational Ideas of the American Founders (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993), p. 15. 43. Michael B. Katz, “The Origins of Public Education: A Reassessment,” in The Social History of American Education, ed. B. Edward McClellan and William J. Reese (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1988), p. 93. 44. Ibid., pp. 76–77. 45. Myron Lieberman, Public Education: An Autopsy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 15. 63. Kaestle, p. 199. Mercer’s bill provided a state board of education and matching state aid to localities. 46. In the early 19th century, states provided assistance to denominational and other private schools. Ibid. 64. West, p. 307. 65. Coulson, Market Education, p. 83. 47. Lloyd P. Jorgenson. “The Birth of a Tradition,” Phi Delta Kappan, June 1963, p. 411. 66. Wayne J. Urban and Jennings L. Wagoner, American Education: A History (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000), p. 150. 48. Ibid., p. 410. 49. The French town where in the early 1600s English priests produced the first English translation of the Old Testament. 67. Kaestle, pp. 172–73. 68. J. S. Mill, On Liberty (1859), in The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, ed. Edwin A. Burtt (New York: Random House, 1939), pp. 1033–34. 50. Jorgenson deems it “American Protestantism’s darkest hour.” Jorgenson, p. 410. 69. Kaestle reports that the Wisconsin Teachers’ Association declared in 1865, “Children are the property of the state.” Kaestle, p. 158. 51. Ibid., p. 414. 52. Ibid., p. 413. 70. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); and Pierce. 53. Ibid., p. 412. 71. Many disparate groups shared an interest in assimilating immigrants. For example, Jay Bybee notes, “Education was important to populist goals as a means of socializing and Americanizing the people. For ‘new people’ involved in governing themselves, education would level differences of 54. Thirty states and the District of Columbia had compulsory education statutes in 1900, but enforcement was limited. Myron Lieberman, Privatization and Educational Choice (New York: St. Martin’s, 1989), p. 273. 20 (2001): 374. class race and alienage.” Jay Bybee, “Substantive Due Process and Free Exercise of Religion: Meyer, Pierce and the Origins of Wisconsin v. Yoder,” Capital University Law Review 25 (1996): 893. 91. Ibid., pp. 373–74. 92. William G. Ross, Forging New Freedoms: Nativism, Education and the Constitution (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), p. 151. 72. Irene Scharf, “Tired of Your Masses: A History of and Judicial Response to Early 20th-Century Anti-Immigrant Legislation,” Hawaii Law Review 21 (1999): 137. 93. Ibid., p. 150. Some Oregon Masons have denied that their organization favored the compelled public school attendance law, claiming that the Klan illicitly hijacked their organization in an effort to artificially broaden support for the initiative. See David Tyack, “The Perils of Pluralism: The Background of the Pierce Case,” American Historical Review 74 (1968), p. 77. 73. Ibid. 74. See William G. Ross, “A Judicial Janus: Meyer v. Nebraska in Historical Perspective,” Cincinnati Law Review 57 (1988): 126. 75. Bybee, p. 893. 94. Ross, Forging New Freedoms, p. 153. 76. Ross, “A Judicial Janus,” pp. 131–33. 95. Ibid. 77. The federal government formed the Committee on Public Information, which over the course of the conflict generated tens of millions of pieces of propaganda, many of which were designed to foster hatred of Germany. A government-endorsed volunteer organization called the American Protective League formed to investigate allegations of domestic espionage. The APL and the National Security League have been accused of indiscriminately attacking German-American institutions during this period. Ibid., p. 132. 96. See generally Tyack. 97. Ibid. Apparently, the Klan saw no contradiction between its belief in the superiority of white protestant America and its strong support of compulsory public education. Tyack observes, “The Klan believed in inherent WASP superiority and the inferiority of aliens, Negroes, Catholics and Jews, yet somehow it had persuaded itself that to force all children to attend public schools would avert the ruin of the republic.” Tyack, p. 80. The group simply ducked the issue of whether the state should create separate schools for AfricanAmerican children. 78. “The advent of World War I only exacerbated the demand for common schooling.” Bybee, p. 893. 98. Ibid., p. 91. 79. See, for example, Nebraska Dist. of Evangelical Lutheran Synod v. McKelvie, 175 N.W. 531, 533 (1919). 99. Ibid., p. 92. 80. Ross, “A Judicial Janus,” p. 130. 100. Pierce at 534–35. 81. The German parochial schools were Lutheran. Ibid., p. 132. 101. Tyack, p. 77. 82. Scharf, p. 140. 102. Ibid., p. 82. 83. Ross, “A Judicial Janus,” p. 132. 103. Ibid., p. 97. 84. Ibid., p. 133. 104. Pierce at 535. 85. Ibid., p. 140. 