|
Overview
Recently, the
news media reported a controversy in a local California public
school system caused by a survey (questionnaire) distributed to
elementary school students. The story reported that parents of
some of the students raised serious objections to many of the
questions contained in what they characterized as a “sex
survey.”
Suffice it to say, the above controversy
is a part of a continuing debate concerning the rights of
parents and the prerogatives of school officials to decide what
is or is not appropriate for children. In the past several years
issues involving compulsory attendance, desegregation, school
choice, vouchers, the study of evolution, student prayer, family
life education, and the Pledge of Allegiance have served as
lightening rods in the debate. Some experts speculate that the
growing number of parents who home school their children do so
because of dissatisfaction with the school’s curriculum.
The purpose of this commentary is not to
discuss the particular facts of the California controversy.
Rather, this commentary will use the recently publicized student
survey situation to focus a brief discussion of parent rights
and the prerogatives of school officials in determining what is
not appropriate for their child while that child is at school.
School
Curriculum
The school
curriculum, what is it?
The dictionary defines curriculum as “the aggregate of
courses of study given in a school….” Random House
(1967). Another accepted definition specifically limits
curriculum to the body of official courses offered in a
school (mathematics, English, science, social studies, and
others) and taken by students. While another definition broadly
characterizes curriculum as including “all courses and
activities offered under the official sanction and control of
the school system.” Bosher, Kaminski, and Vacca (2004) This
latter definition would include every course and activity
ranging from the Minute of Silence and the Pledge of Allegiance
at the beginning of the school day, to the various athletic
teams and clubs, to the courses for which students receive
academic credit. Under this broad-based definition the words
extra-curricular and co-curricular do not exist.
Needless to say, the scope and breadth of parent rights will
depend on which definition of curriculum is accepted.
Curriculum-Related Conflicts
More than forty
years ago, my late graduate mentor E.C. Bolmeier and a colleague
opined: “While one group of citizens may support a particular
phase of the curriculum, another group may object to the
offering or practice just as strenuously. As a result,
controversies have ensued, and many of the disputes concerning
curriculum problems have been carried to the courts for
adjudication.” Fulbright and Bolmeier (1964)
In the opinion
of Drake and Roe, “Major educational problems result from
conflicts arising over curriculum decisions.” And, because
“curriculum decision makers operate in a broad social and
cultural environment that imposes many constraints… [t]he
curriculum of the school reflects the consensus of pressures and
interests brought to bear on the school by parents and organized
groups.” Drake and Roe (2003)
Fisher, Schimmel,
and Kelly suggest that parental objections and challenges to
curriculum generally are based on the following two
propositions: (1) assertions that parents have the “right to
guide the upbringing of their children,” and (2) school
officials have the power to “make and enforce reasonable
regulations….” Based on their research, “the most common
objections to curriculum and instruction have had a religious
basis.” Fisher, Schimmel, and Kelly (1999)
Parent Rights and the Prerogatives of School Officials
Parent
Rights. The research
consistently establishes the critically important role
and function of parents in the education of children and the
success of a school. A good example can be found in recent study
in Michigan. Public school administrators successfully “reduced
chronic truancy by 75 percent and saw student behavior improve
after working with parents in a Truancy Intervention Program.”
The School Disciplinary Advisor (2005)
Parental
authority is not without limitations. As the United States
Supreme Court stated more than eight decades ago, while parents
possess a “liberty interest” in the upbringing of their children
this right is not absolute and is subject to “reasonable state
regulation. “ Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) Several
decades later, the high court added in Wisconsin v Yoder
(1972), that while parents have an important responsibility in
directing their child’s religious upbringing, state government
has a legal responsibility to ensure that a child receives a
basic educational opportunity.
Contemporary
courts have reaffirmed the right of parents to direct the
educational and religious upbringing of their children.
Martin v Stephen (Okla. 1997) In some local school systems,
for example, parents have the right to “opt-in” or “opt-out”
their children from classes, assignments, and other school
activities that parent’s believe are offensive to their
religious beliefs. Mozert v
Hawkins County
(1986)
In addition to
relying on state law, the reader is reminded that various
federal statutes also specifically enumerate and define parent
rights. For example the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA 2004), the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB 2001), and
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA 1974) are
parent-oriented statutes. Common threads running through these
comprehensive statutes mandate: (1) informed consent of parents,
(2) involvement of parents in decisions involving their
children, and (3) procedural guarantees to accommodate parental
challenges.
Prerogatives
of School Officials. The
power of the state to prescribe a general curriculum for all
public schools in a local school district is a clear extension
of constitutional authority under the Tenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Vacca and Bosher (2003) In some
states the legislature has mandated that specific subjects
must be taught in the public schools. Code of
Virginia,
22.1-200
The general rule
is that local public school boards, exercising legal authority
under state law, are presumed to be acting in good faith,
especially when making curricular decisions. Boring v
Buncombe County Board of
Education (4th
Cir. 1998) As such, the burden of proof rests on those
challenging the board’s decision. To prevail, challengers must
be able to show that the board: (1) did not have the legal
authority under state law to make the decision, or (2) acted
beyond the scope of its authority, or (3) acted arbitrarily and
unreasonably, or (4) abused its authority. Vacca and Bosher
(2003)
In addition to
students, teachers, and parents, local school officials must
consider the reaction of their community to curricular
decisions. The community has a legitimate interest in an
appropriate curriculum for its future citizens.
