What it costs people
Homeschooling to Protect the Belief
Utah law already forbids what the parents are afraid of. The remedy removes every external check that exists.
Be careful and kind here
Most of these parents are acting out of genuine fear for their kids, and contempt will fail. The argument is narrow: the stated reason is factually wrong, the remedy removes every external check, and the epistemics are worth sitting with.
The strongest fact, and it is counterintuitive
Parents pulling kids from Utah public schools to prevent LGBTQ or sexual content are protecting them from something Utah law already forbids. Utah Code 53G-10-402 makes sex education abstinence-only: it prohibits instruction in "the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior," prohibits advocacy of premarital sex, and prohibits advocacy of contraceptive use. And it is opt-in, not opt-out: parents must be notified in advance, may review the materials, and must consent before any of it reaches their child. The statute
Utah used to have an explicit statutory ban on "instruction in the advocacy of homosexuality." That clause was repealed in 2017 by SB196 after a lawsuit. Do not claim a current ban exists. The accurate version is still strong: nothing beyond abstinence, no contraception discussion, and nothing at all without prior parental consent.
The second strongest fact
To homeschool in Utah you file one signed affidavit. That is it. The statute explicitly forbids the school board from requiring standardized testing, checking whether the parent-teacher has any credential, inspecting the home, or requiring any record of attendance or instruction. Once that form is filed, no teacher, no mandated reporter, no state official is required to lay eyes on that child again for the rest of their K-12 years. Utah Code 53G-6-204
On the claim that homeschoolers outperform
The source of the claim is NHERI, the homeschooling movement's own research institute. Its own page reports the 15-to-25-percentile advantage, then concedes: "the research designs to date do not conclusively 'prove' or substantiate that homeschooling causes these things." The studies rely on convenience samples that overrepresent white, Christian, higher-education households. Read it on their own site
The oversight gap, in documented numbers
The Coalition for Responsible Home Education’s public case database
Cases of severe abuse or neglect in homeschool settings. The argument is about the absence of a floor, not the typical family.
Source: hic.crhe.org
Only two states bar convicted child abusers from homeschooling. Only one restricts withdrawal during an active CPS investigation. The Turpin case in California is the clearest illustration: 13 children found shackled and starved while the father filed a fraudulent private-school affidavit nobody ever checked. Source
It is tempting because it is local and LDS, but the homeschooling detail does not check out: available sources indicate at least one child attended a regular school, and formal homeschooling could not be confirmed. Using it as a "homeschooling hid this" example will get you corrected.
Concede these, immediately
- Parents have a constitutional right to direct their children's education. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): children are not mere creatures of the state. Settled law.
- Religion is not the top stated reason nationally. School environment and safety consistently outrank it. Do not caricature the motive.
- The unsocialized homeschooler stereotype is not well supported, and most homeschooled kids turn out fine. The Turpins are the tail of the distribution, not the median.
- The 2020 surge largely receded: about 3.4% of K-12 students by 2022-23, versus 2.8% pre-pandemic.
The legal point almost nobody knows
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) is the case that goes furthest for religious withdrawal from school, and it turned on the Amish being a demonstrably self-sufficient, law-abiding community. Justice Douglas dissented specifically because the children's own interests were never heard; only the parents' religious liberty was weighed. Even the strongest case for religious withdrawal contemplated a balance against the child's stake in their own future. Utah's statute has removed that half of the balance entirely.
Why this should make you question
The stated fear is factually backwards for Utah: state law already forbids what parents are afraid of, and requires their consent before any sex education reaches their child at all. The remedy removes testing, credentialed teachers, mandated reporters, and every adult outside the household, in exchange for protection from a threat that mostly is not in the classroom.
And the question worth asking, genuinely and without accusation: if the belief is true, why does it need a child to never meet anyone who disagrees? At what age would you be comfortable with them hearing the other side? If the answer is never, or always a few years further out, that is worth both of you noticing.