105. The New Republic editorialized following the Pierce decision, “Thus comes to an end the effort to regiment the mental life of Americans through coerced public school instruction.” “Can the Supreme Court Guarantee Toleration?” New Republic 43 (1925): 85–87. 86. Ibid., p. 146. 87. Meyer at 399. 88. Meyer at 400. 106. Brown v. Board of Ed., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The Court sharply limited its shameful prior decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upholding the constitutionality of “separate but equal” public facilities. See Brown at 495. 89. Glenn, p. 260. 90. Richard Seid, “75 Years after Pierce v. Society of Sisters,” University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 78 21 107. David Nevin and Robert Ellis, The Schools That Fear Built (Washington: Acropolis Books, 1976), pp. 6, 14. Parental Rights While Recognizing Changes in the American Family,” Catholic University Law Review 50 (2001): 761. 108. Vincent P. Franklin and James D. Anderson, New Perspectives on Black Educational History (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1978), p. 201. 124. Revised Code of Washington § 26.10.160(3). See also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 60 (2000). 125. Ibid. at 63. 109. Brown v. Board of Ed. (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). 126. Ibid. at 69–70. 127. Ibid. at 66. 110. See, for example, Haycraft v. Board of Education, 585 F.2d 803 (Sixth Cir. 1978). 128. Glenn, pp. 278–79. 111. Ibid. 129. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 662–63 (2002). 112. Interestingly, today’s inner-city parents don’t want to send their children out into the suburbs every day to attend good schools. They want just what the suburban parents want: good schools in their own neighborhoods. See Clint Bolick, Voucher Wars: Waging the Legal Battle over School Choice (Washington: Cato Institute, 2003), pp. 19–20. School choice programs thus better serve the needs of inner-city parents than interdistrict busing programs could, even if such programs were politically viable. 130. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) 131. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 232–33 (1997). 132. Lemon at 612. 133. For a more detailed discussion of Zelman, see Marie Gryphon, “True Private Choice: A Practical Guide to School Choice after Zelman v. SimmonsHarris,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 466, February 4, 2003. 113. Glenn, pp. 278–83. 134. Zelman at 662–63. 114. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 210–11 (1972). 135. Marya DeGrow, “Educational Vouchers and Tax Credits: A State-by-State Summary of Current Programs,” Independence Institute, December 18, 2002. 115. Ibid. 116. Ibid. at 207. 136. Ibid. 117. The children were Frida Yoder, aged 15, Barbara Miller, aged 15, and Vernon Yutzy, aged 14. Yoder at n. 1. 137. Cecilia Elena Rouse, “Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, no. 2 (May 1998): 553–602; and Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du, “School Choice in Milwaukee: A Randomized Experiment,” in Learning from School Choice, ed. Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1998). 118. Ibid. at 234–35. 119. Ibid. at 214. 120. Ibid. at 233–34. 121. Jay Bybee correctly notes, “Chief Justice Burger’s opinion for the majority in Yoder is a model of imprecision.” Bybee, p. 921. 138. Caroline M. Hoxby, “School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice Be a Tide That Lifts All Boats?)” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. W8873, April 2002. 122. Ralph Mawdsley writes, “Where parents’ interests in directing their children’s education was ‘one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living, Yoder strengthened parents rights when balanced against state interests.” Ralph D. Mawdsley, “The Changing Face of Parents’ Rights,” Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 2003 (2003): 172. 139. David F. Salisbury, “Lessons from Florida: School Choice Gives Increased Opportunities to Children with Special Needs,” Cato Institute Briefing Paper no. 81, March 20, 2003. 140. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Education Research Office, “A+ Accountability Pro- 123. See generally Susan Tomaine, “Comment: Troxel v. Granville: Protecting Fundamental 22 715. gram Opportunity Scholarships,” www.miedresearch 158. See Mary Leonard, “Proponents of Vouchers See Opening,” Boston Globe, November 18, 2002. 141. Jay P. Greene, “An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, February 2001. 159. “South Dakota Sued over Busing,” Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 24, 2003. 160. See, for example, Greeley. 142. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Education Research Office, “Corporate Tax Credit Scholarships,” ratetaxscholarships.htm. 161. Some scholars have even suggested that compelling low-income families to send their children to a local public school is unconstitutional, if those families have no options. See Gary J. Simpson, “School Vouchers and the Constitution— Permissible, Impermissible, or Required?” Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 11 (2002): 556–57. 143. DeGrow, “Educational Vouchers and Tax Credits.” 144. Arizona Department of Revenue, unpublished figures, September 2003. 162. Colorado House Bill 1160, 2003, p. 10, 145. Krista Kafer, “Progress on School Choice in the States,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder no. 1639, March 26, 2003. 163. Laura Maggi, “Political Landscape Tipping toward School Vouchers,” (New Orleans) TimesPicayune, March 23, 2003. 146. Tom McAvoy, “Colorado Governor Signs School Voucher Bill,” Pueblo Chieftain, April 17, 2003. 164. Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, “Forcing the FCAT on Voucher Schools Is a Bad Idea,” Tallahassee Democrat, March 31, 2003. 147. Davey v. Locke, 299 F.3d 748 (Ninth Cir. 2002). 165. Colorado House Bill 1160, p. 16. 148. Ibid. at 751. 166. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001). 149. Ibid. 167. Marie Gryphon, “Accountability to Parents Is Best,” Montgomery Journal, March 30, 2003. 150. Washington Constitution, Article I, §11. 151. Davey at 760. 168. Daniel McGroarty, “The Red Tape War,” School Choice Advocate, January 2003. McGroarty writes that “voucher opponents indicate that they will open a second front—this one a ‘red tape war,’ torturing the meaning of the word ‘accountability’ until the only acceptable private school is one that turns itself into a public school.” 152. Ibid. at 759–60. 153. Robert Marshall Wells and Janet I. Tu, “Supreme Court to Hear State Religious Rights Case,” Seattle Times, May 20, 2003. 154. See Glenn, pp. 251–61. 169. Quoted in Steven Menashi, “The ChurchState Tangle,” Policy Review, no. 114, August 2002, 155. See, for example, the Washington State case of Witters v. State of Washington Comm’n for the Blind, 112 Wn. 2d 363 (1989) certiorari denied 493 U.S. 850 (1989). 170. Colorado House Bill 1160, pp. 9–10. 156. This problem is discussed in greater detail in Gryphon, “True Private Choice,” pp. 8–11. 171. Ibid. While many private schools welcome disabled children, each and every school may not be prepared to effectively work with each and every disability, as disabled students have highly variable needs. See generally David S. Salisbury, “Lessons from Florida: School Choice Gives Increased Opportunities to Children with Special Needs,” Cato Institute Briefing Paper no. 81, March 20, 2003. 157. Joseph Viteritti writes, “It is unlikely that the Supreme Court, under the standard of neutrality it has adopted, would permit the States to exclude religious schools or their pupils from participating in programs that distribute public benefits on a general basis.” Joseph P. Viteritti, “Blaine’s Wake: School Choice, the First Amendment, and State Constitutional Law,” Public Policy 21 (1998): 172. Colorado House Bill 1160, pp. 9–10. 23 173. Ibid. Authority over Education: The Case of Home Schooling.” Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 30–September 2, 2001, p. 7. 174. Texas House Bill 2465, www.capitol.state.tx. us/tlo/78r/billtext/HB02465H.HTM. 175. Zelman at 668–69 (O’Conner, J., concurring). 182. Ibid., p. 9. 176. Independence Institute, Fact Sheet no. 1-02, December 12, 2002, tion/Fact%20Sheets/accountability_fs.htm. 183. A California law exempting homeschools from federal criminal background checks acknowledged this practice. 1998 Cal. Stat., Chap. 594. 177. Menashi. 184. Quoted in Chrisanne Beckner, “Truant or Home-Schooled?” Sacramento News & Review, October 21, 2002. 178. Lana Muraskin, “Barriers, Benefits, and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools.” U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services, 1998. 185. Jim Brown, “Home Schooling Not Illegal Anymore in California—Even though It Never Was,” Agape Press, June 5, 2003. 179. Texas House Bill 2465. 180. Andrew Coulson, Markets versus Monopolies in Education, forthcoming. 186. North Dakota, Alabama, Washington, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania have such rules. See www. 181. “Even conservative estimates of homeschooling pin the current number of students at 350,000 in 1990, 750,000 in 1996, and 1.3 million in 1998.” Rob Reich, “Testing the Boundaries of Parental 187. Art Moore, “Homeschoolers Get Knock on Door from Police,” World Net Daily, November 18, 2002. Published by the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis is a regular series evaluating government policies and offering proposals for reform. Nothing in Policy Analysis should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Cato Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before congress. Contact the Cato Institute for reprint permission. Additional copies of Policy Analysis are $6.00 each ($3.00 each for five or more). To order, or for a complete listing of available studies, write the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, call toll free 1-800-767-1241 (noon - 9 p.m. eastern time), fax (202) 842-3490, or visit our website at 24