Student Privacy, Age, Maturity, and Grade Level
It should be
emphasized that the United States Supreme Court has held that
children are persons under the United States Constitution. In
re Gault (1967), Tinker v
Des Moines
(1969), and Goss v Lopez (1975). In addition, in
New Jersey v T.L.O
(1985), the high court made it clear that student’s have
privacy expectations when in attendance at school.
The importance
of protecting the rights of students was emphasized in a New
Jersey “student survey” case. In C.N. v
Ridgewood
Board of Education (2001),
parents challenged a survey that examined student attitudes
toward parents, drug and alcohol use and abuse, destruction of
property, and sex. The court applied the requirements of FERPA
and held that the accessibility and privacy of students had not
been violated.
School
officials, administrators, classroom teachers, and staff must
consider the age, maturity, and grade level of students when
planning and implementing curricular requirements and classroom
activities, and other experiences for students. Simply stated,
what might be appropriate for high school juniors and seniors
may not be appropriate for ninth and tenth grade students.
Trachtman v Anker (2nd Cir. 1977) Age, maturity,
and grade level factors also must be considered when providing
access to: (1) books, magazines, and other materials in the
school library, (2) classroom computers, and (3) school athletic
teams and other activities.
Students should
not in anyway be pressured or coerced into participation in any
program, course of study, or activity offered as a part of the
school program. As the United States Supreme Court has opined,
“Students may automatically feel pressure to conform when an
activity occurs within the school.” Meyer v
Nebraska
(1923) However, where coercion is alleged by parents, they must
be able to prove their case. Di Bari v
Bedford Central
School District
(2nd Cir. 2001)
Implications for Policy
At the outset of
this commentary the recent student survey controversy in a local
California public school system was cited. The intent of making
reference to this highly publicized matter was not to analyze
the event, but rather to cite it as an example of a growing
tension between parents and school officials regarding what is
or is not appropriate for students. As such, this commentary was
devoted to a brief discussion of parent involvement in
curricular decision-making.
What follow are
some suggestions to ponder as current policies are re-evaluated
and new policies are considered in a effort to include parents
in curricular decision-making. Local school board policies must
make it clear that:
-
The legal authority to make
curricular decisions vests with the school board.
-
The best interests of the
children and the quality of their education are prime
motivating factors in curricular decision-making.
-
The school board actively
seeks and relies on in-put from school administrators and
classroom teachers when making curricular decisions.
-
Parents will be fully and
accurately informed of curricular changes, revisions,
deletions, and additions being considered by the school
board.
-
Parental consent will be
solicited and obtained whenever a student is to be a part of
any curricular offering or other school sponsored activity
that is experimental in nature.
-
Parents have the right to
review and otherwise inspect all materials used in a school
program, class, or activity.
-
The school board maintains and
supports “opt-in” and “opt-out” provisions for parents who
object to their child being expose to any program, class,
subject, or activity offered by the school system.
-
Students will not be a part of
any study (medical, sociological, educational,
psychological) with out explicit written consent of parent
or guardian, and the official approval of the school board.
-
Outside groups, organizations,
and agencies will not have access to students for purposes
of conducting interviews or completing formal surveys
without first informing and involving parents, and seeking
and receiving their informed consent.
One final
thought is in order. Whatever one’s definition of the term
“curriculum,” the perception in communities is that everything
offered in their local school system is the responsibility of
school officials and teachers. The phrase used by courts of law
is that the activity “bears the school system’s official
imprimatur.” Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) Thus, school
officials must keep all stakeholders fully informed regarding
all aspects of the school system’s offerings so that
misperceptions can be identified and proactively dealt with.
Resources Cited
Bosher, William
C., Jr, Kaminski, Kate, and Vacca, Richard S., THE SCHOOL LAW
HANDBOOK (ASCD 2004)
Boring v
Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364 (4th
Cir. 1998)
C.N. v Ridgewood
Board of Education, 146 F.Supp.2d 528 (D.N.J. 2001)
Code of
Virginia, 2004 Cum. Supp., 22.1-200
Di Bari v
Bedford Central School District, 245 F.3d 49 (2nd
Cir. 2001)
Drake, T.L., and
Roe, W.H., THE PRINCIPALSHIP, Sixth Edition (Merrill-Prentice
Hall 2003)
Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. A. 1232G (1974)
Fisher, Louis,
Schimmel, David, and Kelly, Cynthia, TEACHERS AND THE LAW, Fifth
Edition (Longman 1999)
Fulbright,
Evelyn R., and Bolmeier, Edward C., COURTS AND THE CURRICULUM
(The W.H. Anderson Company 1964)
Goss v Lopez,
419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Hazelwood v
Kuhlmeier, 108 S.Ct. 562 (1988)
Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et.seq. (2004)
In Re Gault, 387
U.S. 1 (1967)
Martin v
Stephen, 337 P.2d 92 (Okla. 1997)
Meyer v
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
Mozert v Hawkins
County, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987)
New Jersey v
T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
No Child Left
Behind, 20 U.S.C. 6301, et seq. (2001)
Pierce v Society
of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Stein, Jess,
Editor in Chief, THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY (New York 1967)
The School
Disciplinary Advisor, vol.
1 (September 2005)
Tinker v Des
Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Trachman v Anker,
563 F.2d 512 (1977)
Wisconsin v
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Vacca, Richard
s., and Bosher, William c., Jr., LAW AND EDUCATION: CONTEMPORARY
ISSUES AND COURT DECISIONS, Sixth Edition (LexisNexis 2003)
Richard S. Vacca
Senior Fellow CEPI
Note: The views expressed in this
commentary are those of the author. |
