Tag Archives: educational politics

Parent Demands in Public Education are not Parent Rights.

Posted on by
Reply

Hot button:  an emotional and usually controversial issue or concern that triggers immediate intense reaction.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hot%20button

Public education in the United States is a long story of hot button issues.  Emerging from a pandemic fraught with hot buttons – vaccines, school closures, remote education, quarantining, information and disinformation, lost trust in public schools – we may want a calmer educational environment.  But we are not getting calm.  The hot button today is parental rights in education – red hot!

What do we know?

Parental rights in education begin with two constructs.

  1. The US Constitution does not include any statement of parental rights in education.  The late Justice Scalia labeled parent rights in education as “unenumerated”.  As such, there is no basis for shaping law or policy based upon what the Founding Fathers wrote.  Specific rights to determine a child’s education are not extended to parents nor protected by the Constitution.
  • Nature abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of substance in a defined space, surrounding and denser matter will invade the space until the defined space looks and acts like its surrounding.  So, it is with parental rights in education.  In the absence of a legal basis, parental rights are whatever parent activism can carve out of the undefined space of law.

Why are these constructs important to understanding parental rights in education?  In any dispute regarding an act of the state, in this case a school district or school board, the argument is first reviewed under the Constitution.  Because education is not enumerated, attention is given to the 14th Amendment that ensures due process and establishes concepts of equal protection under the law. 

Although education is not a function of the federal government, Congress has taken action to ensure the rights of citizens within public education.  For example, the 14th Amendment provided for equal access to education and the end of racially segregated schools.  It also pointed Congress to pass PL 94-142 protecting the rights of, meeting the individual needs of, and improving the educational results for children with disabilities and their families.  PL 94-142 may be as close as the federal government has come to stipulating that parents and schools are equal partners in determining the best educational placement for their child.

Further, we know.

The US Constitution implies that each state government is responsible for the establishment of public education in its state.

In the WI Constitution, chapter 118.01(1) – Purpose establishes the authority for the creation of public schools.  “Public education is a fundamental responsibility of the state.  The constitution vests in the state superintendent the supervision of public instruction and directs the legislature to provide for the establishment of district schools.  The effective operation of the public schools is dependent upon a common understanding of what public s hooks should be and do.  Establishing such goals and expectations is a necessary and proper complement to the state’s financial contribution to education.  Each school board should provide curriculum, course requirements and instruction consistent with the goals and expectations established under sub. (2).  Parents and guardians of pupils enrolled in the school district share with the state and the school board the responsibility for pupils meeting the goals and expectations under sub. (2).”

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/118

Eight goals for public schools in Wisconsin are enumerated in WI Stat 118.01(2).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/118/01/2

The duties and powers of a local school board are enumerated in the state constitution.  In 118.001 Duties and powers of school boards; construction of statutes, the legislature says “The statutory duties and powers of school boards shall be broadly construed to authorize any school board action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by the laws of the federal government or of this state. 

So, what do we know?

The US Constitution does not address education.  The responsibility for education is implied to the various states.

The WI constitution authorizes the state superintendent to supervise public education and local school boards to implement public education.  The constitution enumerates goals and expectations for public education in WI and authorizes school boards to create policies and rules to achieve these goals and expectations.  Parents and guardians “share” responsibility with the state and school board for assisting children to meet goals and objectives.

There is no constitutional or statutory discussion regarding the rights of parents.  Parents “share” in the responsibility to achieve the state’s goals in educating children.

What changed?

Educational policy is no longer about children but about adults.  Very few educational policies today are designed to improve or enhance teaching or student learning and achievement.  There are exceptions such as Act 20, Wisconsin’s new literacy and reading proficiency law.  Most policies today are written and enacted to achieve the political goals of adults.  The simple version of this story is that children in school don’t vote, their parents vote.  So educational politics focuses on satisfying adult voters.

Conservative populist politicians can build constituencies based on attacking social and cultural institutions, like schools, libraries, museums, and public media.  They exercise elected authority to shape public education in ways that appeal to voters and donors.  While they are not able to affect federal policy, they use gerrymandered state houses to affect state legislation, state departments of education, and policies at the local school district level.

