How Districts Can Navigate Tricky Questions Raised by Parents’ Rights Laws (anti-parental rights alert; “expert” is academic govt shill/ lawyer)

A half dozen states in recent years have enacted laws that aim to give parents more authority over what and how their children are learning. Individual districts and the U.S. House of Representatives have also passed their own versions of these policies, known as parents’ bills of rights.

They vary by jurisdiction, but they often restrict instruction on race, gender, and sexuality, particularly at younger grade levels. Some require parental permission before a student can use a name or pronouns that don’t align with their sex assigned at birth. The policies can also give parents more latitude to opt their children out of lessons they deem objectionable. Some give parents the ability to inspect certain curriculum materials.

Now, as schools try to operate under the new parents’ rights paradigm, they’ve run into some confusion. In Florida, the state waffled over whether districts could still teach the full Advanced Placement Psychology course, which addresses gender identity and sexuality. In North Carolina, two districts paused a child sexual abuse prevention program this past fall as they determined whether it was allowed under the state’s new parents’ rights law. Some districts in states with parents’ rights laws have sought parents’ approval for their children to even go by common nicknames.

It’s all happening in the name of parents’ rights, but they raise tricky questions about where a parent’s authority stops and a school’s authority begins. What do legal precedents on the issue actually say? And how can district leaders navigate the challenges inherent in interpreting and implementing these new laws?

While the Constitution does give parents general authority to make decisions about their children’s education, it doesn’t take all authority away from school districts, according to Derek Black, a law professor and constitutional law chair at the University of South Carolina.

Parents’ rights laws often prioritize individual needs and preferences over those of a larger group, which can make administering public education particularly difficult, Black said in an interview with Education Week.

He encouraged school districts to focus on developing trusting and collaborative relationships with parents to prevent resentment and distrust from building up.

Q: What drives the confusion about how parents’ bill of rights laws should be implemented?

A: That phrase “parental rights” is a very broad one, and you can easily lump a lot of stuff into it. In fact, this sort of broad concept comes from these cases back from the 1920s that they always cite that established a parental right to control the education and upbringing of one’s child. But it doesn’t give parents authority over everything a school does.

Even when people said there’s a right to abortion, it never meant abortion anywhere, any time, however, you want. There were parameters.

You can say that of all of our rights—there are always limits, but I think what has happened with parental rights is that there is this broad language from 100-year-old cases that is being wildly extrapolated in the modern context. There are statutory rights that states have extended to parents, and that’s what some of this legislation is doing now. The thing we have to understand is, these rights that are being extended are not constitutional rights, they’re just policy rights.

These are just permissions that the state has given to parents. And now folks want more and more and again, it’s around this idea that it’s their constitutional right as parents to have these things, when that’s not really the reality.

A: The short version of it all is that those cases really stand for the idea that parents can seek educational opportunities beyond or in lieu of the public education system, and that you can’t constrict the available educational options.

Courts have routinely rejected any number of claims by parents that [students] being required to read fantasy books, for example, is somehow contrary to religion. Courts have rejected this content being provided as being a violation of parental rights and said parents have the right to supplement and teach your kids this is wrong or whatever you want.

Schools can’t compel a child to say same-sex marriages are moral, or they can’t compel students to salute the flag. But they can expose you to the flag. So I think that’s where a lot of the confusion redounds.

It’s hard for me to imagine that the folks who are pushing this agenda are ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is relatively limited. What I would say, however, is it’s their position, I believe, that the constitutional rights of parents should be much broader. What they really are doing is envisioning a system of education in which individual interests take precedence over the group.

Q: What challenges do districts face in interpreting and implementing these laws?

A: It becomes practically impossible to administer a public education that works to the greater good of all when what you’re doing is riding around trying to create 101 exemptions for everyone who doesn’t like something. Or you’re forced to throw out the education that’s good for all to just reach a lowest common denominator that will generate the fewest exemptions or complaints.

We ultimately have to trust local school districts to act in the overall interest and good. If teachers are obliged to post their teaching materials every day of the week, and then respond to any questions individual parents may have in regard to those teachings, then we get to a situation where teachers no longer have time to teach students to read, write, and do arithmetic, which is what their primary job is.

There’s a certain subset of people who are anti-public education and their intent is just to micromanage them to death. But I do think there’s some reasonable-minded parental rights folks who don’t want to interfere with basic educational teaching, and believe in middle ground.

A: I think it’s impossible to give a broad response to that because the laws vary from state to state and some are more restrictive and unreasonable than others. If one says you must post assignments and respond to any objections on a daily basis, then that’s just a disaster, and there’s no advice for that.

