Ron Paul: Homeschooling Future of Liberty

[Harrison J Bounel]

Thousands of illiterate third worlders stroll across the US border daily. The government does nothing to stop them, and in fact rewards the successful with food stamps and free prizes. But when homeschoolers flee their oppressive regime the feds have unlimited resources available to stem the flow of freedom. The government fears unapproved doctrine at all levels, from grade school to higher ed.

Ron Paul
April 8, 2013

Homeschooling: The Future of Liberty

A common feature of authoritarian regimes is the criminalization of alternatives to government-controlled education. Dictators recognize the danger that free thought poses to their rule, and few things promote the thinking of “unapproved” thoughts like an education controlled by parents instead of the state. That is why the National Socialist (Nazi) government of Germany outlawed homeschooling in 1938.

Sadly, these Nazi-era restrictions on parental rights remain the law in Germany, leaving parents who wish greater control over their children’s education without options. That is why in 2006 Uwe and Hannalore Romeike, a German couple who wanted to homeschool their three children for religious reasons, sought asylum in the United States. Immigration judge Lawrence Burman upheld their application for asylum, recognizing that the freedom of parents to homeschool was a “basic human right.”

Unfortunately, the current US administration does not see it that way, and has announced that it is appealing Judge Burman's decision. If the administration is successful, the Romeikes could be sent back to Germany where they will be forced to send their children to schools whose teaching violates their religious beliefs. If they refuse, they face huge fines, jail time, or even the loss of custody of their children!

The Administration’s appeal claims that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban homeschooling in all fifty states. The truth is, the Constitution gives the federal government no power to control any aspect of education. Furthermore, parents who, like the Romeikes, have a religious motivation for homeschooling should be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The federal government’s hostility to homeschooling is shared by officials at all levels of government. Despite the movement’s success in legalizing homeschooling in every state, many families are still subjected to harassment by local officials. The harassment ranges from “home visits" by child protective agencies to criminal prosecution for violating truancy laws.

Every American who values liberty should support the homeschoolers’ cause. If the government can usurp parental authority over something as fundamental as the education of their children, there is almost no area of parenthood off limits to government interference.

Homeschooling has proven to be an effective means of education. We are all familiar with the remarkable academic achievements, including in national spelling bees and other competitions, by homeshcooled children. In addition, homeschooled students generally fare better than their public school educated peers on all measures of academic performance.

It makes sense that children do better when their education is controlled by those who know their unique needs best, rather than by a federal bureaucrat. A strong homeschooling movement may also improve other forms of education. If competition improves goods and services in other areas of life, why wouldn't competition improve education? A large and growing homeschooling movement could inspire public and private schools to innovate and improve.

When the government interferes with a parent's ability to choose the type of education that is best for their child, it is acting immorally and in manner inconsistent with a free society. A government that infringes on the rights of homeschooling will eventually infringe on the rights of all parents. Homeschooled children are more likely to embrace the philosophy of freedom, and to join the efforts to restore liberty. In fact, I would not be surprised if the future leaders of the liberty movement where homeschooled.

I believe so strongly in the homeschooling movement that I have just announced my own curriculum for homeschooling families. Please visit this revolutionary new project at http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com.

[Virtual Bison]

In an ideal world homeschooling would be good. Problem is that few parents in this day and age can spend that much time with their chitlins. In these times a typical family needs to have both parents working to even survive.

[ham]

In an ideal world homeschooling would be good. Problem is that few parents in this day and age can spend that much time with their chitlins. In these times a typical family needs to have both parents working to even survive.

I love the idea, but 99% people just couldn't care less...the job, commute, mortgage, debt consolidation bill, repo call, football, internet porn ( gayn-tz yumm!) come first...only fringe activists committed to any fringe ideology may make a priority out of little Leroy, Barbey, Pedro or Chong learning how they are all a-merry-can or some other claptrap to that effect...

[Herbert Spencer]

Why is the Obama Administration trying to deport this family?



By: Todd Starnes
4/9/2013 10:11 AM


Fifteen-year-old Daniel Romeike loves America — his adopted country. But if the Obama Administration has its way, Daniel, his parents and his brothers and sisters will be deported in a court battle over the right to home school.

“If I had a chance to talk to President Obama, I would ask him to let us stay in this great country of freedom and opportunity,” Daniel told Fox News.

