Before she became a U.S. senator and then President Joe Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris was a progressive California politician.
As the San Francisco district attorney, Harris launched a campaign to get “tough” on truancy, not just to ensure that children were properly educated but also to reduce crime. She was concerned that “a disproportionate number of the city’s homicide victims were high school dropouts, and that dropouts are more likely to become perpetrators or victims of crimes.”
Harris then persuaded the California legislature to adopt harsher penalties for truancy like fining parents $2,500 or more or sentencing them to a year in jail. After she won election as the state’s attorney general, Harris put parents on notice: “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”
(According to Politico, “California lawmakers are quietly advancing a bill that would undo controversial anti-truancy legislation Kamala Harris pushed more than a decade ago.” Turns out that Harris may run for governor in 2026.)
But it’s not just progressive states like California that rigorously enforce truancy laws. In my red state of Florida, a judge recently sentenced one parent to a six-month jail sentence and another parent to a 90-day jail sentence for ignoring court orders to send their children to school.
According to the Florida Department of Education:
Florida Law (Section 1003.21, Florida Statutes) states that all children who are either six years of age, who will be six years old by February 1 of any school year, or who are older than six years of age but who have not attained the age of 16 years, must attend school regularly during the entire school term. A student who attains the age of 16 years during the school year is not subject to compulsory attendance beyond the date of which the student attains that age if he/she files a formal declaration of intent to terminate school enrollment with the school district.
Florida law defines “habitual truant” as a student who has 15 or more unexcused absences within 90 calendar days with or without the knowledge or consent of the student’s parent or guardian, and who is subject to compulsory school attendance.
It was not always this way. In the American colonies, education was generally provided by parents and private tutors. Public schools were reserved for poor families. By 1850, there were public schools in every state. The beginnings of compulsory education laws can be traced to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where in 1852, schooling became compulsory. All children between eight and 14 years of age had to attend school for at least 13 weeks during the year. This was then expanded to children between seven and 16 and for six months during the year. By 1900, almost every state had compulsory schooling laws, and such laws are almost universally accepted today by most Americans of every political persuasion.
But just like the majority of Americans support laws against drug use, gambling without government permission, and working in certain occupations without a license, the fact that the majority of Americans support compulsory schooling laws does not mean that they are good or necessary laws.
There is, in fact, no difference between compulsory schooling and compulsory religion laws.
Americans of every religious affiliation — including those of no religious affiliation — would be outraged if each state government established churches in every town in their states; compelled all residents in a geographic area to attend church every Sunday under threat of fine or imprisonment; published a list of approved songs for congregations to sing; established sacraments and ordinances to be observed; hired minsters to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments and ordinances; drew up a confession of faith for adults to subscribe to and a catechism for children to recite; and instituted a local tax to pay for the church, its ministers, and its ministries.
So why no outrage over compulsory schooling? After all, the numerous comparisons to compulsory religion are obvious.
Wait, some will say, no child is compelled to attend a public school. Children can go to a private school or be homeschooled. This is true now, but that was not always the case and is not the case in some other countries. So yes, in the United States at the present time children can go to a private school or be homeschooled, but they are still compelled to be educated in an approved setting with approved teachers, approved textbooks, and approved curriculum for so many days each year under threat of fine or imprisonment. And on top of that, they are still taxed to pay for the local public schools that their children will never even attend.
I would even argue that religious beliefs and observances, depending on one’s religion, are more important than getting a secular education because they potentially involve the judgment of God and one’s dwelling place in an afterlife. It seems like it would make more sense for Americans to demand public churches instead of public schools.
In a free society, parents, not the state, decide how, where, and to what extent their children are educated, just like parents, not the state, decide how, where, and to what extent their children take part in religious activities.
