As a public education advocate, I am particularly attuned to the ways that the “parental rights” (PR) movement has been used to undermine faith in public education in order to advance privatization. Recognizing that there are various pathways to and manifestations of privatization (Ball & Youdell, 2008; Winton, 2022), the “parental rights” movement has been used to rationalize, legitimize, and mobilize privatization of and in public education.
Choice
Through hyperbolic rhetoric and manufactured crises, “parental rights” advocates sow doubt in public education and public school teachers in order to justify the introduction of private options. “Parental Rights”, and other exploits of the culture wars, have been exploited to foster distrust and doubt in public schools in order to encourage and rationalize more private options and increase school ‘choice’.
School choice satisfies and unites neoliberals chasing increased marketization of education, and neoconservatives seeking schools steeped in traditional values. It is marketed as the cure to the ‘woke ideology’ that is allegedly overtaking public schools at the expense of ‘real learning’. In Alberta, for example, education reformers have exploited the accusation of ‘gender ideology’ in order to undermine faith in public education and advance school ‘choice’.
Despite the marketing, school choice results in public funds going to a private system that lacks accountability, rations choices to select students, and ignores and undermines public values—such as a strong, equitable, public education system that provides equal access to everyone.
Censorship
In the current iteration of the PR movement, the (mis)use of terms, such as back to basics, woke, gender ideology, and critical race theory—and the term parental rights itself—are also used to motivate the censorship of public curriculum and assert control over public school classrooms. PR advocates intentionally use this rhetoric to evoke anger about what and how subjects are being taught.
By using a loaded term like ideology, PR advocates are promoting the idea that public schools are indoctrinating/brainwashing students into particular ways of thinking. Moreover, they are suggesting that what is being taught is brazenly political, rather than a decided aspect of the public curriculum that is based on research-informed understandings, enshrined rights, and scientific consensus. In doing so, they are also promoting the idea that a “neutral” or “apolitical” curriculum is possible—although what they mean by “neutral” is any curriculum that aligns with the status quo, or with their personal views.
Labelling certain curricula “ideological” or “political” while advocating for “neutrality” is a political tactic used to secure existing power structures and to make topics that challenge the status quo taboo or dangerous. And, unfortunately, this tactic is having an impact.
Provincial governments are altering or censoring curriculum and resources in response to claims from within the PR movement. This is particularly evident in topics surrounding gender and sexuality. As I write this, the Alberta government has announced a ban on sexually explicit books in school libraries. This ban stems from alarmist claims about library books, undermines the professionalism of educators and existing procedures used by librarians, ignores the lived experience of students, and disregards research informed understandings of comprehensive sexuality education—among other things! Beyond that, it is undemocratic. As the Alberta government’s own surveys on this ban makes clear, nobody wants this. The majority of parents in Canada support sexual health education in K-12 schools. Moreover, the research demonstrates that comprehensive sex education saves lives, reduces homophobic and transphobic violence, sexual violence, and gender-based discrimination, and can help students understand how to foster healthy relationships.
Yet, through opt-outs/ins, sensitive content labels, outdated and absent curriculum, and the assertion within curriculum documents that parents are sex educators, provincial governments across Canada continue to abdicate their responsibility to the public good and public education by placating particular parents, ignoring research informed understandings, and negating the basic human rights of all children and youth to receive sexuality education. Or, to see themselves reflected in the curriculum and in library books. Or, to engage with challenging narratives about our nation. Or, to consider the way extractivist economic practices contribute to current environmental issues. Or, to question military actions. Or, to question government narratives or the structure of our government. I could go on.
My point, if it isn’t yet obvious, is that labelling particular content ideological or political so that it will no longer be taught in public schools is glaringly hypocritical. It is a form of politically motivated censorship of public school curriculum to align with private interests. In this way, the legal fiction of ‘parental rights’ is being used to shape public schooling for everyone.
Chill
Beyond direct changes to curriculum or policy made by provincial governments, the PR movement is also having a chilling impact on educators. That is, educators are avoiding “contentious” topics or censoring themselves in their classrooms in order to avoid controversy.
The harmful rhetoric used by people within the PR movement, which is then repeated and legitimized by mainstream media (see McCorquodale-Bauer, this issue), contributes to increased censorship of public school curriculum and, in some cases, educators as well. In a time in which classrooms have become the site of ongoing culture wars, and in which teachers are flippantly and recklessly being called groomers and pedophiles by people within the PR movement, it is hardly surprising that some teachers are hesitant to broach certain topics in their classrooms. The result, however, is curricular erasure of people, topics, and activities.
Without strong support from school leaders, it can be even harder for teachers to uphold their professional and ethical obligations to enact the provincially endorsed curriculum and uphold human rights and children’s rights.
Conclusion
Parental rights advocates assert that public schools discriminate against traditional conservative values, and that their views should be represented in public school classrooms. These accusations are often accompanied by efforts to regulate classroom content and censor books in libraries. In some cases, they also threaten to leave public schools or encourage disinvestment from the broader project of public education.
While public schools want to make every effort to make families and students feel included, and to embrace a variety of viewpoints, they also need to maintain their values. If the views and values of families and students within the school do not align with human rights or children’s rights, public schools must not platform and legitimize these viewpoints.
When public schools are asked to accommodate or alter their curriculum and policies in ways that harm students, undermine children’s rights, reject research-informed curriculum and scientific consensus, and deny educator professionalism, they need to reject these expectations. The risk, otherwise, is that we undermine the very essence of what makes a public school public.