The Romeike family fled their German homeland in 2008 seeking political asylum in the United States – where they hoped to home school their children. Instead, the Obama administration wants the evangelical Christian family deported.

The fate of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike – along with their six children – now rests with the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2010 an immigration judge granted the family political refuge, but the Dept. of Homeland Security objected and argued they don’t deserve asylum.

Neither the Justice Dept. nor the Dept. of Homeland Security returned calls seeking comment.

“The Obama administration is basically saying there is no right to home school anywhere,” said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “It’s an utter repudiation of parental liberty and religious liberty.”

The HSLDA is not only representing the family, but they’ve also launched a White House petition urging President Obama to grant them asylum. Nearly 100,000 Americans have signed the petition. Click here to sign the petition.

The Justice Dept. is arguing that German law banning home schooling does not violate the family’s human rights.

“They are trying to send a family back to Germany where they would certainly lose custody of their children,” Farris told Fox News. “Our government is siding with Germany.”

Farris said the Germans ban home schools because “they don’t want to have religious and philosophical minorities in their country.”

“That means they don’t want to have significant numbers of people who think differently than what the government thinks,” he said. “It’s an incredibly dangerous assertion that people can’t think in a way that the government doesn’t approve of.”

He said the Justice Dept. is backing that kind of thinking and arguing ‘it is not a human rights violation.”

Farris said he finds great irony that the Obama administration is releasing thousands of illegal aliens – yet wants to send a family seeking political asylum back to Germany.

“Eleven million people are going to be allowed to stay freely – but this one family is going to be shipped back to Germany to be persecuted,” he said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The fear of persecution is why an immigration judge granted the family political asylum in 2010.

German authorities demanded the family stop home schooling. They faced thousands of dollars in fines and they initially took away their children in a police van.

German state constitutions require children attend public schools. Parents who don’t comply face punishment ranging from fines to prison time. The nation’s highest appellate court ruled in 2007 that in some cases children could be removed from their parents’ care.

“Families that want to have an alternative education can’t get it in Germany,” Farris said. “Even the private schools have to teach public school curriculum.”

After authorities threatened to remove permanent custody from the Christian couple – they decided to move to the United States.

“It was a huge transition,” he said. “We had to sell all our possessions. We came here with suitcases and had to start all over.”

Uwe, a classically-trained pianist, relocated their brood to a four-acre farm in the shadow of the Smokey Mountains in eastern Tennessee. And with the help of a generous community, the family adjusted to their new home – complete with chickens, ducks and a dog named Julie.

“We are very happy here to be able to freely follow our conscience and to home school our children,” he told Fox News. “Where we live in Tennessee is very much like where we lived in Germany.”

Uwe said he was extremely disappointed that their petition to seek asylum was appealed by the Obama administration.

“If we go back to Germany we know that we would be prosecuted and it is very likely the Social Services authorities would take our children from us,” he said.

Uwe said German schools were teaching children to disrespect authority figures and used graphic words to describe sexual relations. He said the state believed children must be “socialized.”

“The German schools teach against our Christian values,” he said. “Our children know that we home school following our convictions and that we are in God’s hands. They understand that we are doing this for their best – and they love the life we are living in America on our small farm.”

Daniel said he and his siblings have adjusted to their new home — learning English and meeting other teenagers — and of course — the freedom to home school.

“I can learn a lot from my parents, much more than I could learn from school,” he said.

Daniel loves to work with wood — building sheds, and candle holders and designing contraptions. One day, he hopes to become an mechanical engineer.

But the teenager’s fate is in uncertain until the courts rule.

“I hope this is not the end of the story,” Romeike told Fox News. “If we get deported, we will certainly face fines and if we don’t pay we might have to go to jail — or worst of all — they might take custody of our children.”

Farris said Americans should be outraged over the way the Obama administration has treated the Romeike family – and warned it could have repercussions for families that home school in this nation.

“The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been at the pinnacle of human rights,” he said. “But not in this country.”

[Dickie Billericay]

[Albert Hidel]

[Harrison J Bounel]

The State’s Newest Problem: Ron Paul Curriculum
by C. Jay Engel on April 17, 2013

The State would be wise to ask: Uh oh, what is the Ron Paul Revolution up to this time? Answer: Educating the youth. From how young? From Kindergarten.