Black Achievement Motivation & The Legacy of Slavery By William E. Cross, Jr., Ph.D. Professor and Head, Social Psychology Doctoral Program, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York July 10, 2002 It has been suggested that slavery blocked the development of positive black achievement motivation, turned the black self-concept into a site of racial-self-loathing as well as hatred of anything white ("oppositional identity"), and that such factors cause black youth to drift away from mainstream models of success and toward involvement in delinquency and crime. While this theory of oppositional identity is not simplistic, it nevertheless implies that one can draw a fairly straight line between contemporary black problems and the effects of slavery, especially with regard to [low] black achievement motivation and black youth involvement in underground economy. There is a great deal of research on each of these factors, and what follows is an exploration of the evidence that contests the legacy of slavery thesis. There is very little historical evidence that blacks, en masse, resisted formal educational opportunities in the immediate aftermath of slavery. To the contrary, the scope of the educational demands that the masses of ex-slaves placed on themselves and on the larger society can only be comprehended as a social movement for education. In fact, as Spencer, Cross, Harpalani, & Goss (in press) have noted, one is hard pressed to think of any white ethnic group entering the United States at the turn of the 20th century who exhibited the level of high and positive achievement motivation, as did blacks, when they exited slavery. Had the larger society moved to cultivate, reinforce, and authenticate the ex-slaves organic drive toward achievement and acculturation, blacks today might well be disproportionately distributed among the highly educated. As it turned out, southern society, with the cooperation of the north, made extraordinary efforts to blunt, mangle, and where possible, destroy black achievement motivation (Bullock, 1967; Du Bois, 1935; Harlan, 1958; Kluger, 1977; Steinberg, 1989; see especially chapter 7, pp. 173-200). Even so, historians have documented that the positive value ex-slaves held toward education was passed on from one generation to the next, and did not appear to dissipate until the Great Depression of the 1930s (Anderson, 1988) and perhaps not even then (Spencer, Cross, Harpalani, & Goss, in press). Let us review the evidence. It has long been recognized that there was much educational activity, involving the ex-slave population, immediately following the Civil War. Initially, historians linked such activity to forces and influences outside of the black community such as enlightened members of the Union Army, white teachers and educational officials from the north, and the predominantly white Federal Freedman's Bureau, which was the federal agency responsible for the ex-slaves' transition to freedom (Bullock, 1967). However, revisionist historians such as Butchart (1980) and especially Anderson (1988) have shown that well before any of these external agents made their presence felt, the ex-slaves, themselves, organized and began to carry out educational ventures designed to spread literacy and enlightened citizenship among black adults and their children. Given their mistrust of white southerners, the first impulse of the ex-slaves was to control their own education. Thus, except for collaborations with black teachers from nearby free-black communities, the earliest form of black education was organic (Anderson, 1988). When white northern educators and federal officials first became involved in the education of the ex-slaves, they wrote in their diaries and field reports that they were often given the cold shoulder by blacks who were already educating themselves (Butchart, 1980; Anderson, 1988). White officials and white teachers were sometimes dumbfounded that a group just beyond the shadow of slavery was expressing not resistance to or a lack of awareness about the value of education, but a level of positive achievement motivation that in some ways exceeded that which they associated with the achievement aspirations of free white families and children of the North (Butchart, 1980, see especially chapter 9; Anderson, 1988; see chapter one). The attitudes and behavior of the ex-slaves stretch our understanding of the concept of achievement motivation, which is generally defined at the level of the individual. Anderson (1988), Butchart (1980), and Du Bois (1935) depict the ex-slaves' educational demands and aspirations as reflecting a yearning for (a) schools for themselves and their children and (b) standards of personal excellence that would transform them from illiterate adults and children into valued and productive people capable of negotiating the