Parental rights laws need teeth, advocates warn

"While Oklahoma law provides parents with significant rights in education," Ray Carter reports, "parents and advocates told lawmakers that schools can ignore the law because it does not impose significant penalties for noncompliance."

Parent group launches, seeks accountability from schools

"Gathered at the Oklahoma Capitol on a brisk Monday," Ray Carter reports, "parents announced the formation of a group that will seek to empower families to have greater control in their children’s education—including the ability to hold recall elections for school board members that ignore parents’ wishes."

House Speaker: ‘Put parents back in charge’

Speaker Charles McCall

In a speech on the floor of the Oklahoma House of Representatives yesterday, Speaker Charles McCall called for increased education funding and teacher pay. Raucous applause and a standing ovation ensued. But then he added this nugget: "At the same time, we must put parents back in charge of their children's education and give underprivileged families more options and more opportunity to thrive."

Also on the House floor yesterday, Speaker Pro Tempore Harold Wright praised former state Rep. Jason Nelson for his work to enact the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities, saying the program has made a significant difference for the children who need it.

(Re)Searching for a school

Choice drives parents to become more informed, Michael F. Lovenheim and Patrick Walsh write.

Politicians shouldn’t penalize parents

Parents, not government officials, have the moral right to raise their children according to their consciences.

That, in a nutshell, is why school choice is so important.

Think about it. In a free society, the government rightly defers to parents when it comes to raising their children. Bottle-feed or breastfeed? Spanking or time-out? Piano lessons or karate lessons? For countless decisions every day, the government defers to parents when it comes to raising their children.

And since education is simply a subset of parenting (as education professor Jay Greene sagely reminds us), the government should defer to parents when it comes to educating their children.

Now obviously the government is going to spend money on education. But politicians shouldn’t play favorites, directing all the money to schools operated by the government. Let’s direct some of it to parents in the form of a voucher or a tax break.

We know that Oklahoma’s political leaders respect parents. In 2014 they enacted a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” to ensure that no state government entity infringes upon parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

But as important as that law is, it’s time to translate its principles into effective remedies, says Oklahoma City University law professor Andrew Spiropoulos. “We must guarantee all parents, no matter their income, the effective right to exit a failing school and choose one, public or private, that satisfies their needs.”

Happily, we already do this for some parents. For example, Oklahoma’s private-school voucher program is helping certain bullied children, autistic students, rural students who want a faith-based education, and many more.

Moreover, our state’s tax-credit scholarship program is helping hearing-impaired children, homeless students, teenage students battling addiction, and more—all while saving the state money.

So private-school choice is working for those who are eligible. But we need to do more. All parents have the right to direct their child’s path.

School-choice foes say we shouldn’t “drain money from public schools.” But that assumes the public schools are entitled to the money in the first place. In truth, they have no place of privilege, says Pennsylvania state Sen. Anthony Williams, a liberal Democrat. He rejects “the antiquated belief that existing public school systems have the right of first refusal when it comes to educating our children.”

Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, strikes the right balance. “I am very pro public schools,” he says. But he also supports parental choice. In fulfilling their God-given duty to raise their children, he says, parents “should be able to consider the best option for their children’s whole education and formation.”

Some parents would prefer a more rigorous curriculum for their children. Others are tired of all the bullying. Others simply don't want their daughters sharing a locker room with boys. In the Tulsa Public Schools, for example, “gender non-conforming students” have the right to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their “gender identity.”

And it's not just Tulsa. Aaron Baker, an 8th grade history teacher in the Mid-Del school district, points out that several other school districts don't discriminate on the basis of "gender expression or identity." (Mr. Baker promotes "radical social justice in Oklahoma public schools," so he's enthusiastically on board with this radical social experiment.) These districts include Bristow, Broken Arrow, Cleveland, Collinsville, Durant, Glenpool, Mid-Del, Okemah, Owasso, Ponca City, Shawnee, Stillwater, and Tulsa Union.