It is finally here! For years Gary North has been talking about the need for a liberty-minded education that should aim to compete with the State’s compulsory and propaganda-ridden education system. Since the Progressive era, the children have been harmed by the lies and manipulation of teacher’s unions, bureaucracy, and curriculum that has one goal in mind: make sure the children praise the State and its efforts forevermore. The State says that it needs to invest in the children. They are right. And oh what a great investment it has been. The more that the children can be controlled, the more money in the form of taxation they will be willing to fork over when the time comes. Would the citizens of American been so willing to give so much of their income to a government without the State’s Progressive era investment? Not at all. The investment was a necessity. Children learn and then they grow. And then they work hard for the things that they learn. The State has benefited marvelously.

But now the liberty and conservative oriented visionaries are speaking: How dare the State make an investment in the children! It is the parents and the churches and market that should invest, not the government. What happens when the State invests? It creates statists. What happens when the Christians and the libertarians and the Austrian economists and the conservatives invest? This is the brilliance of the Ron Paul Curriculum. It will take away from the infectious investment power of the State and redirect the youth, the precious youth, in a direction that refuses to make the State the god of the land.

It has long been held that it is outside the role of government to build an education system and to be involved in schooling. But since the government has never backed off and indeed has only grown in education (especially under Statist liberals like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) the libertarians and conservatives have decided to compete. This is something that could not have taken place without the internet. The government made a strategic mistake: it neglected to calculate the impact that free and accessible information via the world wide web would have on liberty. The State-driven education costs billions per year. All the books and resources at the Mises Institute are free. Economics 101: at a lesser price, more is demanded.

So what is the Ron Paul Curriculum (RPC)? It is, as the website informs, Ron Paul’s second phase of his revolution. ”Politics was phase 1. Education is phase 2.” What is phase three? I don’t know. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

The RPC is a homeschooling based curriculum that seeks to educate (or perhaps reeducate) every student from K-12th grade. The site’s masthead reads

Here, students learn the following:
1.Liberty vs. coercion in Western history
2.How to defend the freedom philosophy
3.What it takes for success in college
4.How to start a home business

The liberty movement lives on and presses hard. Among the several instructors are two that, for me, verify both the rigor of this curriculum and the seriousness of its implications. The first is historian and Protestant economist Dr. Gary North (here is Gary North’s video regarding this new curriculum). The second is Dr. Tom Woods, author of Meltdown and Who Killed the Constitution?

With rigorous courses (Austrian economics, two years of Western Civilization [with both a protestant track from North and a Catholic track from Woods], public speaking, entrepreneurship, biology, mathematics, theology, and Constitutional history), practical application (how to start a business, how to start a blog, how to master the art of public speaking, and self-discipline, manners, life standards), and even forums for students and parents to connect, this new curriculum is everything one would expect from Ron Paul and his most loyal supporters.

But free markets leave out the poor! Years K through 5 will be available for free. That is six years of free education at a higher quality than most my age received from K through 12. (This doesn’t include me [or my siblings, or my wife and her siblings for that matter]; after all, we were homeschooled). And after that? ”Dirt cheap.” (Tom Woods). Roughly $20 per month. Give up a couple movie tickets and give your family a real education!

There are no textbooks. Textbooks, according to Gary North,

“have been screened by committees. Worse than this, they have been screened by committees of educrats. Textbooks are not subject to rapid revision. They are not tied to other courses in the curriculum: history, literature, economics, and government. They are dumbed down. The[y] appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Ron Paul Curriculum does not target that low a denominator.

Here is Tom Woods on textbooks:

[Textbooks] are awful. They have terrible biases, they’re boring, kids hate them. We are going to use original documents and downloadable PDFs.

The curriculum is going to be released on September 2, 2013. What else happens that month? Ron Paul’s The School Revolution will be released. This is a planned, blueprinted, and excellently marketed revolution.

The entire pre-college experience will be completed by the end of 2015. This is only the beginning.

It is very important to bring to light the fact that this is a curriculum NOT a school. Why? Because parents are the responsible party! This is a great and glorious reality of this new project. Parents are in charge of their student’s efforts and progress. Ol’ Gary North won’t be sending a letter to you to inform you that your child needs to adapt himself to Gary North’s goals. The parents shall, as per the institution of family government, oversee the child, decide when to utilize the curriculum and when to supplement it with something else. And who decides when the child can skip ahead, slow down, or change the education patterns? The parents. It is at their discretion to further the education of the child. The parents act as the principle and the mediator. The parents are empowered to say “no” to the State and its despicable ways. The parents can even say “no” to Ron Paul, Gary North, and Tom Woods. This is the point. This is what Paul, North, and Woods are aiming for. They are not greedy for your children like the Government.