political, economic, cultural, religious, and educational choices which, in their eyes, defined meaningful freedom. Progress within and across each of these domains necessitated literacy. As Butchardt (1980) has stressed, they wanted a future defined by social justice and achievement, both at the level of the individual and for the community as a whole. Their individual-communal achievement motivation redefined history: "The eagerness to learn among American Negroes was exceptional in the case of a poor and recently emancipated folk. Usually, with a protective psychology, such degraded masses regard ignorance as natural and necessary, or even exalt their own traditional wisdom and discipline over 'book learning'; or they assume that knowledge is for higher beings, and not the likes of us. The American Negroes never acted thus." (Du Bois, 1935, pp. 637-638) As their resistance gave way to acceptance, the ex-slaves took advantage of the material and funding support provided by the Federal Freedman's Bureau, and joined hands with educational agents from northern benevolent societies, hundreds of mostly female white teachers transplanted from the North, and black teachers from free-black communities, to create what can only be comprehended as a social movement for education (Spencer, Cross, Harpalani, & Goss, in press; Du Bois, 1935). The historical record clearly shows that more times than not, those who stepped forward to help the ex-slaves in one educational venture or another, were often startled and overwhelmed by the educational demands the ex-slaves made of themselves, their children, and their new found white educational friends from the north. When a good mix of black demands, external leadership, and resources were provided, the result was an unheard of level of progress within a short span of time. For example, Du Bois (1935) pointed out that under the leadership of the Union Army General Nathaniel P. Banks, New Orleans and the State of Louisiana established black schools throughout the state, including rural districts, all within a few years following the abolition of slavery. When this new system came under threat, ex-slaves organized and signed petitions in favor of its continuance, inclusive of one 30-foot long petition that showed the marks of ten thousand ex-slaves (Du Bois, 1935; see page 644). The white teachers from the north, the white educational officials from the northern benevolent societies, and officials from the Federal Freedman's Bureau did not have to spend time instilling a sense of achievement motivation in the ex-slaves and their children. Rather, these external friends of the ex-slaves were often beside themselves in trying to keep up with the ex-slaves educational demands. One sign of the scope of this pressure is how quickly officials moved to established black colleges, even before the dust from slavery and the Civil War had settled, in order to produce enough teachers to serve the emergent black students and schools (Du Bois, 1935). Eventually, the spirit and influence of the drive for black education overlapped with the general politics of the region, and as Du Bois (1935) first proclaimed and Bullock (1967), Butchart (1980), and Anderson (1988) have supported, the codification of the need and right for public education was written into the southern state constitutions as a "gift" from the black community. That the ex-slaves would make education a priority the instant they achieved freedom means that the value of education and the groups' collective achievement motivation was in evidence before they were free. That is, they somehow developed a value for and appreciation of education, not afterwards, but during slavery, even though it was officially against the law to educate slaves. There was no absence of black educational activity during slavery, as Woodson discovered, when, in 1919, he set out to write a pamphlet on black education during slavery. His modestly conceived project eventually grew into a 454-page book, because it took that much scholarship to summarize the scope of educational activities that were directed at the slaves and free blacks throughout the history of slavery. Woodson's research helps to explain how, during slavery, literacy was characteristic of free-black communities, and this community of free-blacks produced many teachers, who were some of the first persons to engage the ex-slaves as they exited bondage (Butchart, 2002). However, it is only from more recent scholarship that we have come to understand how the masses of illiterate slaves fashioned a world view and value system that reflected a level of achievement motivation generally only associated with certain white ethnic groups who entered the United States some 40-to-50 years after slavery (Spencer, Cross, Harpalani, & Goss, in press). Certainly the slaves were influenced by the presence of free black communities, the majority of whose members were literate. Free-blacks found ways to