The rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right." Who could disagree with this simple, innocuous statement? Parents do have the responsibility and, yes, the right to raise their children. Yet this statement has polarized parents, parent groups, and various organizations. Parental rights has become a political issue involving many of us in a debate we believe is unwarranted.
The statement in question was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia during the 1996 and 1997 sessions of the General Assembly. Senate Joint Resolution No. 98 (SJR 98) and House Joint Resolution No. 750 (HJR 750) were introduced as part of a continuing effort by a number of groups to codify parental rights.
Attempts to amend state constitutions to deal with parental rights have taken place in more than 25 states since 1995. The initial focus was at the federal level. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Steve Largent (R-Oklahoma) introduced in Congress the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act. As stated, the purpose of Senate Bill S. 984 and House Bill H.R. 1946 was "to protect the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right." Jeffrey Bell, founder of the Virginia-based organization Of the People, helped draft the language of the bills. He and Michael Farris, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association (also headquartered in Virginia), are among the chief proponents of this legislation.
Along with Of the People and the Home School Legal Defense Association, backers of parental rights amendments include the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, and the Traditional Values Coalition. Opponents include the National PTA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, the SAFE KIDS Campaign, and the National Child Abuse Coalition (Billitteri 1996).
The list of groups involved in the debate may surprise some who thought the parental rights movement was the type of effort many of the opponents would support, given their focus on the needs of children and parents. When the National PTA spoke out against the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act in Congress, PTA leaders knew that it would be necessary to embark on a campaign to help others understand our reasons.
The Issues
No one, least of all those of us steeped in the PTA philosophy, debates the primary role that parents have in the upbringing of their children. The responsibility for children's health, education, welfare, and religious training belongs with the parents. That said, important issues remain. Specifically, the issues in the parental rights debate include the following: Why is legislation needed? Are parental rights in fact being usurped by government agencies? Are there currently laws that undercut the role of parents in decision making regarding their children? And, critically, what is the likely result of proposals to create constitutionally based parental rights?
Proponents of these proposed bills say parental rights are being usurped and constitutional protection of parental rights is needed. Such a law would affirm ". . . parents' freedom to direct their children's education, health care, discipline, and religious training" (Bradley 1995). Supporters believe that public schools and other government agencies are undermining their right to discipline their children and to determine their children's education and health care. They repeatedly cite stories of their children being "forced" to attend counseling programs, AIDS awareness assemblies, and sex education programs without parental approval. They also believe that government is moving to take away a parent's ability to "spank" a child, deeming this a form of child abuse. Supporters also argue "the [amendment] grants no new rights . . . but simply codifies existing ones that lower courts, bureaucracies, school boards and legislators have taken away" (Billitteri 1996).
"Opponents argue parents already have a wide array of rights and options to fight what they consider unreasonable government interference" (Billitteri 1996). The laws that upset proponents of parental rights amendments are needed to protect some children from abuse and neglect and to provide for their education and health needs. The National PTA (and others)argue that codifying parental rights into an "ambiguous" new law would have catastrophic consequences: gridlock in the public education system; greater incidence of child abuse and teen pregnancy; soaring government legal bills; and a virtual dismantling of child protection safeguards (Billitteri 1996).
Sammy J. Quintana of the National School Boards Association, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed federal legislation, stated thatthis bill is about making it more difficult for public schools to teach our children. It is about lining the pockets of lawyers and draining the scarce educational resources in our schools. It is about putting the health and safety of our children in jeopardy. It is about playing politics with our children (Billitteri 1996).
The PTA's Position
The National PTA's primary goals include protecting the health, education, and welfare of all children and youth and promoting parent involvement in a child's life. Its commitment to parent/family involvement has led to the development of a parent involvement training manual and the recently released National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs. The PTA is working with state and local affiliates to ensure that these standards become guidelines for parent involvement in all our schools. Yet when it comes to the proposed parental rights legislation, the PTA says "No!" In a letter to members of Congress on the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 984, Shirley Igo, PTA's vice-president for legislative affairs, stated thatthe National PTA has historically defended the right of parents to be involved in advocating for children . . . [but] any additional laws, especially one so intrusive as this one, are not needed to deal with the basic rights of parents (Igo 1996).
