In New Jersey, a contentious brewing storm centers on proposed legislation aimed at the homeschooling community. Democrats are facing criticisms for seeking to impose a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) curriculum on families who have opted for homeschooling, largely as a means to escape what many describe as state-sponsored indoctrination. The heart of the matter lies within Assembly Bill 5825, which appears to advocate for oversight of home education while masking what critics claim is an infringement on parental rights.
Corey DeAngelis, who writes for The Daily Economy, sheds light on the troubling implications of the bill. He argues that the requirement for parents to align their homeschooling curriculum with state standards means they would inevitably have to include DEI teachings. These teachings are now fundamentally woven into the fabric of New Jersey’s educational standards. “The catch… is that diversity, equity, and inclusion curriculum is as integral a part of state standards as reading, writing, and arithmetic,” DeAngelis points out.
This legislation does not stop at curriculum alignment. Assembly Bill 5796 introduces annual inspections for homeschooled children, requiring them to undergo a health and wellness check by a school district official. DeAngelis vehemently contends that this proposal betrays the very goals of homeschooling, which are centered around escaping a conventional educational system perceived as politically charged. He states, “By effectively compelling homeschooling families to parrot political narratives on race, gender, and identity, such mandates confirm the odd ownership many Democrats feel over people’s kids.”
Will Estrada, senior counsel at the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, echoes these sentiments. He notes that no state currently mandates that homeschooling align with public school curriculums, which often drives parents to choose homeschooling in the first place. Estrada pointedly remarks, “Public schools are there to educate children enrolled in the public school, not to do health and wellness checks on children in the community at large.” This sentiment encapsulates the deep concerns about governmental overreach into the private sphere of family education.
Critics raise alarms about how this legislation positions government entities as gatekeepers of children’s education. DeAngelis captures the gravity of the situation, suggesting that New Jersey Democrats believe “government school administrators, not parents, hold ultimate authority over a child’s upbringing.” He warns that this mentality sets a dangerous precedent that undermines parental rights and freedoms.
Sophia Mandt, writing for Reason, reinforces the notion that parental authority in educational choices deserves protection. She states, “There are a million reasons why parents would want to homeschool their children, none of which should need government approval.” Mandt’s call for greater educational freedom resonates as a clarion call amidst growing state intervention.
The implications of these legislative moves extend beyond the immediate concerns of curriculum and oversight; they evoke a historical caution. DeAngelis likens the current push for control over educational content to tactics used in totalitarian regimes. He points out that, “Authoritarian regimes have often sought total control over education, and history reminds us these moves are ominous,” citing the Nazi regime’s ban on homeschooling as an example of the consequences of such governmental overreach.
This viewpoint underscores a deep-seated fear among parents seeking to educate their children outside the public school system. DeAngelis alleges that the underlying motivation for this proposed legislation is more about protecting the monopoly that the Democratic Party, heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, holds over education. “The real motive here is monopoly protection,” he posits, highlighting a belief that they view homeschooling as competition.
Amidst the rhetoric surrounding educational rights, DeAngelis articulates a key constitutional concern as well. “A5825 violates the First Amendment by compelling government speech,” he asserts. He warns that requiring parents to teach state-sanctioned DEI content, regardless of their personal beliefs, could inflict harm on their educational values.
In this unfolding narrative, New Jersey’s choices on education will likely shape deeper discussions about parental rights and governmental responsibilities. As the debate continues, families remain on high alert regarding their freedoms in the face of legislative encroachment. The conversation surrounding homeschooling, curriculum mandates, and government oversight is becoming not just a New Jersey issue but one that resonates across state lines.
"*" indicates required fields