Education is a soft target because everyone is a product of childhood education and from their experiences is a self-made expert about schools.  Public education is a soft target because it is large and statewide and a problem in one school district can be implied as a problem for all school districts – it is easy to generalize.  And public education is funded by tax dollars, and everyone favors reduced taxes.  Lastly, public education is attacked by those who want this most public of state institutions to give them as individuals what they want as individuals and to codify their specific wants into laws for everyone.

Governor Walker (WI) used Act 10 to diminish the connection between teacher unions and the Democratic Party in Wisconsin.  The Act had other ramifications for school operations, but its origin was to decrease the political power of public employee unions. Although the legislative slogan implied shifting power from collectively bargained contracts to school board decision-making, the realities of school financing changed very little over time.

Governor Youngkin (VA) campaigned on promises of empowering parents and restoring excellence in education.  With a Republican-led legislature, he banned critical race theory discussion in schools and retracted accommodations for transgender students.  His legislature also passed a pro-education budget to placate those opposed to his policy changes.  Youngkin empowers parents to be active in pushing conservative values at their local school board level with a “we support what you want” encouragement.

Governor DeSantis (FL) has gone beyond policy to enforcement with threats of incarceration and loss of teaching license for educators who do not comply with his mandates.  He states that “Florida is where woke goes to die” and “We will not allow reality, facts, and truth to be optional”.  Parental rights in Florida are only for parents who agree with their governor.  Rights are restricted for those.

Governor Reynolds (IA) moved the state legislature to significantly change school financing.  Now every child represents an amount of state aid regardless of enrollment in public, private, or parochial school.  Every student is a voucher, and every school is a voucher school.  It does not jive with the Founding Fathers’ separation of church and state, but it passes muster with Iowa’s Republicans, and they are the votes who matter to Reynolds’s.

The pandemic re-taught Americans that all politics are local.  School board meetings are open to public participation and typically have less than a dozen residents in attendance.  Parents with a pandemic-based purpose found that a school board confronted by a vocal handful could either command board members to approve their policy demands by their loud and in-your-face presence or cause boards to shut down and adjourn meetings without enacting the posted agenda.  Neither outcome was good for the school district but accomplished the goals of selected parents – give me what I want.

While most school boards did not experience a capitulation or shut down, board meeting confrontations were common enough to shift the traditional relationships between parents and board members.  Parents who disagreed with pandemic masking disenrolled their children seeking a school with more favorable policies.  Parents who disagreed with quarantining and school closures disenrolled in favor of home schooling.  And parents who disagreed with masking and closures and kept their children enrolled in the school became constant voices at school board meetings and in local media.  Goodwill and traditional trust were eroded on both sides by what was said and written by both sides.

The relational upshot from the pandemic is that growing numbers of parents want and demand an active voice in the daily operations of their local school.  Voice no longer is about masking, but is about the books in classrooms and libraries, the curriculum that is taught, and the language and dispositions that teachers use in daily teaching that are subjected to parental review.  It is about partitions between genders.  It is about diversity and inclusivity.  A new status arose from the pandemic – a parent has the right to determine school policy and rules regarding her child. 

The Big Duh!

There is no legal authority in our public law for parental rights in education.

There is a growing charismatic authority in political leadership that wants to give specific rights to parents relative to public education in exchange for the political support of those parents.

The dichotomy between the public and parents lies in the fact that public education is created to achieve the public’s goals in educating children not the goals of individual or groups of parents.

Rights and demands are two different things.   Politics has the capacity to give legitimacy to parent demands, turning them into legislated parent rights.  This is a changing landscape with an unknown future.  What the pendulum swing of one partisan legislature approves may be disapproved when the pendulum swings again.

At the end of the day, public schooling is about children not about parents.  Parents choose the school in which to enroll their children and share with teachers and school leaders in the responsible assurances that all children will achieve the school’s educational goals.  Excepting the provisions of specific laws, such as PL 94-142 and approved 504 plans, that is the extent of parental rights.