"[W]e have now sunk to a depth," George Orwell once observed, "at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." In that spirit, let us now reaffirm that a six-year-old girl is not a boy. A 14-year-old boy does not belong in the girls' locker room. After all, if children lack the perceptual judgment and physical skills to cross a busy street, the American College of Pediatricians reminds us, they certainly are not competent to decide they're the wrong sex or to consent to mutilation. Regrettably, we have now sunk to a depth where some grown-ups, refusing to state the obvious, choose to participate in systemic, taxpayer-supported child abuse.

Most Oklahoma parents reject this moral insanity and are zealous to protect their children's privacy. Politicians should not penalize these or any other parents (by making them pay twice) for raising their children according to their consciences.


[A shorter version of this piece appeared March 26 in The Oklahoman.]

‘Why should state-run schools be the default agents of education?’

"We could say that the public schools’ monopoly on public educational funds is actually in tension with both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses," Melissa Moschella writes. "The absence of some sort of voucher program (at least for low-income students) is in tension with the Establishment Clause because it promotes secularism in children’s formal education. It is also in tension with the Free Exercise Clause because it places a substantial burden on the ability of parents to fulfill one of their most serious religious duties."

Oklahoma should enact a parental-choice tax credit

"School choice is a reality, and we should just get used to it,” Democratic state school superintendent Sandy Garrett said in 2001. "We have a lot of choice already in Oklahoma, but I think we'll have some sort of a tax credit or something to let children go wherever their parents want."

Ten years later Oklahoma did indeed enact a tax-credit scholarship program. But there's more to be done. Oklahoma's political leaders "should consider providing individual tax credits for education expenses," writes former OCPA research assistant Patrick Gibbons.

Parents paying for private education or home education have to pay twice: once in taxes to support public schools and again for tuition, fees, textbooks, and school supplies. To address some of this unfairness, some states now offer tax credits for these education expenses. Illinois has the largest tax credit program with nearly 300,000 families earning credits up to $500 for educational expenses.

Individual tax credits for education expenses are subject to one major criticism: you only get tax credits up to the amount you owe in taxes. Since wealthier families tend to owe the most in taxes, they will get the largest tax credits. One solution is a refundable tax credit for educational expenses, such as exists in South Carolina. That program allows parents of special-needs children to receive up to $10,000 in tax credits for educational expenses. If the credits exceed your tax bill then you receive a tax refund for the difference. This ensures that the rich aren’t the biggest beneficiary of the program. 

Oklahoma's political leaders overwhelmingly support parents' rights. They should not penalize parents by making them pay twice. A good piece of legislation, the Parental Choice Tax Credit Act, was introduced last year but did not receive a hearing. But according to OCHEC, the Oklahoma Christian Home Educators' Consociation, this legislation could have been "positive for the homeschool community."

Now it's important to note that OCHEC wants nothing to do with vouchers or education savings accounts (ESAs). But tax credits are different.

"There are two types of tax credits," OCHEC explains. "One is refundable, which means at some point money will exchange hands. The other is a non-refundable tax credit, which means no money ever changes hands." The proposed Parental Choice Tax Credit Act was the latter.

It is a non-refundable income tax credit for educational expenses. Qualifying expenses include enrollment in a qualified (private) school and the expenses that are associated with that. The bill also would allow parents who provide instruction by other means (i.e., homeschoolers) for their children from pre-kindergarten through grade 12. The expenses that could be claimed by homeschool families would include tutoring fees, correspondence school fees, the cost of computer equipment, software and services, textbooks, workbooks, curricula and other written materials used primarily for academic instruction. ...

The bottom line is that this tax credit could reduce a parent’s income tax liability based upon the educational expenses that they have paid for their family. It would be up to each family to decide whether they wanted to claim the credit. Since the credit would not be refundable it would only allow parents to keep more of their own money. Any parent claiming this tax credit, assuming it passed, would not be taking state funds.

Freedom of conscience requires school choice, as Boston University professor Charles Glenn and others have observed. Let's hope Oklahoma's political leaders act to secure this fundamental freedom.

