Requiring Parents to Provide an Education for their Child

In a comment on my previous post on homeschooling, Burgess Laughlin issued a friendly challenge:

Should the state require parents to provide any education? If so, what is the justification?

Here is my answer to this challenge.

The parents have the obligation to provide for the child. What does this mean? Well, the child is born helpless. It did not ask to be born. The parents, having chosen the bring the child into existence, take upon them the responsibilities of its development from a helpless infant into a self-sufficient adult.

What are these responsibilities? Since man (including a child) is an integrated being of mind and body, the responsibilities divide into physical and mental. The physical include such things as food, clothing and shelter. The mental include such things as teaching the child how to speak.

Furthermore, as part of bringing the child to the point where he is self-sufficient, he must be provided with at least the rudiments of knowledge necessary for such independence. This is culturally contextual. As Branden pointed out in The Objectivist Newsletter, in a more primitive society that might mean teaching your child how to hunt. In our more advanced, knowledge-based society, it means teaching him reading, writing and arithmetic. Of course, parents should and typically will teach their child much more (history, science, literature, etc). However, with the 3R essentials the child can complete the process on his own, whereas without that basic knowledge he is left without even the means to develop his knowledge further.

Thus it is proper, as part of the parent's obligation to provide for the child's transition to independence, for the state to require that the parent arrange for the teaching of at least these fundamentals so that an essential part of the child's independence is achieved. However, absent specific evidence to the contrary, the state should assume that the parents are fulfilling their obligation. Parents, just like everybody else, are innocent until proven guilty. It also remains a difficult question as to the exact time frame by which the state can require this obligation to be fulfilled. For example if a child has not learned to read by age 9, should the state intervene? How about age 14? I support early education but have not yet thought this aspect of the issue clearly through. However, the requirement itself derives from the parent's obligation to provide for the child's transition to independence.

Thoughts on homeschooling

The aforementioned California court case is now getting a lot of press. I think it is important to review the basic moral issues of homeschooling before one tackles the legal issues. This is my attempt to formulate the moral case for the right of parents to homeschool their children.

Let's begin with the idea that parents as human beings have a right to life, liberty and property. Ayn Rand stated it best when she wrote:

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The issue becomes a little more complicated when a couple decides to have children but they do not lose their rights in the process. Instead, the issue of responsibility for one's actions comes into play:

A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently. ...
The essence of parental responsibility is: to equip the child from independent survival as an adult. This means, to provide for the child's physical and mental development and well-being: to feed, clothe and protect him; to raise him in a stable, intelligible, rational home environment, to equip him intellectually, training him to live as a rational being; to educate him to earn his livelihood
(from The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol.1, No.12, December 1962, Intellectual Ammunition Department, Nathaniel Branden)

Thus just like food, clothing and shelter, the responsibility of education logically falls on the shoulders of the people bringing the child into this world. At this point, one wonders where the idea that the government should be involved in a child's education comes from. Properly, the government's role ought be limited to its proper functions, namely the protection of individual rights:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
(from the entry Government, Ayn Rand Lexicon)

By bringing a child into the world, the parents have incurred certain obligations toward the child. Thus it is correct to say that the government should enforce these obligations as part of its protection of the rights of all individuals, including children. The government should step in if the child is unjustly abused and protect the child's right to life, or if it is neglected to the point where its physical and mental health are seriously threatened. This would require objective legal definitions of harm or abuse that would trigger a police visit.

However, as long as the parents make a reasonable effort to provide the basic necessities listed in the above quote, the government ought to protect the parent in their right to fulfill their responsibilities as they see fit. It is not for the government to decide the specific means by which the obligations are fulfilled. Just as the government does not legally require children to attend specially formulated communal meals or require parents to be credentialed nutritionists, but instead wisely leaves the issue of food for parents to decide, as long as they don't starve the child. Similarly, when it comes to education, as long as the parent provides the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic, the state ought not to interfere. The parent can choose (as we are) to provide quite a bit more at home, or have the children privately tutored or send the children to a school of the parent's choosing. However, I see no reason for government involvement in schooling outside of the aforementioned minimal check. I would also want the government to treat all parents as innocent until proven guilty. There always needs to be some cause, some evidence for government involvement. Comments welcome.

Ayn Rand on Questionable Parents

The following excerpts are from an interview entitled "Objectivism in Brief" conducted by Raymond Newman and currently available for streaming at the Ayn Rand Institute website here with free registration. It's also available for purchase from the Ayn Rand Bookstore here.

The comments (which I've personally transcribed below) come in the following context: Mr. Newman asked Miss Rand a question at minute 30:05:

...Miss Rand, we spoke in the last program about morality and I did have ...ehh...one final question about that ...and... it's a broad, general question about how to deal with people who are immoral. What level of contact is acceptable? For example, is it acceptable to trade with, to buy, to sell ...ehh... from or to someone that is immoral?

Ayn Rand answers this question (I will not transcribe the answer here -- you can hear it in the interview) and then Mr. Newman asks this follow-up around minute 32:09:

Is there any reason to treat family members any differently than you would treat other people in this context?

Rand answers as follows. I've highlighted the part relevant to subject of this post and I tried to use italics when it appeared to my ears that Ayn Rand was trying to emphasize a word (obviously any mistakes in transcription are mine):

None whatever. I am very much against family...ehh...in that kind of sense. In the sense which makes...ehh...a small tribe out of the family and makes you tied to every second cousin and aunt and ankles[sic]...uncles that you might have...ehh...the only exception is of course in regard to your parents because there the relationship is different from that to any
other person and you have to acknowledge that...eh... Generally you do not break with your parents as easily as you would with other members of the family. Other members you have to judge as you would every person you meet -- if you don't approve of them you don't become friendly. You cannot choose your parents in that sense, and you have to give them a long, long benefit of the doubt and permit them, in effect, more offenses against yourself than you would to friends or acquaintances. You have to give them a certain credit for the fact that they chose to give birth to you and took care of you while you were helpless. But, it's not an unlimited claim, and if...ehh...you clash with your parents too much then you have to maintain an attitude of polite duty and see as little of them as possible. And that's probably the only realm in which I recognize such a thing as duty. As a rule, it's a very wrong concept...ehh...because it asks you to do something for which you have no reason, but the one reason that...that your parents gave you life would make you do more for them or bury[sic]...bear more from them than any other people.

Would you have expected this answer from Miss Rand? My point here is to give one small example to demonstrate that Ayn Rand was a careful, sophisticated, and nuanced thinker. Unfortunately, the typical intellectual who comments on her, usually a Liberal or Conservative, almost never recognizes this fact. Keep in mind that the above comment is in the context of immoral or otherwise odious parents and yet Miss Rand encourages individuals to continue their relationship with their parents. Far from being an advocate unrestrained rebellion, Ayn Rand actually accepts a form of duty to one's parents, at least up to a point.

Objectivism is neither simple, nor simplistic. Proper understanding and application of Ayn Rand's ideas require years of study and practice. I'm still working on it.