The irony is this: here was Ron Paul advocating for liberty for decades in congress while so-called Christians who were also statists (ie, wolves in sheep’s clothing) like Newt “FDR is my hero” Gingrich and Rick “crusader against libertarianism” Santorum, were busy voting for and/or endorsing No Child Left Behind. Not only is Paul the only consistent conservative, he is also the most consistent morally, whether in his strong marriage to one woman or his personal views on Church and self-discipline. This curriculum will reflect that old-fashioned lifestyle.

The liberty movement continues strongly and boldly. While the conservative, as Murray Rothbard once noted, is sometimes seemingly doomed to long-run pessimism, it seems that both the market, and the roots of the American culture are awakening to battle, like they did in 1776, against tyranny in society and economy. It seems that the principles of self-government are arising from the grave and coming back with a vengeance.

Liberty vs. the State. Education vs. indoctrination. Let’s roll.

[Harrison J Bounel]

The State’s Education Monopoly Increases Prices and Destroys Choice
Monday, October 14, 2013 by Ron Paul



Editor's Note: This selection is taken from Chapter 5 of Ron Paul's new book The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System.

The free-market principle of open entry is challenged by governmental restrictions on access to consumer markets. There are many official justifications for these restrictions, but the main one is this: “Customers do not know what is good for them.” They do not know what products to buy, what prices to pay, or what arrangements to negotiate with respect to return and replacement. Customers are in fact woefully ignorant of what they really need, so the state enters the marketplace to restrict what customers are legally allowed to purchase. The idea here is that state officials know what customers really need as distinguished from what customers are willing to pay for.

One of the justifications for this is that advertising deludes customers. This means that customers are considered not able to sort out fact from fiction when they read or see an advertisement. It is interesting that the same advertising agencies hired by businesses to sell products are also hired by politicians to produce advertisements in election years. In other words, advertising is accepted as a legitimate way to motivate people to take action during election years, but is placed under suspicion when it comes to advertising products and services. People in their capacity as voters are supposedly perfectly capable of making accurate decisions based on advertising. On the other hand, those same people in their capacity as customers supposedly are incapable of making accurate decisions based on advertising. This is utterly illogical, but it is basic to understanding all modern governments in the West ...

Whenever the state intervenes in a market to restrict entry by sellers, it results in higher prices. Customers are not able to buy the kinds of goods and services they want, at a price they are willing to pay. So the producers who would otherwise have entered the market are forced to enter other markets. These markets are less profitable than the restricted markets. Customers in the regulated markets are worse off, and so are marginal suppliers who leave those markets.

We can see this principle at work in the market for education. The supply of education is limited by government restrictions on academic certification. Teachers must go through a specified regimen at the college level in order to be eligible to teach in the nation’s tax-funded school systems. This reduces the supply of teachers who can legally be hired by local school districts. Furthermore, restrictions on school construction by private entrepreneurs limit the amount of competition tax-funded schools face.

So, parents are compelled to send their children to school, but the state restricts the number of schools available to parents. This creates a near monopoly of education, kindergarten through twelfth grade, for the state. The state uses tax funding to build schools, and it uses the regulatory system to restrict the creation of rival schools. This is the classic mark of a monopoly.

The free-market solution is open entry and competition. Competition may be in the form of quality. Some parents want very-high-quality education for their children, and are willing to pay a great deal of money to purchase it. They would not have to pay as much money if there were open entry into the local market for schools. Other parents cannot afford the best education for their children, because they do not have enough money. So, they want price-competitive education. This is also made available by entrepreneurs in the field of private education. These entrepreneurs can decide which programs are affordable for which parents, and which programs will meet the demands of specific parents. As more schools come onstream, the range of choice for parents increases. This is the standard definition of what constitutes economic growth. Economic growth takes place when customers can buy more goods and services than they were able to buy prior to the increase in economic growth ...