Oklahoma lieutenant governor: ‘I trust parents’

Parents--who would die for their child--certainly can be trusted to choose a school. "I trust parents," says Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb. pic.twitter.com/6xwEfkEbCc

— Choice Remarks (@SchoolChoiceOK) March 8, 2017

Educational choice and Oklahoma’s Parents’ Bill of Rights

Oklahoma has enacted a Parents’ Bill of Rights which says no state government entity shall infringe upon the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos says it’s time to translate these principles into effective legal remedies: We must guarantee to all parents, no matter their income, the effective right to choose a public or private school that satisfies their needs.

Yes, school choice works—but that is not the point

The empirical evidence tells us that school choice "works." But as Paul DiPerna and Robert Pondiscio remind us in a couple of recent articles, that's not necessarily the main point.

"Contrary to recent editorials in some major U.S newspapers, the empirical research on school choice programs is far more positive than not," DiPerna writes at EducationNext.

Summaries of the effects of multiple programs generally show positive effects, as does a meta-analysis of gold-standard experimental research on school choice by Shakeel, Anderson, and Wolf (2016). Participating students usually show modest improvements in reading or math test scores, or both. Annual gains are relatively small but cumulative over time. High school graduation and college attendance rates are substantially higher for participating minority students compared to peers. Programs are almost always associated with improved test scores in affected public schools. They also save money. Those savings can be used to increase per-pupil spending in local school districts. Studies also consistently show that programs increase parent satisfaction, racial integration, and civic outcomes.

In short, DiPerna writes, "the many places where we have observed significant positive results from choice programs swamp the few where we have seen negative findings." Still, he says, amid all the empirical evidence we need to remember to keep our eye on the ball:

Researchers and policymakers must carefully balance the need for data-driven evidence with the reality that educational choice is, at its core, an issue of parental empowerment [emphasis added]. A voucher, education savings account, or tax-credit scholarship gives real voice to families. Their students are no longer bureaucratically assigned to a school; rather, they are financially enabled to find the best education provider for their children...

Pondiscio emphasizes this same theme in an excellent piece over at U.S. News.

Wonky battles over research studies can be illuminating. They can also be irrelevant or premature. While [Neal] McCluskey and other advocates are correct that the preponderance of evidence tends to favor school choice, this entire debate puts the cart before the horse. When we look to test-based evidence—and look no further—to decide whether choice "works," we are making two rather extraordinary, unquestioned assumptions: that the sole purpose of schooling is to raise test scores, and that district schools have a place of privilege against which all other models must justify themselves.

That's really not what choice is about. Choice exists to allow parents to educate their children in accordance with their own needs, desires, and values. If diversity is a core value of yours, for example, you might seek out a school where your child can learn alongside peers from different backgrounds. If your child is a budding artist, actor, or musician, the "evidence" that might persuade you is whether he or she will have the opportunity to study with a working sculptor or to pound the boards in a strong theater or dance program. If your child is an athlete, the number of state titles won by the lacrosse team or sports scholarships earned by graduates might be compelling evidence. If faith is central to your family, you will want a school that allows your child to grow and be guided by your religious beliefs. There can be no doubt that, if you are fortunate enough to select a school based on your child's talents or interests or your family's values and traditions, the question of whether school choice "works" has already been answered. It's working perfectly for you.

In sum, Pondiscio says, "the desirability of school choice and educational pluralism is a values-driven question, not an evidence-based one." That's a truth we must always articulate.

State lawmakers should secure parental rights

"Rather than continuing to penalize parents financially for raising their children in accordance with their consciences," I tell School Reform News in its February issue, "it’s time for Oklahoma policymakers to enact and expand policies—vouchers, tax credits, ESAs, and more—which secure parental rights."

Oklahomans want educational choices

Survey data show that Oklahomans favor educational choice, I write today in the Enid News & Eagle.

Today, one in seven students in Oklahoma’s public school system is eligible for a private-school voucher. Four out of five Oklahoma families with children are eligible for a tax-credit scholarship, according to the organization EdChoice. And I expect school choice to continue to advance. 

One reason is the Sexual Revolution’s continued assault on Oklahoma values. “The Obama administration is bullying the nation’s public schools into allowing students who claim they are transgender to use the bathroom and locker room facilities of the opposite sex,” Greg Forster recently pointed out in an article (“Commode Core Shows Why We Need School Choice”) in Perspective, a magazine I edit. 

