It takes a court to educate a child?

The sixth in my series of op-eds for Liberty Features Syndicate, this cleared back on September 11th.

Ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski was probably pretty nervous last week, as most girls that age are when faced with the prospect of starting at a new school. While she joined thousands of school-age children in having to make that adjustment, the reason young Miss Kurowski needed to make the change is rather unique.

In July, a New Hampshire District Court judge ordered that Amanda be sent to public school because her mother was homeschooling Amanda with a too “rigidly” religious focus. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler made the decision at the behest of Amanda’s father, Martin Kurowski, who argued that being taught in such a manner was preventing Amanda from receiving other, more secular viewpoints.

Yet while Amanda Kurowski was being homeschooled in basic subjects along with Bible study, she was also attending supplemental public school classes in art, Spanish, theater, and physical education, and active in extracurricular sports. Certainly she was not being completely sheltered from the outside world, and Judge Sadler agreed that Amanda’s schooling has “more than kept up with the academic requirements” of the public school Sadler compelled Amanda to attend.

While the tug-of-war over custody and affection between father Martin Kurowski and mother Brenda Voydatch has consumed most of Amanda’s young life – the couple divorced in 1999 – this spat is noteworthy because of its religious aspect. Amanda, like her mother, is a devout Christian whose homeschooling has helped shape her religious beliefs.

The ruling by Judge Sadler fails to account for a number of factors, though, and sets a poor precedent for future jurisprudence. It’s clear that Amanda was not living in a bubble because she was interacting with other children in both academic and athletic settings, nor was there any apparent physical or mental abuse in the case. Essentially the decision came down to the personal preference of both Judge Sadler and a court-appointed guardian for Amanda, who both believed that strong religious beliefs were not correct for a ten-year-old child to have. To them, it seemed better for Amanda Kurowski to worship at the altar of Hannah Montana and be exposed to the coarseness of public school culture several hours a day – conveniently they found an ally in Amanda’s father.

Over the last couple decades more and more parents have decided to take refuge from failing public schools by homeschooling their children, and often they turn out to be our best and brightest. In many states teachers’ unions have pushed back by making it more difficult to educate children outside the realm of organized schools, whether public or parochial, while federal law has shaped a curriculum which rewards teaching to a test rather than students learning how to think for themselves.

Judge Sadler’s ruling, which wasn’t based on rectifying any educational harm but simply showed a desire to instill a “tolerance for different points of view”, was an unnecessary incursion into the affairs of one family. In that bid for “tolerance”, Judge Sadler clearly failed in not attempting to mediate the middle ground of an appropriate parochial school where Amanda could continue her education in a setting with other children but reflective of her and her mother’s faith.

Brenda Voydatch attempted to raise her daughter with values of God and not necessarily of men, but political correctness prevailed in Judge Sadler’s court. In a culture which defines deviancy down, hopefully Amanda’s exposure to public school will be mercifully brief and her parents will find a more suitable learning environment for her.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

5 thoughts on “It takes a court to educate a child?”

  1. Just to play the devil’s advocate here (I haven’t read enough on this to come down one way or the other yet), why should the mother get unilateral say in the upbringing of her child?

    I’m all for letting parents be a major force in a child’s upbringing (although I’m hesitant to give to great a role at risk of harming the child’s say, particularly as the child gets older), but that does mean both parents, unless there is a compelling reason one should be shut out. Based off of what you have here, there’s no evidence the father is unfit to be a parent.

    In fact, from what I’ve seen the only mark against the father is that the mother was granted custody. Considering that courts routinely side against fathers in custody hearings, I’m skeptical as to how much weight that factor should given.

    In the end, it really comes down to this. The right has been up in arms over this, yet seems to be ignoring the father’s preferences in raising his child. As far as I can tell the only reason is because the mother is an extraordinarily devout Christian and her father less so. How different might the story be if the religion in question were Wicca, Buddhism, or Islam?

  2. My contention was based on two items: one, the anti-Christian bias of the judge and the court-appointed guardian, and, secondly, the refusal to consider the “middle ground” of an appropriate parochial school (possibly based on the first item.) There was no harm in Amanda’s situation aside from the stated desire of the father to instill what he considered “tolerance” into Amanda, never mind that she had already been in situations where she was required to interact with other children on a limited basis.

    Given the tendency of courts to bend over backwards to other religions, I posit that the result would have been opposite had Brenda Voydatch been Wiccan, Buddhist, or followed Islam. But this nation was built on Judeo-Christian values.

  3. Michael,

    I see your point, and I’m inclined to think the court went too far, but you didn’t really address my point as to why the father doesn’t get to have a say in the education decisions concerning his daughter?

    As for the latter point, I wasn’t really referring to the court decision, but to the reaction of those on the right to it (as in would their support flip over to the father or remain with the mother). Thoughts?

  4. Ideally the two parties can agree, but in the case where they don’t courts usually side with the wishes of the custodial parent.

    Given the majority of Americans subscribe to a Judeo-Christian world viewpoint, the support would likely switch over had the mother been devoutly Wiccan, Buddhist, Islamic, etc. Of course, in some cases the mother wouldn’t take the steps to socialize the child as she did – enrolling her in supplemental classes and athletics. To me, that blew the father’s argument about lack of socialization and “tolerance” out of the water because Amanda was given the opportunity to be with other children and not isolated.

    In theory, this court would not allow an Amish child to be home-schooled or placed in a single-religion school either because they tend to shun society in favor of their own values.

  5. Sorry to keep dragging this out, but the contradiction implicit in your last comment doesn’t bother you?

    You note that the courts usually side with the custodial parent when there’s a conflict between the two with regards to how the child is raised as a justification for preferencing the mother’s wishes over the father’s. Yet at the same time the whole point of the original post is that the courts are judging poorly (and as I noted earlier there’s not exactly a lot of disagreement that courts are generally biased towards mothers in determining custody).

    Likewise, you note that opinion would flip if the mother was anything other than a Christian (or perhaps a Jew). That doesn’t bother you in the least that the Right’s support for the mother is so ephemeral. What good is taking an ethical stance (which is what this boils down to) if that stance doesn’t apply equally if an irrelevant variable like the religion in question is changed. It certainly suggests that, at best, the support is poorly thought out and, at worst, a cynical ploy to score points with the social conservative wing of the party.

    Just to re-emphasize, I don’t necessarily think the court was right. But on the other hand, I don’t think the issue is anywhere near as cut and dried as commentators from our side have been making it out to be.

    (And just to make my biases clear, I’m a Deist and share a lot of Jefferson’s skepticism about strong religious sentiment)

Comments are closed.