OPINION: School choice wins, but threats to parental rights remain
Commentary by Dale Courtney
I attended the Moscow Chamber of Commerce’s “Coffee with District 6 Legislators” on March 1, where Reps. Brandon Mitchell and Lori McCann spoke to a standing-room-only crowd.
I was particularly interested in House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR1), which failed by one vote, with Rep. McCann siding with Democrats against it. The resolution sought to amend Article IX, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution, which currently treats homeschooling as an exception to compulsory government-school attendance and places it under legislative control:
“COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL: The legislature may require by law that every child shall attend the public schools of the state, throughout the period between the ages of six and eighteen years, unless educated by other means, as provided by law.”
Homeschoolers pushed for clearer protections to ensure parental authority over education, free from legislative interference. Their argument would replace the existing language with:
“The right of the people to educate their children without government regulation outside of the public schools of the state shall not be infringed.”
When I asked Rep. McCann why she opposed it, she claimed Idaho statutes already protect alternative education. But neither the homeschooling community nor I found that convincing — the Constitution’s current language makes homeschooling an exception to compulsory public schooling, meaning it exists at the legislature’s discretion. That’s exactly why clearer protections were needed.
McCann insists she supports homeschooling and would be willing to put protections in statute. But without constitutional protection, homeschooling is reduced to a privilege granted by the legislature rather than a fundamental right endowed by God — whether McCann admits it or not, that is the reality.
Later discussions focused on House Bill 93 (H93), which passed the Idaho Senate and was signed into law by Gov. Brad Little. Education tax dollars should follow the child, not the zip code.
Rep. McCann again sided with Democrats to oppose H93. Her justification? That it “takes public dollars and sends them to private schools.” That’s false. H93 isn’t a voucher system — it directs public funds to parents, who then choose how to educate their children outside the government school system.
McCann claimed that without alternative schools, parents couldn’t use the funds. But H93 empowers parents to create options, including school co-ops. This bill does not limit parental choice but expands it.
The discussion then turned to the supposed violation of church-state separation. I just shook my head. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” comes from Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, who feared for their religious liberty in Connecticut, where the Congregational Church was enforced through state taxes. Jefferson assured them the federal government would stay out of church affairs — not that religion should be erased from public life.
Yet this phrase has been misused to suggest the Constitution mandates a strict separation of church and state, which it does not. The First Amendment simply prohibits Congress from establishing a national church and from interfering with the free exercise of religion — nothing more.
When the Constitution was ratified, nine of 13 states had established state churches. Pretending the Founders intended to purge religious influence from public life is revisionist nonsense. Congress was also funding chaplains for the military and opening sessions with prayer. Washington, Adams and nearly every early president called for national days of thanksgiving, prayer and fasting.
The real constitutional principle is clear: The government cannot impose a national church, but it was never meant to be hostile to the Christian religion. There is nothing unconstitutional about Christian values shaping our laws — every legal system is built on some moral foundation, and ours was undeniably built on biblical principles.
Liberals ignore the fact that all laws impose morals. The question isn’t whether morality will be imposed, but whose morality.
John Adams, the second president of the United States and a key architect of American independence, understood the Christian moral foundation necessary for our nation’s survival. Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Given the overwhelmingly Christian culture of the Founding era, it’s clear what he meant: The American system of self-government depends on the virtue and godly discipline of its citizens. Without Christian faith as its foundation, the Constitution alone cannot uphold order or liberty.
A government that sees parental rights as negotiable won’t hesitate to erode them. Whether through ambiguous constitutional language, misrepresenting school choice, or distorting the First Amendment, the pattern is clear — power had shifted away from families and toward bureaucrats. If lawmakers won’t defend parental authority, it’s up to the people to demand it.
Courtney served 20 years as a nuclear engineering officer aboard submarines and 15 years as a graduate school instructor. A political independent, he spends his time chasing his eight grandchildren around Moscow.