And it’s not just the bogeyman feds. As my colleague Trent England has been discussing on The Trent England Show, the Oklahoma Library Association is pushing transgender propaganda at 10-year-old students in schools all across Oklahoma. 

Tulsa Public Schools is so keen on the idea of calling a little boy a girl that teachers are being trained on “gender nonconformity” issues, including which bathrooms transgender children are allowed to use. No real surprise there; in June district officials in Tulsa flew a “Gay Pride” flag outside the TPS headquarters. 

For its part, the Oklahoma PTA announced in July that the national PTA and its constituent associations will now be advocating for legislation creating a new protected class for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning” persons. 

Parents, not government officials, have the moral right and the responsibility to determine a child’s path. The government—especially a government hostile to their values—should not penalize parents financially for raising their children in accordance with their consciences.

Oklahoma Library Association pushing transgender propaganda at 10-year-old students

From Trent England's weekly recap:

The Oklahoma Library Association is pushing transgender propaganda at 10-year-old students, and The Trent England Show is the only media talking about it. 

A school administrator admitted to me this is in most public schools, but says he’s “not sure” whether it is appropriate. He tells me he needs more information.... 

School choice is the only strategic defense against social engineering in public schools. And you know what? It’s not because many people would leave the schools. It’s about power—the power to make a choice would put parents in charge instead of politicians and other elites.

To whom do children belong?

In her new book To Whom Do Children Belong?: Parental Rights, Civic Education, and Children's Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2016), Melissa Moschella, an assistant professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America, explains why education is primarily the responsibility of parents and why policymakers should expand school-choice policies. It is available for purchase here.

Put parents first

AEI's Gerard Robinson is out with a new survey of parental rights and responsibilities in school choice laws.

Are Edmond schools assigning smut?

"Public schools are slipping kids text porn and treating parents like crazy people," Jenni White writes at The Federalist ("Parents Shouldn’t Let Schools Force Kids To Read Smut"). She gives the example of Edmond mother Kim Heinecke:

After her son, a public school sophomore, was assigned the books “The Kite Runner” and “The Glass Castle” as required reading for English II and Pre-AP English II, Heinecke went to the principal and asked for a conference. 

“He talked to the teachers [prior to the meeting] and the English teacher’s response to him was that it was an award-winning book and kids hear this kind of thing all the time. I felt as though I didn’t have a right to tell them I didn’t want my kid to read it. They made me feel stupid,” Heinecke said. 

She then wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Edmond Public Schools and to the Edmond School Board, detailing her concerns about the books, along with excerpts such as these: 

I went into Grandpa’s bedroom and saw Erma [grandmother] kneeling on the floor in front of Brian [9-year-old grandson], grabbing at the crotch of his pants, squeezing and kneading while mumbling to herself and telling Brian to hold still, goddammit. Brian, his cheeks wet with tears, was holding his hands protectively between his legs. ‘Erma, you leave him alone!’ I shouted. Erma, still on her knees, twisted around and glared at me, ‘Why, you little bitch!’ she said. (page 146, “The Glass Castle”) 

My mind flashed to that winter day six years ago. Me, peering around the corner in the alley. Kamal and Wali holding Hassan down. Assef’s buttock muscles clenching and unclenching, his hips thrusting back and forth. (page 116, “The Kite Runner”) 

She also made as many parents aware of the situation as she could, even creating a form letter they could send to the superintendent and board on their behalf, but found few parents would use it. 

“They didn’t want to make waves because they didn’t want their kids to be singled out,” Heinecke said. “Parents didn’t know what was in the book, but once they knew, they assumed if a teacher was putting their signature on it, the teacher knew best, instead of saying it’s my kid, it’s my choice. Making waves with teachers is intimidating.”

Tulsa Pastor Says #MyDreamIsSchoolChoice

"About 5,000 Tulsa students are attending underperforming schools, according to a study by the Metropolitan Baptist Church," KTUL reports.  

The church is partnering with the Tulsa C.A.R.E. Alliance to create a movement in improving education in the city. ... "Our schools today are not serving all children equally. There are some children that are in schools that are continuing to struggle, said Pastor Ray Owens of the Metropolitan Baptist Church. Owens said his church and the Tulsa C.A.R.E. Alliance are hoping to change that struggle by starting a movement #MyDreamIsSchoolChoice. 

