Parents taking a step back from education would be a step forward for students
Debates surrounding school curriculum and phone bans would be unnecessary if people took each other seriously
Consider a situation where if another person’s actions displeased you, you had the right to steal their possessions, holding them hostage until specific conditions were met. When someone fell short of your conditions, you could confine them to a designated space for an arbitrary duration. You even had the right to inflict physical harm upon individuals expressing behaviors you disliked. Would you do it?
Many readers won’t need to use their imagination: they already possess these rights. They’re called parents.
Parents wield special privileges and status unparalleled in society. Parents can exercise authoritative control over various aspects of another person’s entire life, including but not limited to the other person’s diet, clothing, activities, sleep schedule, social interactions, and even their publicly stated beliefs and values. Under this authoritative privilege, the parent also has discretion as to other adults wielding the ‘disciplinary hammer’ over their children—like nannies, teachers, or religious leaders.
The traditional argument for this power over children is that it’s in the child’s best interest since the child can’t quite understand and too immature to grasp the significance of the parent’s rule, obligation, or methods. The arguments are not only paternalistic, they are fundamental moral prescriptions about how best to treat others. Under the guise of knowing the child’s best interests, adults of any kind would be allowed to treat any child in this fashion; they know (comparatively) best, after all.
But consider the horrifying scenario of a stranger taking your son’s phone because he didn’t say thank you while at a restaurant, or a professor beating up your daughter because she didn’t study for a quiz. If that isn’t enough to ponder these special rights exclusively enjoyed by parents, think about if they used the coercive privileges on other parents! This is what happens in unnecessary conflicts between parents, students, and the government in battles over school curriculum, book bans, and phones.
When parental rights go wrong
If any person were to enact coercive tactics parents utilize towards a child not their own, they might face moral, legal, and perhaps physical recourse. These consequences would not emanate from the children, who, up to a certain age, lack the resources and capacity to defend themselves. Instead, the actions would rightly come from the parents of the affected child or even the government. Most parents would likely recoil at the idea of a stranger hitting their child or locking them in a room, even if the stranger claimed — or somehow proved— it was for the child’s good. What makes them so sure the neighbors aren’t going too far?
The reaction of parents if not only their child but any child was subjected to coercion deemed morally reprehensible, ineffective, or detrimental by another adult — or consensus — would likely lead to negative consequences. For instance, if parents forced their children to stay awake all night, consume only sweets, run in the streets, or engage in criminal activities, society would vehemently object and advocate for the removal of such “special” rights from those parents. But why would anyone object? They are adults, and therefore know what’s in the child’s best interests more than the child— right?
What is inherently wrong with a parent deciding that it is in their child’s best interest to stay awake for as long as possible on school nights? These parents are entitled to the same rights as any others. This is to say: once accepting arbitrary coercion as a moral and effective tactic to teach children, there can be no objective analysis of the limits of that coercion—only of the coercion itself. That's where taking other parents seriously comes in handy.
Parents in the majority have more rights
Parents, educators, and activists have fervently appealed, and at times harassed local and state governments to safeguard their perceived special rights as parents, particularly concerning the school curriculum.
Eighteen states have enacted or ratified a “Parents Bill of Rights” into law. Florida’s high-profile “Don’t Say Gay” law is among the most controversial, containing sections that forbid classroom discussions about gender theory, sexual intercourse and orientations, and sexually graphic images, “from kindergarten through third grade or in any manner contrary to state standards in all grades.”
Conservatives see the law as an additional protection of parents’ rights: shielding children from material parents deem unacceptable. Liberals see the law as an attempt to stifle parents’ rights: banning material they approve and even hope their child explores. Both sides of the aisle see the law as part of an organized attempt by opposing parents —in cahoots with the government—to propagandize children for political purposes.
North Carolina similarly embraced a Parents Bill of Rights in 2023, proclaiming a parent’s right to “direct the education and care of his or her child.” I must question the language’s accuracy: the NC law simply translates to affording parents in the majority the authority to rule over the schooling of children whose parents are in the minority. This problem of majoritarianism appears again in debates about Critical Race Theory and other subjects. One can easily imagine scenarios where a majority of parents in a particular district wish their children to learn about theory A in the fourth grade, placing the burden on the anti-A crowd to either accept it or withdraw their child from school.
Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine an adult, especially a parent, supporting the education of any child when the curriculum goes against their core values.
What parent who values a good night’s sleep supports forcing children to stay up all night playing on their phones? What secular parent who supports their child’s spiritual exploration forces their child to go to a protestant church? If parents value education, they shouldn’t dictate what children should be learning, nor should they tell other parents what their children should be learning. The best solution is to take other parents seriously: allowing parents to utilize their rights according to their values.
Conflict of interest
When parents examine their methods and authority over their own children, they usually claim an unrestricted right to do as they please — at least compared to their rights towards any other group in society. As demonstrated, this theory of ownership may be optimal for the majority in a particular school district, but it also raises questions about equal rights for all parents and children who find themselves in the minority on questions related to curriculums or phone bans.
The school prayer debate in schools is a historical example that presents the dilemma: predominantly Christian parents, guided by religious beliefs, thought the recitation of the Lord’s prayer was beneficial for all children before class began— irrespective of individual student preferences. Secular parents countered that while allowing students to pray if they wish, they advocated against compelling children to participate involuntarily — not banning prayer in schools entirely. One can see here that when a parent tries to enforce specific ideas onto an entire school district while forbidding discussion of alternative subjects, they inadvertently use children as pawns to restrict other parents’ rights. This behavior places personal familial values above those of their children, other parents, and other parents' children.
Support parents by taking them seriously
The solution, taking children and their parents seriously, necessitates more effort and creativity than a straightforward assertion of “rights for everyone.” In my view, a more beneficial approach — especially for the students — would require parents to completely step back from directing their child’s educational journey. This does not equate to a lack of support, resources, or morale, but rather a rejection of the insistence on imposing specific ideas for the child’s — and those in the district —exposure: an argument that applies to parents, educators, the government, and broader society.
Parents ought to scale back their emphasis on personal values and be more attuned to the values of their children, other parents, and those parents’ children. A deepened understanding of fallibility could serve to mitigate this problem. I think both parents and educators must discard paternalistic tendencies entirely, acknowledging that children are individuals entitled to respect and autonomy. And if they cannot do that, remember your fellow parents share the same rights over their children as you do over yours. If you're concerned with a parent’s coercive tactics, question the coercion instead of the particular tactic. This shift in perspective would recognize the agency and rights of children in their educational experiences and grant parents rights that they can freely exercise, even if someone disagrees.
Parental rights are not absolute and can be challenged if they endanger the child’s welfare. But even this limit is superficial and, at the very least, arbitrary. It traces back to the prevailing influence of the majority of parents; if a consensus deems spanking inappropriate, we can anticipate the emergence of laws against it, as witnessed in recent times with corporal punishment in schools. If you value individualism, freedom, and autonomy, step back from dictating other families’ educational standards so children can take a step forward in their understanding of the world.