communicate through the slave grapevine about the importance of knowing how to read and write (Webber, 1978; Woodson, 1919). Slaves sometimes witnessed the power of education in the hands of a fellow black, as in 1755, when white southern Presbyterians from North Carolina decided - as an experiment - to see if blacks could succeed at the college level, and sent the slave John Chavis to Princeton University (Bullock, 1967). Upon returning to the south, Chavis opened a school that was attended only by the white children of the slave owners. The irony of an educated slave teaching the master's children could not help but influence the slave community's attitudes about the importance of education. Free-black communities wrote and performed plays, held festivals that required written communications, and built and established black churches the activities for which were driven by membership's ability to read the bible. And, on occasion, some free blacks wrote and secretly distributed among the slaves pamphlets arguing for the destruction of slavery. But had there been no free-black communities, the slaves would still have seen the power of literacy as a result of the stratification of the white community, itself. Blacks could readily see that the lowly overseers and poor whites, who were on the margins of the plantation system, could not read and often were landless and without the right to vote. It must be recalled that poor whites were seldom viewed by slaves to be role models of whiteness, as they were frequently accorded a status beneath that of slaves - certainly beneath those slaves who were skilled craft persons (Gutman, 1976; Webber, 1978). By comparison, the slave-plantation owners were often highly literate and were surrounded by evidence of the power derived from formal educational experiences. The slave grapevine knew about laws, the constitution, newspapers, contracts, books, letters or written correspondence, etc. Almost every slave enclave had a few members whose missing fingers, ears, or whipped-scarred backs revealed the price slaves were willing to pay to learn how to read or write (Webber, 1978). Bondage effectively prevented the spread of literacy among the captive-Africans, and the masses of ex-slaves could be accurately described as illiterate. But, attitudinally, the slaves understood the value of education and they exited slavery with a hunger for education that, when assisted by others friendly to their cause, exploded into a social movement for education. That is the legacy of slavery, not some sort of "oppositional identity." The foremost expert on the history of black education in the South, James Anderson (1988), has traced this legacy of positive black achievement motivation well into the 20th century, and Spencer, Cross, Harpalani, & Goss (in press) suggest that the educational problems of the socalled black underclass are much more contemporary than is typically understood. It is not being romantic to suggest that, at the end of slavery and thereafter, had the larger white society taken advantage of the positive attitudes the slaves held about education and acculturation, then the proportion of black people who are poor today would be dramatically diminished, and blacks would likely be more proportionately represented across the social classes. Given that the exslaves had educational attitudes that put them ahead of poor whites, it is not inconceivable that today blacks might be a major force within the educational establishment in most southern states. But this was not the white response. No sooner had General Banks and blacks from Louisiana established a statewide system for educating black children in 1864 (recall this was mentioned a few pages back), then other whites turned around to destroy it (Du Bois, 1935). In 1880, when blacks seemed to be educating their children too aggressively and threatened to produce black high school students whose knowledge base and competencies might place them ahead of their white peers, the white community responded by shutting down the black high school. It would be nearly 40 years before black children in that area of Georgia would again have access to a high school (Anderson, 1988; see 188-193). We typically think of the American Civil War in a singular sense but there were two wars, the one between the North and South and the other "silent" civil war within the south itself, during which the white south defeated and subjugated its black citizens. Black civil rights were eliminated, their place and future in the social order was truncated and fixed at a lowly status, and a segregated school system was created that was anything but separate and equal (Harlan, 1958). Tax dollars, which should have been distributed equally, were proportioned such that white children received far more and black children far less than would have been the case under an equal distribution system (it was not uncommon that for every dollar spent on a black child, 12 