The Attack on Teacher Prep – A Last Bastian At Risk

Posted on by
Reply

The idea that teachers in public schools need not be professionally prepared by licensed teacher preparation programs is circulating in my state. So that I am clear on the issue, I believe that this idea is an unadulterated wrong. The idea is propagated by the self-interests that have continuously whittled at the institution of public education until it teeters on the edge of extinction.

The idea that public education teachers do not need professional licensing finds its roots in four political-economic scenarios that have risen to dangerous heights. These scenarios are the politicization of public education, the trading of educational consumerism for votes in the ballot box, the use of PAC funds to overwhelm the public with anti-public education campaigns, and the inability of public education to defend itself.

Once, the tradition in our nation was that public education was locally governed with oversight by the state. Local school boards crafted local educational policy and programs that complied with generalized mandates from the state legislature. For almost two centuries, public schools served their communities by educating youth, inculcating American values, and preparing graduates to be contributing citizens of the community, state and nation. It worked. Our state constitution guarantees an “equitable and quality education” for every child funded by state and local tax dollars. The right to a free and public education was a given regardless of the political party in the majority in the state capital. It worked. For decades the liberalism of our state’s urban areas argued with the conservatism of the rural areas and always found a common ground that best served the children of the state. It worked.

That WAS our tradition. Today it is not.

Public education has become a commodity branded by partisan politics. In 2001 President Bush elevated partisan manipulation of public education with the enactment of No Child Left Behind and attaching reforms of regulation and accountability espoused by the Republican Party. In one fell swoop, the President appropriated tax payer angst regarding property local property taxes, a bruised and declining status of our nation as the world leader in international educational assessments, the always popular appeal to American pride, and conservative demands for data-driven accountability into an indelible plank of Republican politics. Notwithstanding the faults of NCLB, the GOP has beaten the drum that Republican politicians at all levels are committed to lowering school taxes, demanding higher performance-based accountability, and continuing the reconstruction of public schools into more effective learning centers. At the same time, Republicans successfully painted Democratic opponents as high cost and unaccountable traditionalists. Conservative Republicanism is synonymous with unending educational reforms; their bandwagon requires continuous reform in order to sustain itself as the “leader for change.”

Parallel to public education becoming a political commodity was the emergence of educational consumerism. Young parents with scho0l-age children found the partisanship of public education to be unbelievably receptive to their consumer demands. Any and every parental concern with their local school could be bundled into the demand for “choice.” Politicians soon found powerful political allies, especially Republican governors and legislators, in the “I want this for my child” demands of young parents. Because public education is a state issue, the statehouse became the epicenter for enacting educational reform and meeting these consumer demands. It was easy and expedient for a campaigning state legislator to identify “educational choice” as a voter rallying cry and to position an electoral campaign on satisfying school choice demands. It was easy to divert state and local tax revenues for education to private and parochial schools and programs of choice. Money was attached to children not to schools. And, as the “leaders for change” found office, they needed to continuously advance the opportunity for further change cloaked as “choice” in order to remain in office.

At this date, consumer-driven reforms in my state have reduced levels of state funding for local schools, increased the requirements for performance-based accountability for public schools, required published report cards for all public schools, expanded the opportunity for parents to select schools of “choice”, and expanded state funding for all schools of choice, while disallowing any performance-based accounting for or reporting of the educational achievement of students in “choice” schools.

The third scenario calls to point the old political adage – follow the money. State elections in my state are preceded with unprecedented advertisements aligning candidates with consumer demands for educational reform. The frequency and fervency of television and radio time devoted to attacking the cost of public education, the unchanging achievement gaps of children left stranded in stripped-out metropolitan schools while continuing to advance any and every demand for “choice” increases every spring and fall. Noticeably, the small print at the bottom of these television and print news ads attributes the support for the ads to political citizen groups with out-of-state origins and funding sources. Or, to in-state activist groups heavily funded by out-of-state partisan PACs. PAC money funds campaigns to elect politicians who redirect money from public schools to schools of choice.

