Over the last three years, we have witnessed a concerning trend of parental exclusion policies in public schools nationwide. A move by school districts that was initially thought to be “very liberal” or “a California thing” now exists in 33 states.
Parents Defending Education has a running list of schools and students affected by such policies that keep parents out of key decisions regarding their child’s well-being. Currently, there are 18,545 schools with these policies, affecting over 10.7 million students and families.
Many like-minded and well-intentioned groups are focusing on important symptoms of such policies, such as book bans, student activism, and students changing sexes as quickly as they change hobbies. That is well and good.
However, the underlying cause of issues in public schools is policies that undermine a parent’s right to know what their child is learning, what bathroom their child uses, how their child presents at school, and who their child is rooming with during overnight class trips.
These parental exclusion policies affect every student in public schools. These policies institutionally indoctrinate and isolate students from their parents. The aim of politicians and district administrators should be to improve the baseline for all students.
Instead, many politicians at the state and federal level sound the alarm on bad actors and pass the burden down the pike. There are very few states that recognize the larger issue of these policies and hold districts, administrators, and school boards accountable.
Kansas is an exception to the rule. Last year, Kansas passed legislation that requires all districts in the state to adopt a policy that requires separate accommodations for students of each biological sex on overnight class trips. As of this week, Kansas is the only state working consciously to dismantle existing parental exclusion policies and stop future policies from going into effect.
Attorney General Kris Kobach used PDE’s list of parental exclusion policies to identify problematic districts in the state. After assessing the merit and constitutionality of each district’s policies, the attorney general determined six school districts had policies that hindered parental rights and raised constitutional concerns.
Kobach put superintendents in these troublesome districts on notice. Likewise, he strongly encouraged them to take swift steps to withdraw the policies.
Thus far, two of the districts have rescinded their parental exclusion policies. One district completely revoked its parental exclusion policy, and another district amended the policy to include parents in decision-making regarding their children. The state will continue to work with the four remaining districts to walk back their policies.
Putting pressure on these districts had a major impact on quickly dismantling some policies and started a dialogue with problematic districts regarding why districts felt compelled to enact these activist policies and to whom districts are accountable. This efficient approach holds districts accountable to benefit all Kansans.
States such as Washington, however, pit parental and student rights against each other. Minors in Washington can reside in shelters without parental consent if their perceived identity is not accepted by their parents. In these unfortunate cases, parents are perceived as enemies as opposed to allies. Unfortunately, we expect similar laws to pass in six other states, including Oregon, in the next year.
The implementation of community schools is another effort that seeks to exclude parents from the education of their children. These schools are the brainchild of teacher unions and endorsed by the Biden administration to save poor neighborhoods. They already exist in 25 states, serving 1.8 million students. Unbeknownst to parents, community schools provide wraparound care for students: physicals, medicine, chest binders, and referrals to seek surgical transitions. These services are billed to the parents’ insurance without their consent.
The silver lining is that states can challenge parental exclusion policies and halt the evolution of parental exclusion laws and community schools in their state. As many state legislators begin their sessions, the time to act is now.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Of course, there are different ways to survey and influence districts where they will feel it most. Kansas is a great case study, but there are many avenues to curtail these policies. One way may be withholding state funding from schools that are bad actors. States can also provide financial incentives for districts without policies that undercut parental rights. Likewise, state departments of education can promote transparency and accountability in district and board policies and make policies easily accessible for parents.
Parental exclusion policies are unconstitutional and have no place in public schools. It is paramount for parents to be involved in all decisions regarding their child’s well-being, education, and medical treatment. Hindering parents’ ability to direct the short- and long-term decisions of their children will only hurt the child. It is about time states step in and dismantle these unconstitutional policies.
Caroline Moore serves as vice president for Parents Defending Education.
