We, as
Americans, live in a democracy.
This means that we, as citizens over the age of majority have equal say in
decisions that affect our lives. Our constitution acknowledges many rights that
are believed to be fundamental to citizens, essentially expounding on the idea
presented in the Declaration of Independence that all men are entitled to
“life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.”
But, what about those citizens under the age of majority? How do we
ensure that their fundamental rights are protected? Brighouse & Swift
(2006) suggest that “children are vulnerable to the decisions and choice making
of their primary care- takers and, initially, wholly dependent on them for
their well-being.” What happens when the parents neglect their children or make
choices that are not in their best interest? In cases of neglect, where the
delineation of harm is obvious, it goes without saying that the government should
step in and make an effort to place children with more suitable parents. However,
what is the role of the government in the greyer areas regarding parental choices
for their children that may or may not serve to benefit the children in the long
run? Do parents have a right to elect that their children do not receive a high
school education? Should parents be allowed to dictate a course of study for
their children, whether by merely excluding them from certain subjects or by
forcing them into a family career?
Gutman (2005) asserts that “the life
of a free person includes the choice of being a parent, and being a parent
entails having… educational authority over one's children.” Does this
educational authority equate with the ultimate decision making authority? The
multi-cultural society that we live in has presented with many examples of parents
choosing to pull their children out of mainstream education or seeking to alter
the curriculum, citing religious or cultural beliefs as the cause. Some are
cases of little to no consequence when it comes to impact on the students’
education. For example, in 1943, a group
of Jehova’s Witnesses won the right to refuse to say the pledge of allegiance
because it violated their religion and in 1980, parents challenged
a Kentucky law that required the 10 commandments to be posted in every
classroom. But other cases have involved alterations to the curriculum,
such as the many
that have dealt with the teaching of evolution, creationism and/or intelligent design
in science classes across the county. Parents opposed to the teaching of evolution in the classroom, can now find several websites containing resources for teaching creationism in the home (see: http://nwcreation.net/homeschool.html). However, the most extreme cases have involved
parental right to exempt their children from compulsory education, such as Wisconsin vs. Yoder,
in which Amish families sought to remove their children from education after
the 8th grade. These case
decisions were based on the free exercise clause
of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from infringing on a
citizen’s right to practice their religion.
Surely parents should be allowed input as to their children’s
exposure to religion in schools, but does it follow, then, that parents should
also be allowed to remove their children from school in order to keep them within
their religion? This happens freely in religious sects like the Hutterites, in which it serves the
colony’s best interests to keep their children home after the 8th
grade so
that they may work and so that they are not exposed to ideas that may cause
them to seek life outside the colony.
Brighouse and Swift (2006) stated “parents have the right to determine
whether the child will attend a church, a mosque, or neither…they have the
right to share their enthusiasms with their children, including… their
enthusiasms regarding their own particular cultural heritage.” They continue to
state that the choice of parents to “withdraw their children from a civic
educational curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs” is a right
that is “justified by its benefit to those children or to third parties”
(Brighouse & Swift, 2006). However,
Gutman (2005) is in opposition to this theory: she stated that “parental authority must not be
considered exclusive and ultimate authority, which would deprive children of
the education they need in preparation for the freedom to live their own lives
as adults as they see fit…” She advocates for a democratic state of education
in which “educational authority must be shared among parents, citizens, and
professional educators” (Gutman, 2005).
It is inherent in a democracy that
citizens are entitled to certain rights that cannot be infringed upon by the
government. But, when it comes to education, what happens when the rights of
the parents to free exercise of religion conflict with the rights of their
children to an education that prepares them to live the life of their own
choosing? Not allowing children to achieve the level of education that they
want may be thought of as neglect. Certainly, this type of neglect is not as
extreme as denying children access to food or basic care. The solution, though,
is not readily available. In cases such as these, who is to say that the rights
of one group are superior to the rights of the other?
Sources:
Gutmann, A. 2005. The Authority and Responsibility to Educate. Randall
Curren (ed.) A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Malden, MA:
Blackwell). [13]
Brighouse, H. and Swift, A. 2006. Parent’s Rights and the Value of the
Family. Ethics 117: 80-108.
My comments are going to be centered on several of the questions you raise in your argument about parental authority in educational decision making.
ReplyDeleteBut, what about those citizens under the age of majority? How do we ensure that their fundamental rights are protected?
I agree in a democratic education for all our youth. I believe that this is not limited to one exclusive authority, but the responsibility of many - “educational authority must be shared among parents, citizens, and professional educators” (Gutman, 2005). Ensuring that the fundamental rights of our students, there must be a combination of factors that come into play. At what point do students and children have a say in whether they want to pursue a particular religion, a specific course of study, or attend a public or private school? Parents have rights, but so do youth in making preparations for their future. At what age (if any) can Tommy stand up and say he would like to explore topics outside his religion, or when Susie would like to move from her private school into a public school? I know this could be far fetched, but at age 16 students are able to get a drivers license and at 18 students are considered adults, so can an age requirement be set when students can become active participants in their educational choosing or pathway? Since education is a group effort, shouldn’t the persons/people we are affecting have a role too? I understand at the elementary and middle school levels may be too developmentally inappropriate to sequester student input. Maybe the youth only require freedom in their educational journey once they graduate high school and are in limbo between choosing a college career, trade school, or labor market. Even then, we are setting up students to choose college (with the common core state standard initiative). In the mean time, students put their educational trust in the hands of parents and a collective group of people. Many parents may “think” they know what is best for their students and are doing it without the intention to hurt or cause alienation in the long run. However, some parents “live their lives through their children” in an attempt to save them from harsh realities of the world, when ultimately they are setting up their children for failure by not exposing them to the world in which their very own children will become functioning citizens and members of society and must learn to embrace diversity and understand shared responsibility and authority. This leads me into the next question you posed in your argument that is a valid one.
What happens when the parents neglect their children or make choices that are not in their best interest?
When I talk of interest there are two interests at stake. Children and parents. The word “interest” is a loaded word because in the educational realm as a teacher, most of our directives are instituted for student interest and need, keeping in mind the family. It is interesting though, when this so called “interest” interferes with the interests of parents. Parents who choose to recreate a society that echoed their own, is simply not fair because the world their children will live in will be a completely different one. This question takes a complete 180-degree change from the previous question. Most of our discussion has been centered on parental infringement on authority and input in education when similarly we have issues present on the other end of the spectrum where parents are uninvolved and neglect educational choices for their children? Is there a happy medium? Can we find balance in educational authority where power is not in the hands of one group or stakeholder? We must also remember that students have a right too! I am glad you brought this question up! And I think this would be an interesting topic to explore further.
I'm not entirely sure whether the view Brighouse and Swift advance is compatible with or contradicts Gutmann's in cases like the Yoder case. On the one hand, they carve out more space for parental control by identifying a parental right we have to respect--the right to an intimate parent-child relationship. In doing so, however, they also identify one criterion for legitimate intervention in parent decision-making: We can intervene when doing so benefits the child without threatening the parents ability to enjoy the relationship goods. I think it's unclear how this applies to the Yoder case partly because it is not clear whether educating children in ways that threaten the Amish way of life is quite the same as threatening the ability of Amish parents to enjoy the relationship goods. This is because it is the parent's fault if they choose to break ties with children who, as a consequence of a cosmopolitan education, decide to abandon the Amish way of life.
ReplyDelete