newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Parents were shocked when a public high school in Candler, North Carolina, invited a local abortion clinic to give a sophomore biology class on sex education and contraception without parental consent.
“Soon the house was forgotten. We thought it didn’t exist. As for us, my father and mother were dead.”
Year? That was in 1984, but it could well have been 2023.
Parents and community members attending the June 22, 2021 Loudoun County Board of Education meeting. (Reuters/Evelyn Hochstein)
Generation Z parents meet Generation X parents. Today’s parental rights movement shows that little has changed in public school warfare since the days of Ronald Reagan. Like the angry father in 1984, parents still feel helpless, neglected, and stymied. The school system, which sees parents as irritating at best and domestic terrorists at worst, continues to resist informing parents about what is going on in the classroom.
Parents demand Oregon School Board recall after reports of ‘disgusting’ sexual games, explicit books
Why would a public educational institution be comfortable ignoring parental concerns? The answer is simple. Because we can.
For years, parental rights activists have pointed to two US Supreme Court cases, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Sisterhood. (1925), the principle that parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
William Howard Taft – 27th President who later served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
In the Meyer case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft’s Supreme Court ruled that a Lutheran school convicted of violating a Nebraska law prohibiting public and private schools from teaching students in languages other than English. Consider the case of a teacher. Passed in the midst of anti-German sentiment during World War I, the law recognizes that private school teachers and parents have powerful liberal rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A court ruled that it was unconstitutional. Two Years Later, Court Strengthened Meyer with Pierce, He ruled that an Oregon law requiring public school attendance was unconstitutional, saying that “children are not just creations of the state.”
Unfortunately for parental rights advocates, none other than Antonin Scalia has questioned the precedent value of these cases.
In Troxel v. Granville (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a Washington law that allowed grandparents to apply for visitation rights to their children in state courts over parental objections. Although the court found Meyer and Pierce in control, the case resulted in multiple opinions, two concurring and three dissenting, revealing a split in the court.
Judge Antonin Scalia questioned Meyer and Pierce’s viability and subsequent lawsuits related to their parents’ rights. (Alex Wong via Getty Images)
This state just regained the crown of school choice
In his dissent, Justice Scalia questioned the viability of Meyer and Pierce and the subsequent Wisconsin v. Yoder case. (1972): “The diversity of opinion today suggests that the unenumerated custody theory underlying these three cases is staring decision This case presents a very high hurdle for parents.
Even more frustrating for parents is the ineffectiveness of federal laws intended to promote parental rights, such as the Parents’ Rights Amendment (PPRA). Ignoring the hysterical protests of the National Education Association (the nation’s largest teachers’ union), the PPRA urged federally funded schools to verify “every material” that parents are taught in the classroom. , requesting that students be able to request to opt out of surveys investigating their political beliefs. , sexual behavior or attitudes, mental health, religious beliefs, or other sensitive issues.
In 1984, the great communicator himself, usually a harsh critic of federal regulation, announced in a speech at the Eagle Forum national conference that he had announced the implementing rules of the PPRA. “Any Republican politician today would say the same thing.
But like any theory of substantive custody, the PPRA has not stood the test of time very well. Well-documented efforts to inculcate radical concepts such as gender identity and important race theories in students, often with the active support of school boards and administrators, and the 1619 Project A critical mass of outraged parents has been created through the use of academically inferior curricula such as I no longer trust school. Despite his PPRA endorsed by Gipper, the school building doors remain closed to parents.
Everything is Big in Texas, Including School Choices
One reason for this is that public education institutions know that parents cannot exercise their rights under the PPRA against their local school district. PPRA’s recourse is for parents to file complaints with the Department of Education. The Education Department should investigate and resolve the complaint. This process can take months or even years. Without compliance, the department could withhold or terminate the school’s federal funding. This is perfect for school districts and their unions.
Washington DC Department of Education (Stephanie Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
Ironically, for decades, Republicans have allowed parents to turn to the Department of Education, the very bureaucracy many want to get rid of. This policy not only contradicts the interests of couples with school-age children (an important Republican constituency), but also betrays the party’s well-learned historical skepticism of public sector bureaucracy. We need to understand that federal bureaucratic enforcement of parental rights laws is not enough and will never correct the power imbalance that exists today in favor of school districts.
I have a simple solution. Get your parents to file a lawsuit. Congress allows parents (and parents) to sue school districts in federal court to enforce PPRA rights, as well as other rights Congress may codify for parents , should create a clear right of action. To avoid abuse, Congress could only allow declaratory and injunctive relief and awards of attorneys’ fees and costs, not monetary or compensatory damages.
Faced with legal costs and potential liability for fees and expenses, public education institutions have finally begun to listen to parents and take their concerns seriously. It also reconciles two conflicting policy goals for conservatives: dismantling the education ministry’s bureaucracy and helping parents to hold local school systems to account. Once upon a time, even conservatives would benefit from the ingenuity of the Bar Association.
As usual, the states are in control. Arizona, for example, allows parents to exercise their statutory rights, but union-dominated states like California, New York, and Illinois are unlikely to pass meaningful parental rights legislation. Blue State parents cannot be left behind. Federal private action is the answer.
Click here to get the opinion newsletter
The House responded to the loss of confidence in public schools by passing the Republican Parental Rights Act (PBRA). In a healthy world, this bill would pass Congress with the support of the President, but in modern America, it would almost certainly be defeated in the Senate. would not even be given the opportunity to pay tribute to the political leaders of the National Education Association and the National Teachers Association. Although the PBRA greatly expands a parent’s federal rights, it does not include a parent’s right to private action against a school district.
If the Democrats succeed in burying the PBRA this year, parents will use that party’s mindless obstructionism to plan carefully for 2025 and demand that the next administration and Congress sue them. is needed. Otherwise, it’s a step back into the future for parents who look to public schools for answers.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
