History of our Court Case:
Monopolies ALWAYS lead to ABUSE!

Just as: "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" or "Total Power Corrupts Totally." A Monopoly in any area of human endeaver Always leads to Abuse!

As our children began to go to the government (public?) schools in the late 1960's I slowly became aware of the strong atheistic and humanist bias in their school  curriculmn. At first I was very innocent and naive about the matter and attempted to reason with our children's teachers and the principle of their school about my concerns with the content of the curriculmn. However, after a couple of years of discussing and debating and eventually arguing with them, we finally came to the conclusion that they (the teachers) and their curriculmn were not going to change.

When my wife and I realized that we could not change the government schools or their policies or their curriculmn we chose, with much apprehension, to pull our children out of school and teach them at home. This was not a quick or an easy decision, but we believed in our hearts that God had given us our children and it was our duty to protect them from the influence of the huminist teachings that were being promulgated in the government schools. Also, we were greatly concerned that our decision to homeschool might have an adverse affect on their academic opportunities. However, after much study and soul searching, we reasoned that their spirtual and moral well being were more important than academics.

So from the early 1970's until the late 1970's we (mostly my wife) taught our 7 children at home.

In the late 1970's the state became aware of our homeschooling and the district school superintentendent began to pressure us to send our children to the government schools. The superintendent seemed reluctant to use force and so we began a dialogue that lasted for a couple of years until a new superintendent was appointed to our district.

Soon after the new superintendent came into power he gave us an ultimatum, to either send our children to a "state approved" private school; submit to the state's rules on homeschooling (only state approved instructors and curriculmn); or send our children to the government school. We could not afford a private school; sending our children to the government schools was out of the question; and the thought of the state and it's representatives dictating to us what we could and could not teach our children was abhorant to us so we refused to obey his ultimatum.

The methods of the new superintendent were very simple - Fear and Intimidation! In 1983 the state of Hawaii began to prosecute us for "educational neglect". Although we had less than $7,000.00 in savings, we hired an attorney and began our battle with the state to retain our God-given rights as parents to direct the upbringing of our children. The threat of losing our children to the state was always present throughout this ordeal.

After a couple of hearings a trial date was set for June, 1983. We assisted our attorney in the search for previous cases through the use of a newly purchased computer. I also worked on a Scriptural defense for homeschooling. We also had our children tested, both academically and psychologically. In the meantime the state appointed a guardian adlitum on "behalf" of the children.
 
 

 The results of all this activity were very satisfying: Our children tested out at or above grade level (all of them had reading levels 3 to 4 grades above the government school requirements). They were determined to be "psychologically normal". And worst of all, for the state that is, the guardian adlitum submitted a glowing report on how well mannered, polite, and pleasant our children were as compared to the many misfits that he had had to deal with! Our attorney had gathered quite a few positive cases dealing with compulsory attendence and I had finished our 8 page Scriptural defense of our position with over 100 verses of Scripture to back us up.

 When the day of the trial came the state atrorney general came to us one hour before the trial and offered to "settle" out of court (Our stack of paper on our case was over one inch thick, while the state's was barely one quarter inch thick!).

 After spending over $6,000.00, (almost all of our savings), on attorney's fees, psychology tests, and several academic tests; after losing hundreds of hours of work; after being intimidated and threatened by the Kauai superintendent of the state Department of Education; after reading and researching case histories; and working to prepare our personal testimony and our case; after expending all of the time, money and effort, the state backed down on all of their major demands: state control of our curriculmn and state minimum requirements on who was 'qualified' to teach our children!
 

 The following are direct quotes from some of the state of Hawaii educational elite in regards to education, homeschooling, and our children [Underlines are mine]:

 The Garden Island Newspaper 10/25/83 (Kauai District Superintendent of Education commenting on our victory in court.)

"Giving children their formal education at home can be like bringing them up in a protective bubble." "Dr. Mitsugi Nakashima was talking about the Anderson family of Kauai's North Shore that recently won a battle with the Department of Education to teach its children at home."

 "Nakashima, Kauai's superintendent of schools, said yesterday that he is concerned that parents could use the Anderson case to justify taking children out of schools. He said "such efforts, however, would not be that easy. He and the D.O.E. would most likely take such parents who cannot provide a college-educated teacher for home study to trial and use the legal expertise of the state attorney general to keep children in school". [After he and the state had just lost their case against us!!!]

 "On materialsim, which the Anderson family said is inappropriately taught in schools, Nakashima said 'let's face it. Even the Bible says render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's.'" [I didn't know that we lived under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Caesar's - In America?]  "He said that children have to learn that it's up to them to make choices."

 On Evolution, another subject opposed by the Anderson family, Nakashima said evolution is one of many ideas presented to students. When they go home, parents can say 'That's one view, we have another. Why don't you decide for yourselves?" [One of many ideas taught? What other ideas on creation are taught, or are even allowed, in the government schools other than Uniformitarianism and Evolution?]
 

 
 
 
 The Honolulu Advertiser 1/4/1986: (State Schools Superindent Francis Hatanaka comments)

........"social needs will press the state to take steps to provide public education 'extending downward to 3-year-olds' in the next five years."  "Hatanaka also said yesterday a 'new world order' means the school curriculumn must provide more economics and attend to the 'international dimensions of education.'"  "This 'new world order' poses many challenges and opportunities for educators."
 

 Na Lono Kula (Department of Education in house newspaper - Vol. 17, No. 7 Sept. 1986) State Superintendent Francis Hatanaka's comments)

 "He told administrators if change is to occur, it must happen at the school level first. The school is the unit of change." [Change what? Change to what?]  "The Superintendent reminded educational officers, however that at the heart of the improvement efforts of the DOE are certain basic beliefs that all must share and exhibit."
 

 Page 12 of the State's case against us: (June, 1983)

 Moreover, as a matter of law, the requirements of H.R.S. 289-9 cannot be deemed anything other than reasonable,minimal and necessary. While the State has a compelling interest in education, the parents cannot demonstrate that their interests rise above "the general interest of a parent in the nurture and education of their children" so as to implicate a right which warrants constitutional protection.

 III. CONCLUSION
  It should not be forgotten that the well-being of the children and not the prerogatives and entitlements of the parents, must be the focus in the pending proceedings. "It is the student's judgement, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and the rights of students to be masters of their own destiny." J. Douglas concurring in Yoder, supra at p. 245-6.
 The instant proceedings are intended to provide a judicial mechanism for prescribing appropriate treatment or correction, in the best interests of the child for the child's educational welfare. The philosophy of this Court is completely different from that of an adult criminal court. When possible, the Family Court attempts to arrange for available community resources to strengthen the child and the child-family relationship. H.R.S. 571-1. In this setting, technical legal rights of the parents must be subservient to the child's interest. The rights of the parent, if any, must give way to the best interests of the child [Bold and all underlines are mine]

 Should you doubt that there are people out there who think that you are incapable of raising your own children properly, and who think that they are far better suited to determine what is 'best' for your child, doubt no more. These Educational Elitists are the same as the priest class of the Dark Ages. And they will stop at nothing to inculcate their values into your children.

Respectfully submitted for your review,

George H. Anderson Jr.