Advice comes into play more in those districts and states that don’t yet have these parental rights statutes and they’re trying to navigate issues without them blowing up into something that does become law.

I’d say the key is for teachers to build trust with the parents and to communicate with parents. I don’t think they need to—or can—communicate everything. But I think the more that the schools and teachers are proactively sharing information with parents, the less likely it is for a subset to gain traction over the idea that the school is hiding something or you’re doing something terrible. A little bit of self-enforced transparency and self-enforced communication would go a long way.

Ultimately, a person who’s trying to make trouble is going to do so regardless of the communication, so then I really think it’s up to strong education leaders—principals and superintendents—to be a buffer for the teachers. Teachers need to know that leaders will line up behind them.

I also think school board members need to be standing up, too, and saying, “If you don’t like this, then unelect us. But right now our job is to serve the 100 percent. But we can’t even serve the 95 percent or the 99 percent if we’re running around chasing our tails, with the 1 percenters complaining about stuff.”

So, I think that everyone except the teacher needs to step forward to create some buffers for the classroom.

Derek W. Black is a professor of law and one of the nation’s foremost experts in education law and policy.

He focuses on school funding and equality for disadvantaged students. He has published over thirty scholarly articles in the nation’s top legal journals, including the flagship journals at Yale, Stanford, New York University, California-Berkeley, Virginia, Cornell, Northwestern and Vanderbilt. His research is regularly cited in judicial opinions and briefs in federal and state courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also involved in school funding and federal policy litigation, where he serves as an expert witness and consultant.

His work, however, reaches beyond the legal community. In an era of dwindling public school resources and ever-expanding inequality and privatization, he frequently appears in the media. His essays appear in USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and Time, among others. Outlets like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Atlantic, Washington Post, and Education Week regularly request his expert analysis and commentary. He is also a frequent radio and television guest for national, regional, and local outlets.

He is currently a Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina. He began his career in teaching at Howard University School of Law, where he founded and directed the Education Rights Center. Prior to teaching, he litigated education cases at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

His recent book, Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy, warns that current education trends represent a retreat from our nation’s foundational commitments to democracy and public education.

His forthcoming book, Dangerous Learning, uses the South’s repression of black education and freedom literature before and after the Civil War as a lens to examine current racial controversies in schools.

“I also think school board members need to be standing up, too, and saying, “If you don’t like this, then unelect us. But right now our job is to serve the 100 percent. But we can’t even serve the 95 percent or the 99 percent if we’re running around chasing our tails, with the 1 percenters complaining about stuff.”

I seriously doubt whether a lot of school boards attempt to serve even 10% now when most are Democrats and most public school teachers are Democrats.

Democrats are truly evil. The Parent’s Bill of Rights that passed by a vote of 213-208 in the US House of Representatives with an overwhelming Democrat dissent. Note the bill had no hope in the Senate or with the Administration but is central to the life of the Democrat Party. Below is a link to the text of the bill, but I have excerpted some of the egregious provisions in case you don’t want to read the bill’s text.

H.R.5 - Parents Bill of Rights Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5/text#:~:text=%5BFor%20text%20of%20introduced%20bill%2C%20see%20copy%20of,America%20in%20Congress%20assembled%2C%20SECTION%201.%20Short%20title.

curriculum is freely and publicly available on the internet

widely disseminates to the public such curriculum

the detailed budget information required shall include a separate fact sheet that summarizes such information in a clear and easily understandable format.”

ensure that school provides to the parents notice that includes the name of the speaker and the name of the organization or other entity being represented by the speaker.”

A local educational agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that widely disseminates to the public, a summary notice of the right of parents to information about their children’s education which shall be in an understandable format for parents

“(C) the right to meet with each teacher of their child not less than twice during each school year

“(D) the right to review the budget, including all revenues and expenditures, of their child’s school

“(E) the right to a list of the books and other reading materials available in the library and inspect such books or other reading materials

“(G) the right to address the school board of the local educational agency

“(L) the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to change a minor child’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name; or allow a child to change the child’s sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms

“(M) the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to treat, advise, or the bullying or a specific threat to the safety of a student

“(Q) the right to know if their child’s school allows an individual whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or changing rooms designated for individuals whose biological sex is female

Congress finds the following:

“(1) The right of parents to educate their children is a pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as ‘beyond debate’ and rooted in the ‘history and culture of Western civilization’.

“(2) Parents have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on decisions made by State and local education leaders.

“(3) States and local educational agencies should empower parents to communicate regularly with Federal, State, and local policymakers and educators regarding the education and well-being of their children.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.