or more was spent on a white child - see Harlan, 1958 or Anderson, 1988; Bullock, 1967). This resulted in the exaggerated funding and accelerated development of white children as compared to the severe under-funding and consequent underdevelopment of black children. In the early 1900s southern black migrants practically matched the educational profiles of white immigrants pouring into the country - essentially both groups were undereducated (Lieberson, 1980). However, by the 1940s and 1950s, when the 2nd major wave of blacks migrated from the south to the north, states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina could speak with confidence that they had, over a 40-50 year period, carried out government-sanctioned social policies that effectively underdeveloped the social capital of hundreds of thousand of black people and their children (Jaynes & Williams, 1989). Once in the North, things would not necessarily get better, for as Homel (1984) and others (Clark, 1965) have noted, the underfunding of urban black school districts, in conjunction with housing segregation and employment discrimination, would be commonplace from the late 1930s to the present. Such containment policies had the power to neutralize any level of achievement motivation blacks might continue to hold. In point of fact, historians and educators have not pinpointed when low black achievement motivation would become such a problem as to cause Ogbu (1991) and others (Wilson, 1987; 1997) to theorize about the underclass and oppositional identity. One thing is for certain; low achievement motivation and undervaluing the role of education are not cultural themes carried over from the psychology of slavery. References  Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.  Bullock, H. A. (1967). A history of Negro education in the south, 1619 to the present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Butchart, R. E. (1980). Northern schools, southern blacks, and reconstruction: freedman's education, 1862-1875. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.  Butchart, R. E. (in press, 2002). Edmonia G. (1844-1870) and Caroline V. (1849-1926) Highgate: Black teachers, freed slaves, and the betrayal of black hearts. In Nina Mjagkij (ed.), The human tradition in American history. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.  Butchart, R. E. (2002). Mission matters: Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, and the schooling of southern blacks,1861-1917. History of Education Quarterly, 42 (Spring 2002): 1-17.  Clark, K. B. (1965). Dark ghetto. New York: Harper & Row.  Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935). Black reconstruction. New York: S. A. Russell Company.  Gibson, M. A., & Ogbu, J. (1991). Minority status and schooling. New York: Grand Publishing.  Harlan, L. R. (1958). Separate and unequal: Public school campaigns in the southern seaboard states, 1901-1915. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.  Homel, M. W. (1984). Down from equality: Black Chicagoans and the public schools, 19201940. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.  Jaynes, G. D., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1989). A common destiny: Black and American society. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.  Liberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Black and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.  Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.  Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Low performance as an adaptation: The case of blacks in Stockton, California. In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling (pp. 249285). New York: Grand Publishing.  Spencer, M. B., Cross, W. E., Jr., Harpalani, V., & Goss, T. N. (in press). Historical and developmental perspectives on black academic achievement: Debunking the 'acting white' myth and posing new directions for research. In Carol C. Yeaky (Ed.), Surmounting all odds: Education, opportunity, and society in the new millennium. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.  Steinberg, S. (1989). The ethnic myth: race, ethnicity, and class in America [2nd edition]. Boston Beacon Press.  Webber, T. L. (1978). Deep like the rivers: Education in the slave quarter community, 18311865. New York: W. W. Norton, Inc.  Wilson, W. J. (1978). The declining significance of race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Wilson, W. J. (1997). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf.  Woodson, C. G. (1919). The education of the Negro prior to 1861. Washington, D. C.: The Associated Press, Inc. *Excerpts from a guest lecture given at the New York Academy of Sciences; for a copy of the complete paper, contact ©2006 New York Academy of Sciences, all rights reserved.

Tutor Answer

School: New York University


flag Report DMCA

Wow this is really good.... didn't expect it. Sweet!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors