Judge Rules Parents Have No Say In What PS Teaches
Filed Under: Freedom & Politics, Homeschooling, Parenting
Two Lexington, Mass. couples who objected to lessons in same-sex marriage taught by the local elementary school have been told by a judge that “the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children.”
I am going to quote a portion of the article, since it very eloquently says what I believe:
Once Americans may have agreed on what children should be taught, but that day is long gone. On any number of fundamental issues, parents today are sharply divided, and there is no way a government-run, one-curriculum-fits-all education system can satisfy all sides. The only way to end the political battles over schooling is to depoliticize the schools. And the only way to do that is to separate school and state.
Parents should have the same freedom in educating their kids that they have in clothing, housing, and feeding them. You wouldn’t let the government decide what time your kids should go to bed, or which doctor should treat their chicken pox, or how they should spend their summer vacation, or which religion they should be instructed in. On matters serious and not so serious, parents are entrusted with their children’s well-being. Why should schooling be an exception?
I agree with the judge’s ruling in regards to our current public schooling system. Parents do have the right to organize and influence the curriculum taught in schools. But with so many different points of view and with schools expanding into more and more areas of “education,” I think the author is right on that we need to separate school and state.
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
lori | Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
I thought this was an important point, too:
It was a reminder that on many of the most controversial subjects of the day, public schools do not speak for the whole community.
This is really the crux of the matter. The public schools speak for the majority of the community, even in so-called non-controversial areas such as how children will be taught (project-based learning vs. skill and drill, for example).
The reality is that most schools, public or private, cannot completely individualize the curriculum from either a content or learning approach standpoint. One of my kids goes to a private school and one a public school. I have more say at the private school, to be sure, but I still don’t have the ability to completely customize my child’s education there.
So separating schools from the state won’t entirely make the problem go away. Private school parents have more say than public school parents, but private schools are still a community, and some decisions and policies are community-wide.
If you want to have complete control of what your kids learn, how they learn it, and when they learn it, you have to homeschool. Otherwise, you’re giving up some of that control to the school.
Michelle | Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
An excellent point. If you don’t agree with what’s being taught you have the freedom to leave and go private or with homeschool and you always have the freedom to teach them what you do believe while they’re at home.
Though it seems sad to see society reach a point where same-sex marriage is being taught in public schools. How far have we fallen?
lori | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Actually, I see it as a few steps up, even though same-sex marriage was not being overtly taught. Some books that included same-sex couples were read to *some* students.
Still, a step in the right direction: inclusion and acceptance for all families, especially those in the local community and those who are legally married in the state.
JayMonster | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Separation of “School And State” I’m sorry to disagree is not the answer. Much like the ballyhoo over “vouchers” and being able to bounce around schools, and other such nonesense brought forth and fostered by the inane No Child Left Behind Act, the only thing this separation will do is benefit the richest and most affluent parts of this country at the cost of all the lesser communities and urban neighborhoods.
Perhaps if parents decided to get involved with their children’s schooling and know what is going on, get involved with the PTA, the School Board, etc., you wouldn’t have these “shocks” to their system, and these silly cases going through the courts.
Of course, same-sex marriage is a reality in our world whether you like it or not. “Shielding” your child from knowledge of it is not going to keep them from knowing about it or experiencing it at some point. And by “not talking” about it, will not prevent them from being gay if they are. I am digressing, but the point it, you can help influence the curriculum by being involved, not by being a “screaming Mimi” later (with apologies to all Mimis in the world).
Summer | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
That sounds like a reason to homeschool if there ever was one! He is right. I don’t let the governemtn deside when my children will go to bed, or what they will eat, or what they will wear. For me their education is much more important than any of those matters. Which is why I plan to keep my children’s education in my own hands.
tanya | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
It is so unfortunate that the rights of a small minority are creating problems where there need not be. I do not think schools should deny the haulocaust or pretend there are no same sex couples or teach only one religion but, is it really nescessary to be teaching about same sex marriage in elementary school? Should there be a whole module on common-law relationships and inter-racial couples and combined families and people who chose to care for an elderly relative in their home and families with…
They are elementary school kids. Families come in many shapes colours and sizes. Teach them tolerance teach them kindness and teach them to read and write, add, subtract, and multiply. Try to get to fractions before you put families under the microscope!
Shannon | Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
JayMonster, I agree with your comment on “screaming Mimis.” But I disagree that separating school and state would only benefit the rich. We all pay a good amount of our income in taxes that go toward funding education. To quote one article I’ve read: “Consider the possibilities for raising $24 billion for private scholarships from taxpayers who have just had $316 billion returned to them. If only eight percent of that money found its way to private scholarship funds, money would be available for all children of lower-income families to attend better schools than they are attending today.”
And what about capitalism? Free-market education would encourage innovation as entrepreneurs chased that money. I believe the quality and quantity of educational opportunities would increase for everyone — especially the poor.
JayMonster | Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Shannon,
I’m sorry, but the numbers pulled out of the air on cost, are just that… pulled out of the air with “rose colored” projections.
Free-Market Education? Tell me… where are all the low income colleges? The colleges that cater to the poor and under-represented communities?
Second, it becomes a question of choices. Between Public and Private education, and even between “good” and “bad” neighborhoods, you have the fights of who can get into a better college, or high school etc based on where the better education is. So if upper-snootieville can afford to to pay all their teachers more, because all the students that attend the school have parents that can afford the higher amounts, where does that leave everybody else?
Philip | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
Interesting article.
lori | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Tell me… where are all the low income colleges?
Ever heard of community college?
Or state colleges and universities?
Or CUNY?
Or Appalachian State University?
The list goes on. Economically disadvantaged students can and do go to college every day.
The problem isn’t college, though. It’s k-12. Now that kids go to school based on where they live (which is a result of how affluent their parents are), where you are is who you are.
We need school choice (which I prefer to call educational choice) for all students, but I’d settle for full-tuition vouchers for economically disadvantaged children. At least they’d be able to afford to go to school RIGHT NOW in upper-snootieville, like all the kids who had the sheer luck to be born into affluence.