Bureaucrats in the field of education, which is almost exclusively nonprofit education, have a bias against price-competitive academic programs. They assume that these programs are of low quality. They think it is a good idea to close the market to sellers of any kinds of curriculum not certified by educational bureaucrats. They have greater control over the content and structure of education when they can restrict entry into the marketplace. In the name of helping children, these promoters of self-interested restrictions on entry conceal the fact that they are able to exercise greater power over education and then charge more for the privilege of doing so.

This is why libertarians believe that there should be open entry into the field of education. They do not trust state bureaucrats to act on behalf of parents, especially parents who have a particular view of the best methodology and content for the education of their children. The bureaucrats operate in their own self-interest, which is to expand their power and income.

This raises the issue of government regulation of schools. First, the government requires compulsory attendance. Second, in order to keep control over the content of the curriculum, governments establish rules and regulations governing those schools. Parents are not allowed to send their children to schools that do not meet these qualifications. The qualifications are set very high, so that not many schools can be established to compete against the public school system. This increases the power of the public school system, and the power of the bureaucrats who run the system.

An example of this kind of regulation can be seen in the requirement that private high schools have libraries of at least 1,500 books. States around America had this requirement or something similar to it in the 1990s. But a student in the early 1990s was able to carry a CD-ROM with 5,000 books on it: the Library of the Future. No matter. A CD-ROM and computer stations did not count as meeting the 1,500-book requirement. The books had to be physical, so tax money had to go toward that. Today students have access to hundreds of thousands of books by means of the cell phones in their pockets. But accredited high schools must still have physical libraries. These libraries must be run by someone with a degree in library science. Conclusion: The library requirement has nothing to do with the number of books in the library. It has everything to do with increasing the cost of building a facility that qualifies as a school that meets the government’s regulations.

The goal of academic regulation is to limit the supply of schools that compete against public schools. This is done in the name of guaranteeing the educational quality of the school, thereby protecting the students. Yet the academic performance of the public schools continues to decline, and has done so since the early 1960s. The scores on the SAT and ACT exams continue to fall. The high point was in the early 1960s. So, regulation has not been successful in guaranteeing the quality of education. But it has been quite successful in restricting entry into the field of education.

In the 1980s there was a great battle over homeschooling. States around the nation passed laws prohibiting parents from substituting homeschooling for schooling in either a tax-funded school or a private school. The private schools were so expensive that only a handful of parents could afford them. This meant that parents would simply have to send their children to the public schools. The appearance of homeschooling in the 1970s and ’80s represented a threat to this strategy of restricting the supply of competing educational programs. States prosecuted parents for teaching their children at home.

A major case was tried in Texas in 1985, Leeper v. Arlington, in which a coalition of homeschool advocates brought a class-action suit against the state. The state lost the case in the state supreme court in 1994. The court required school districts to compensate the parents of the children who brought the suit. This case sent a clear message to local school districts in Texas. Overnight, they removed most of the restrictions against homeschooling. The state of Texas became very friendly toward homeschooling. But it took a court case to achieve this goal ...

There should not be anything resembling a government monopoly of education. Standards that govern the public school system locally should not be imposed on parents who decide to remove their children from that system. Without freedom of parental choice in education, the state will pursue a policy of extending its monopoly over education. Tenured, state-funded bureaucrats will then use this monopoly to screen out ideas that call into question the legitimacy of government interference in many areas of life, including education. The government does not have to burn books in order to persuade the next generation of voters of ideas that favor the government. The government need only screen out books and materials that are hostile to the expansion of the state.

[jamesc1]

I have never had any interest in agendas. There are those who want liberty and freedom, but, then they define how it will be done, end of freedom. Freedom isn't about doing it my way or your way, but is all about doing it in any way that doesn't restrict anothers freedom.

I like homeschooling. It allows people to choose the path that such education begins, and then the child, as he gets older, begins to step in and push the adult to the side and do it his way. The adult cannot continue to run the education or it is his not the childs.

We have all sorts of restrictions on how we obtain knowledge. That, I suppose, is the weakness of so called Republics. In order to hear all voices we construct all sorts of rules to give such freedom, thus taking away the very freedoms we try to provide. You cannot legislate freedom. You can only get out of the way and shut up. People will then find their own choices.

Homeschooling, yes!! But minus programs and goals. Let it wander where it will. A child, and even adults, will go where they need to be and learn what they require.