Like the other groups who oppose parental rights amendments, the PTA believes such amendments will create havoc in the public schools. Giving parents a fundamental "right" to "direct" the upbringing and education of their children raises the specter of schools forced to contend with a variety of parental demands on curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods and the related possibility of numerous lawsuits brought by disgruntled parents. The PTA also notes that these amendments could make it difficult for government to assist children, when necessary, in health-related situations. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the SAFE KIDS Campaign share this concern.
The National PTA's positions on the federal proposal have guided state PTAs in opposing similar measures. In Virginia we were quick to let members of the General Assembly know of our opposition to SJR 98 and HJR 750. As PTA representatives, we attended committee hearings and press conferences, and met with Assembly members to explain why a parental rights amendment to the state constitution is not necessary. The bottom line for those of us working to defeat this amendment was—and is—that we, as parents, already have the right and, more so, the responsibility to be involved in the education and upbringing of our children. Robert Alley, professor emeritus of humanities at the University of Richmond, stated in his remarks at a committee hearing on SJR 98,. . . any mother or father worthy of the name would not employ the phrase "parental rights." From the day they were born we assumed responsibility, not rights, for the precious persons delivered to our care and nurture (Alley 1997).
During our effort we discovered that opponents of this proposed amendment to the Constitution of Virginia came from many backgrounds and ideologies, and included parents of students in public and private schools, as well as home schooling parents. At a January 1996 press conference, one home schooling parent simply stated that she didn't need the government involved in defining her rights as a parent. Other home schoolers have voiced similar opinions. Larry and Susan Kaseman, in an article in Home Education Magazine (January-February 1996), stated,this [federal] legislation is a serious mistake that will not only fail to protect parental rights and responsibilities but will also cost parents and families an enormous amount of freedom and contribute to the current erosion of the legal, social, and moral position families have in our society.
Although the Virginia PTA was heartened that SJR 98 did not fare well in the 1997 legislative session, this issue may surface again in Virginia and in other states. We now need to get to the root of the problem and avoid further wasteful confrontation by addressing the legitimate concerns of groups like Of the People, as well as individual parents who feel that the only way they are going to be heard is through the courts. According to amendment supporters, without the parental rights bill, school systems will continue to ignore parents' wishes.
An Alternate Solution
The answer, I believe, lies in maximizing both parental involvement in our school systems and responsiveness to that involvement. As the lead organization in advocating for parent and family involvement in a child's education, the PTA is very aware that some schools either do not welcome parents' input or give it only lip service. When such situations occur, parental distrust of the school mounts—and rightly so. As Oliver "Buzz" Thomas—an attorney, Baptist minister, and school board member—stated at a recent Parental Rights Forum sponsored by ASCD and the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, "the parental rights act is a reaction of parents feeling shut out by the system." If parents are not engaged in decision making, if schools prefer to ignore the opinions and wishes of parents, and if parents are not welcome in the school, then parents have every reason to become concerned about the curriculum, the teaching, and the school environment. The PTA understands the danger of such situations but strongly believes that legislation is not the answer, particularly legislation that could harm some children. As PTA's Igo has admitted, "there was a time when schools . . . did not welcome parents into the process. . . . But the climate is changing" (Stepp 1996).
All school divisions should embrace and practice the PTA's commitment to parent involvement and should dismantle any barriers that keep parents away. Parents must be included on decision-making advisory committees, and schools must provide a mechanism for parents to challenge curriculum and remove students from programs that they deem inappropriate.
Proponents of parental rights legislation should recognize the divisiveness of giving every parent broad control of every detail of their child's education, at least until they have fully used every appropriate means available to them for individual tailoring of their child's education. For example, in Virginia, parents who object to family life education can opt their children out of this program. Likewise, procedures are available to challenge materials, and all citizens have the right to express their views to school boards.
School systems and school boards across the country need to listen to parents and then, with parents, make decisions that benefit all our children, recognizing that public schools must serve a broad populace and simply cannot cater to everyone's individual preferences without harming the rest of the school population. The answer for all of us lies in maximizing parental input and official responsiveness, choosing the best alternatives for the good of the whole, and using available options for individually responding to a child's needs.
Of the People founder Jeffrey Bell says that "the model state amendment proposed by Of the People is intentionally broad to spark a debate about parental rights and responsibilities" (Billitteri 1996). The parental rights amendments have sparked debates. Now it is time to move away from legislation and the courts and back to our schools and communities to solve the issues that divide us and work for the common good. It is the most we can do for our children.