So, who is left to argue the counter point. This is the fourth scenario. Certainly not teachers or public school educational leaders. In my state, teacher unions were immediate victims of educational politics. Unions were not banned, but their political potency was stripped when partisan legislation eliminated their scope of collective bargaining. When teachers could no longer use their union dues to advance their wages and benefits through bargaining, union membership dropped immediately and the ability of state teacher organizations to compete against PAC money was eliminated. Teacher unions in my state are ghost entities.

Additionally, any collective action by teachers in opposition to partisan legislation carries immediate negative repercussions. The legislature only meets in the months when school is in session. Teachers who rally for their pro-public school political interests are accompanied with partisan claims that “kids in school are being ignored and their education diminished by self-interested teachers.” Or, because teachers are paid with public tax funds, their activism uses “tax payer money” to argue against “choices” demanded by parent activists. It is a lose/lose proposition for public educators.

Hence, the idea that teachers need not be prepared by their jobs through accredited educational institutions and licensed by the state department of instruction is gaining ground. It follows. If we reduce state funding for public schools, increase the accountability and reporting mandates for public schools, provide increased opportunity for parents to choose non-public schools at public expense, align voter interests with partisan politics, denigrate teachers as political players, then why not allow anybody who wants to be a public school teacher to be one.

There is one more scenario that must be attached to this story. The rate at which employed teachers are leaving public schools in my state is at an all-time high. Three-out-of-five teachers with less than three years of classroom experience will leave before the end of their third year. A career in public education is no longer economically or professionally viable for college graduates. With a greater than 60% abandonment rate, it is understandable that the next partisan action is to remove professional licensing as a requirement for employment as a public school teacher. In addition, the rate at which non-traditionally trained teachers leave the class room is double the rate for traditionally trained teachers. Even the unprepared who are hired as teachers find that teaching no longer is a viable professional career.

We would appreciate it if the last teacher out the door will kindly turn off the lights.

The Big Picture Is Needed For A Better Future

Posted on by
Reply

Who sees the Big Picture for your school? The Big picture. You remember what that is. Generally, the Big Picture is the school’s Mission Statement. It is the collage of high ground learning outcomes that your school wants all children to achieve in “the best of educational worlds.” Some schools see themselves in terms of their Big Picture and their potential for making their Big Picture a statement of what they are. Big pictures are the work of visionaries, the large achievements to be attained over time. Big pictures are the dreams of teachers and parents related to the qualities that future children might become.

Just as there are Big Pictures there also are little pictures. The little picture, and there are many of them, are not associated with the best of educational worlds but with the reality of educational worlds. A little picture is this year’s graduation rate, or the comparison of this year’s fifth grade reading scores with that cohort’s reading scores last year, or the number of days that children categorized as minority were suspended from school this year compared with the number of suspension days for children categorized as white, English-speaking and not impoverished. Little pictures require school functionaries who are tasked with the management of specific annual outcomes. Little pictures are the annual measures of what happens on a daily and ultimately annual basis in a school.

It is difficult in 2015 to be a keeper of the Big Picture. Visionaries see schools differently than functionaries. This is a statement of truth not of prejudice. In order for schools to succeed in the world of 2015, they need the diligent work of functionaries, leaders who are focused on the little pictures of school accountability. A school that fails to meet its accountability mandates is a school with a limited future and a school without a future fails its community.

But, what if a school neglects its Big Picture? What if school leadership emphasizes the measured scores of little pictures by abandoning its efforts to provide an array of arts and humanities programs? What if the wellness curricula of physical education and health are short-changed? What if college-preparation extension courses of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate are eliminated? What if the only instructed language is English and the only career preparation is high school graduation? The answer to these “what ifs” is that the soul of the school will be lost. While the bones of instruction that support tested curricula will remain, the richness of programming authorized by the Mission Statement that ensures that the school can meet the ambitions of every child will not live in this school.

Achieving the little pictures at the expense of the Big Picture gives in to the pressures of education politics and abandons dreams of a greater future.