“Like to one more rich in hope.”
Twelfth Night, Shakespeare
The media are calling the long-awaited U.S. Supreme Court decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue a victory for “conservatives.” The Court has liberated a few low-income Montana families from conscription by the state and the teachers union, and yet we hear this rescue is “conservative.”
It is, I concede, an act of conservation, preserving the basic legal authority of the poor over their own children. These parents are, to a limited degree, made free to participate in the great school market. It is a victory for the lower-income family – but conservative?
Could it be that our English language is, for this scenario, simply lacking in resource to describe the reality? If you don’t like the judicial outcome of some dispute, you are free to call it whatever you think will give it a black eye in your own intellectual neighborhood. Hence, “conservative” we shall hear.
Last week’s decision is a powerful, if very limited, reaffirmation of the basic constitutional right, authority, and power, even of low-income parents, to decide just what style and content of formal schooling their child will experience – what teacher we shall allow to instruct their child in the skills she or he may need and what version of human origin and personal perfection will be delivered to these young minds for whom we are so full of hope.
The decision reminds us that 95 years ago, a case titled Pierce v. Society of Sisters et al. gave America the basic precept that parents – not the State – have the authority to decide where Susie goes to school. But a fundamental problem has remained: If you are not well-off, how can you exercise that authority by paying tuition? And, if you can’t do so, will the government that makes school compulsory leave you helpless with no option but P.S. 42? Must Susie go where strangers – i.e., “the State” – decide to send her?
So far in history, government has shown little interest in assisting the exercise of your parental authority. The primary concern of its legislatures and its governors has been to keep the teachers union electing them.
The Montana decision will not by itself end this great shadow on human liberty and authority. But the majority opinion justifies hope for development of ever more radical motions (“conservative,” if you prefer). The majority opinion by the chief justice relies exclusively upon the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, extended by the 14th Amendment to limit the states.
One can wonder (“conservatively”?) about the regimes of public schooling born of 19th century anti-Romanism by which schools became mandatory, but those elite who could afford it could, and still do, go private or religious at their choice.
Is it still constitutionally sound for a state to make schooling a parental duty, but then to protect choice only for the well-off? Will the Court let the inner-city “public” school last forever it its captive mission, thus saving the bacon for officers of the teachers union?
Talk to your state legislator – and stay tuned to the conservative Court.
Shirley Ford
The mom on stage described how she and other low-income parents rode a bus through the darkness - six hours, L.A. to Sacramento, kids still in pajamas - to plead their case to power. In the halls of the legislature, people opposed to the idea of a parent trigger accused them of being ignorant, of not understanding how schools work or how laws are made. Some called them a “lynch mob.”
Then, Shirley Ford said, there was this sad reality:
“I would have thought that the PTA would have been beside me,” Ford said. But it wasn’t. “I’m not PTA bashing when I say this,” she continued. “To see that the PTAs were on the opposite side of what we were fighting for was another level of awareness of how the system is.”
Ford is a member of Parent Revolution, the left-leaning group that is advocating for parent trigger laws around the country. She spoke last week at the Jeb Bush education summit, sharing the stage with former California state Sen. Gloria Romero and moderator Campbell Brown. Her remarks, plain spoken and passionate and sometimes interrupted by tears, touched on a point that is vital and obvious and yet too often obscured.
Parents are not a monolith.
The divides are as apparent as the different dynamics that play out in schools on either side of town. In the affluent suburbs, a lot is going right. There is stability in the teaching corps. The vast majority of kids don’t have issues with basic literacy. The high schools are stocked with Advanced Placement classes. And there, behind it all, are legions of savvy, wonderfully dogged, politically connected parents who know how to mobilize when their schools are shortchanged.
The view is starker from the other side of the tracks. A parent in a low-income neighborhood is more likely to see far more teacher turnover in her school – along with far more rookies, subs and dancing lemons. She’ll see far more students labeled disabled and far fewer AP offerings. Issues like these plague many high-poverty schools, yet they don’t get much attention from school boards or news media or, frankly, from established parent groups like the PTA. (more…)