"We got to help parents find the school that works for their children. Every school is not right for every child. So, we're pushing the idea of choice so that, we believe, parents are the best advocates for their kids," said Owens.

Fund parents, not bureaucracies

What constitutes a good education in the 21st century? That was the topic of a panel discussion yesterday at Rose State College organized by political science professor James Davenport. My message (starting at the 21:45 mark) was essentially this: There are more than 700,000 students in Oklahoma. I do not presume to know what constitutes a good education for each of them. That is for their parents to decide. Oklahoma's political leaders, who are committed to funding education, should give the money to parents rather than to the system.

Parents have a universal human right to choose the kind of education given to their children

[I was pleased to attend the World Congress of Families (WCF) last week in Salt Lake City, and indeed to speak at a separate policy roundtable event co-sponsored by the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the Sutherland Institute. Below is a press release from the WCF which should be of interest to readers of this blog. —BD]

Brandon Dutcher participated in 
an October 28 panel discussion 
titled “Economic and Social 
Conservatives Must Unite if 
America Is to Save Its Culture: 
The Family Prosperity Initiative." 
Also featured in the policy roundtable 
discussion: OCPA economists Wendy 
Warcholik and Scott Moody, ACU 
executive director Dan Schneider, Kansas 
Gov. Sam Brownback, Wisconsin 
Family Council president Julaine Appling, 
and Iowa state Senator Julian Garrett.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) has asked pro-family advocates around the world to sign an online petition that defends the basic human rights (as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - United Nations, 1948) of every human life from conception to natural death. As the historic Ninth World Congress of Families drew to an end last Friday in Salt Lake City, organizers of the congress were pleased to announce that 17,433 advocates had signed the petition within a week. The online petition was circulated by World Congress of Families partner CitizenGo. Click here to sign the petition.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, and has generally been accepted as the foundation of international human rights. It also represents the commitment of 193 members of the United Nations to basic human rights and fundamental freedoms to all human beings.

"The remarkable amount of signatures this petition has received in such a short period of time is indicative of the importance of human rights and our need to be vigilant in supporting them," said Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, executive director of WCF IX. The WCF is challenging other human rights and civil rights organizations around the world (including Human Rights Campaign, Amnesty International and Southern Poverty Law Center) to sign the pledge and also protect the basic human rights of all people.

Here are a few key points from the UDHR:

• In Article 3, the UDHR defends the right to life by saying that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." 
• Article 6 says that "everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
• Article 18 defends the right to freedom of thought and religion by explaining that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
• Article 16 unequivocally states that "Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." Article 16 also states that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family." 
• Article 25 states that "motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance," and that "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children." 

Government should not penalize parents by making them pay twice

"Because parents have the personal obligation to take care of their own children, no other person can take over their responsibility and corresponding authority," writes Melissa Moschella, an assistant professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America.

Even when parents delegate part of that authority to teachers, doctors, relatives, etc., they remain ultimately responsible. For that reason, parents have not only the responsibility, but also the right, to rear their children in accordance with their consciences. 

When the state requires that children be educated in a way that parents consider harmful or inadequate, the state is preventing parents from fulfilling their obligations, thus violating their conscience rights and potentially damaging the children. It is assumed, of course, that the state considers itself to be acting for the benefit of the child, as in the case of the Romeikes and the Johanssons. But since parents have primary authority over their children, when there is disagreement between parents and state, the state should defer, except in clear and non-controversial cases of abuse, neglect, or threat to public order. ... 

The state also has the right to enact minimal educational regulations with a view to the maintenance of public order. Such regulations assure that all children receive the education that they need to become law-abiding and productive citizens able to participate responsibly in the democratic process. However, the state can and should enact such regulations in a way that supports, rather than undermines, the primacy of parental educational authority. It thus should not impose a particular curriculum, require that all children attend a state-run school, or penalize parents (even financially, by requiring them to pay both school taxes and private school tuition or homeschooling costs) for not sending their children to a school operated by the state.