Parental Choice in Education

Which Parents? Which Choices? Whose Education?

Hardly a day goes by without news stories about parents arguing to have books removed from school or public libraries, expressing fear of “groomers”, claiming that students face indoctrination, or angrily disrupting school board meetings. In some ways, these complaints about public education aren’t new; they’ve always been implicit in the homeschool and school voucher movements.

But the situation has worsened since 2020. Some of that was understandable (if over-the-top) concerns about school closures and masks in the midst of a pandemic. Some were vague and exaggerated concerns about Critical Race Theory or Diversity initiatives in the wake of the George Floyd protests.

What has changed in the last two years is that conservative legislators have discovered a useful tool to advance their initiatives with wild claims that need attention Right Away! After all, who can complain about protecting our children or giving parents a say in what happens to children at school?

This is why the attack on education operates in such murky territory. It depends on a lack of clarity and hyperbole to create concern among parents. Chris Rufo made it clear that he didn’t want to define CRT because it was better to attack it in the abstract. The “Don’t Say Gay” bills limit what can be taught to children on issues of gender identity without any evidence that any inappropriate education was occurring. Librarians are asked to remove “pornographic” books¹ from their libraries even though nobody is required to read them. Just having them on the shelf is somehow damaging children.

It’s no surprise that teachers are leaving the profession. It pays poorly and has difficult working conditions. Most teachers are there because they love working with children but there’s a continual cost-benefit analysis going on. Trust in teachers has fallen. According to a Gallup poll earlier this year,

Teachers' rating had jumped to an all-time high of 75% in 2020 after varying between 66% and 70% from 2010 to 2017. Their current 64% is thus a new low. But while it's not significantly lower than some of their previous scores, the latest decline is driven by a notable downturn in positive ratings among Republicans (emphasis mine).

This attack on education from the right relies on vague assertions taken out of context. Suddenly Social emotional learning is problematic.² Math books are accused on introducing race consciousness (because they have students answering questions about the racial wealth gap in America).

Which brings us to Furries.

Last month, Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Heidi Ganahl told a conservative talk show host about how the latest thing in schools was children identifying as animals.³ She said that she had reports from parents in schools throughout Colorado that this was widespread. As reported by that liberal rag, Forbes, here’s what Ganahl said:

“What on earth are we doing?” Ganahl asked on local radio KNUS. “Knock it off, schools. Put your foot down. Like, stop it. Let’s get back to teaching basics and not allow this woke ideology—ideological stuff—infiltrate our schools.”

As Forbes points out, Furries are actually people involved in cosplay. They dress up and go to conferences with others. In that way, they aren’t that different than the Star Wars or Avengers cosplayers who go to Comic Con.

Source MetroPhiladelphia

The more advanced version of the “kids identifying as animals”⁴ claim includes reference to schools allegedly putting litter boxes in classrooms. This claim, passed along in a “telephone” type manner, originates with never implemented discussions about providing support for elementary children during a school shooting incident when it was unsafe to travel to the restroom.

Another example of the “control the schools” motif relates to opposition to social studies curriculum. The Colorado state board of education is currently reviewing their standards. They have removed prior guidance on teaching LGBTQ issues or how to deal with structural racism.

But that is not enough. Yesterday, a conservative member of the board introduced an amendment that the group consider adopting “American Birthright” standards as developed by the Civics Alliance. According to the story in the Denver Post, those guidelines claim

“A great many pedagogies actively inhibit student learning, including action civics, so called ‘anti-racism,’ civic engagement, critical race theory, current events learning, inquiry based learning, media literacy, project-based learning, social emotional learning, and virtually any pedagogy that claims to promote ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or ‘social justice.’”

The only way this makes any sense is that the critics want to jettison all of this sound educational pedagogy (which inhibits student learning) to make room the The Basics: reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic. They seem to claim that time spent on these other matters (current events learning, media literacy) is hampering standardized test scores and not, say, a once-in-a-century pandemic.

A just released study from the University of Southern California explores American attitudes toward education. They find that nearly half of respondents said that they didn’t actually know what was being taught in elementary and high schools about controversial topics. That lack of awareness creates a fertile ground for the conspiratorial claims I’ve identified above.

To counter this ambiguity, conservative lawmakers have focused on “parents rights” arguing that parents know best when it comes to their child’s education.⁵ What I always wonder is "which parents?". Are schools supposed to simply tally the interests of all parents and then act accordingly? What happens when the inevitable disagreements show up (about Columbus Day, for example)? How is the school supposed to decide?

Actually, this argument begins with assumptions that education is indoctrinational, that teachers are liberals, and that students are being brainwashed against their parents’ wishes. So is this really about giving conservative parents a stronger voice to deal with curriculum, library materials, or school policies on bullying.

For example, consider this legislation introduced by Senator Josh Hawley⁶ a year ago. It wants parents to have access to what their children are learning, including information on the background of guest lecturers. It says parents should have access to school contracts with vendors. It supports protecting children’s records (already law) and open school board meetings (generally already law). My favorite part is about insuring student safety, not by doing anything about guns and school shootings, but by making sure parents know of misdemeanors committed by school personnel.

The USC survey shows that a vast majority of people think that high school students should be taught about controversial subjects. They are somewhat more muted on issues for elementary students, but support instruction on race, women’s contributions, and slavery.⁷

And so I come back to the issue I was addressing in my last newsletter. Whose views should be considered? If three-quarters of parents think that elementary kids should learn about slavery, are we supposed to cater to the one-quarter who support the Civics Alliance?

The USC report ends their executive summary with data on who should have influence over education and who is perceived to have it. Half of respondents said that parents and teachers should have a high degree of influence. Another quarter said that parents should have a moderate degree of influence and over a third said teachers should have moderate influence.

Bad news for Senator Hawley — nearly two-thirds said that national leaders should have no influence on education and over half thought so about politicians at the state level.

I’m just spitballing here, but maybe we should rely on the educational professionals to cooperate with concerned parents (of all persuasions) to work out these important matters. Stop demagoguing education. It’s too important.

1. See Miller v. California (1973)

2. I guess raising a generation of narcissists is preferable.

3. I think that this is a direct outgrowth of refusing to use preferred pronouns. “If we let them be called by whatever they want, why not animals?”

4. When we were at the Indianapolis Zoo a week ago, I saw children whose parents let them get their faces painted so they looked like lions or tigers. I’m pretty sure those kids didn’t “identify” as jungle cats.

5. This “common-sense” argument is another one of those ideas driving the homeschool movement.

6. Like law enforcement, public education has always been a local option and not something for federal oversight. But I’m sure the Stanford and Yale educated Senator knows that.

7. They aren’t very supportive of LGBTQ themed books at any level.