Parent pledge doesn't make the grade

Insight on the News, Sept 18, 1995 by Eric Bueher

This fall Jesse Jackson -- with President Clinton's backing -- is coordinating an effort in 50 cities to have parents of public-school children take a pledge to meet their children's teachers, turn off the TV for an hour a day, help with homework, attend at least one parent-teacher conference each semester and sign report cards. If parents follow through on their pledges I'm sure it will help their children (It's always helpful when parents act like parents.) But, while Jackson is pushing for greater parental responsibility in education, his liberal colleagues in the education establishment are working hard to encourage parental irresponsibility.

I've never met a teacher who didn't want his or her students' parents to do all the things Jackson wants them to do. But school boards, education bureaucrats and politicians have decided that schools should become surrogate parents and "relieve" parents of many of their responsibilities. In educational parlance this is known as creating "full-service" schools. I call them public orphanages.

For instance, Yale University recently set up a pilot program providing "full services" in the St. Louis schools. Parents can enroll their 6-month-old infants in the program. They can drop their children off at 6 a.m. and pick them up at 6 p.m. A stay-at-home-mom who attended the parent-information meetings later said, "They were telling us 'We'll take care of your kids. Go get a life.'" And when parents find things to do with their time other than be there for their children, these same educators later will complain that parents aren't involved enough. I'll have little sympathy for them. They've worked hard to structure the school so parents are unnecessary -- even a nuisance to have around.

Take, for example, the ridiculous case of Charles Haydon, a Pennsylvania parent I'm sure Jesse Jackson would hail as a model of parental involvement. When he found out his seventh-grade son, Chris, was flunking five subjects, he called a meeting with Chris' teachers and a guidance counselor. Together, they decided that Haydon should tutor his son at least two hours each day. In an age in which most American fathers spend minutes a day with their sons, this father's commitment was stellar. But his dedication didn't stop there. Knowing the way his son learned best, Haydon decided to spend the two hours in the middle of his work day, removing his son from his last-period class -- a study hall -- and driving him home.

Haydon's reward was to find himself dragged into court by the school district. You see, the school decided that removing the boy from school violated the state's compulsory-education laws. Ironically, the school district used the compulsory-education laws intended to assure a child an education as a means of restricting a child from getting one. Last June a judge ruled in favor of the district. But, while the school district was busy harassing the father, the father continued daily two-hour tutoring. Chris not only turned his failing grades around before the court's ruling -- he almost made the honor roll.

In the course of comparing the programs of various school districts, I was shocked to find so many school administrators who talk of parental involvement while creating an environment that is actually hostile to parents. Although the media frequently cover the problem of academic quality, a much bigger problem is barely noticed: Schools are undermining the role of parents.

A few more examples: Schools now offer government-paid breakfast for children whose parents, as one "child advocate" put it, "don't have time to feed their kids breakfast." However well-intentioned, this policy amounts to rewarding parents with free food for their families if they relinquish the responsibility of feeding their children. Schools offer full-day child care for parents, thus institutionalizing the problem of children left without parents during the day. More schools are putting medical clinics on campuses, which relieves parents from servicing their own children's health needs. What goes on in those clinics is, of course, confidential.

And there are the values issues. School administrators, believing they know better than parents what values children should have, relentlessly push liberal values in the classroom. When parents complain, they are branded censors and extremists. You don't want a gay men's chorus coming to your elementary school and singing to the children about boys loving boys? Tough. It's "multicultural week" at school. You want your daughter to learn about the value of motherhood and marriage at school? Too bad. Talk of motherhood and marriage is deemed too restrictive by many educators. You want your child to learn about the importance of free enterprise, capitalism and entrepreneurship? Tough luck. It's "Earth day" at school and we're all learning about the evils of industry. It makes you wonder who really is in charge of raising the next generation.

I suggest a new pledge for Jackson to promote: a pledge for educators, bureaucrats and politicians. It would go something like this: "I promise to quit undermining the authority and responsibility of parents. I will stick to the idea that schools should be about teaching, not about raising children." Without such a commitment from the education establishment, they will succeed only in creating more dependence on government schools and undermining family self-sufficiency.