As editors, each of us came to this special issue of Our Schools/Our Selves with both shared and distinct concerns about the recent iteration of the parental rights movement. However, as our conversations progressed, it became clear that the seemingly distinct concerns that we each had, were all really one in the same. That is, the rise of Christian nationalism, the privatization of public education, the normalization of transphobia and homophobia, the ubiquity of the corporate agenda, and the attacks on democracy, are all rooted to the same underlying motivations. Collecting a multitude of concerns under one label serves the broader ideological purpose to centre neoconservative views and serve neoliberal interests in public schools.
Each of us also came to this issue with a sense of urgency. Under the guise of “parental rights” we are witnessing private values and religious freedom being used to undermine established human rights. In the current context, religion is used to alibi, rationalize, and legitimize homophobia and transphobia (Mayo, 2021). Under the guise of parental rights, provincial governments are enacting policies and legislation that brazenly ignore Charter rights, lend legal legitimacy to the notion of parental rights, subvert educator professionalism, and undercut the rights of children.
Political and religious conservatives, who believe they should control what their children learn, are taking steps to control what all students learn (Hornbeck, 2023). Although parental advocacy groups position themselves as grassroots organizations, many are lobbyists and professional staff masquerading as parents. The goal is to fabricate a crisis about public schools and curriculum in order to justify and promote changes that reflect their beliefs. As Little (2021), from Media Matters, writes, these are well-connected partisans opportunistically manufacturing outrage and selling it to parents under the guise of empowerment.
Resultantly, and relatedly, the curriculum is being undemocratically narrowed and censored, and student access to diverse texts in school libraries is being denied, due to the beliefs and values of some “parents”. This results in the privileging of particular people and narratives and the erasure and dehumanization of ‘others’. Because these changes do not reflect current human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which Canada ratified in 1991), or the views of most parents, these groups are succeeding in reshaping public schools, public knowledge, and the public good. The majority of parents support a diverse curriculum that includes learning about different cultures, a range of perspectives on gender and sexuality, and the complexities of class, history and identity.
Moreover, children also have rights, including the right to an education that is truly public, one that introduces them to values beyond those held by their parents (or spokespeople posing as parents). Although children are being weaponized to advance and legitimize changes to public school curriculum (through pleas about childhood innocence, age-appropriateness, and harm), without irony, these groups wholly ignore children’s rights—in their assertion of parental rights over children, and in their erasure of children’s voices, perspectives, and stories.
These groups are also weaponizing notions of “balance”, “neutrality” and “diverse perspectives”. Yet, public schools have an ethical obligation to uphold human rights—not to make someone’s humanity or right to exist debatable. As Bigelow & Peterson (2002) unabashedly state, neutrality in education is neither possible nor desirable. Public schools must, and already do, take clear ethical stands on a myriad of issues. There are particular issues and periods in history for which platforming varied viewpoints would result in legitimizing unfounded and harmful positions. For example, taking a “neutral” or ‘both sides’ stance on subjects like slavery, gender-based sexual violence, or residential schools is ethically indefensible.
Rather than curating curriculum for baseless and harmful perspectives, public schools have an obligation to uphold decided public values, research informed understandings, and evidenced based conclusions.
For all of the reasons above, and countless others, we felt an urgency to curate this special issue, and to offer a historical overview of the parental rights movement. In doing so, we invite readers to think about the parallels and divergences between previous manifestations of “parental rights” and those we are witnessing today.
The articles that follow offer a snapshot of how this movement is unfolding distinctly within provincial borders and also point to the ways parental rights groups are working across provincial and national borders. As the authors in this issue reveal, there are similar tactics being used by provincial governments to legitimize “parental rights” and privilege the views of particular parents. Moreover, the authors speak to the ways local governments, like school boards, are being similarly impacted by groups claiming to speak for local parents.
In addition, this issue asks readers to consider the way mainstream media, sports podcasts, and discursive strategies more broadly, are being used to advance the narrative of “parental rights” at the expense of the broader public.
We see this as the beginning of a much needed conversation. While these articles expose the multitude of topics that have been collected under the umbrella of “parental rights”, there are many more that could have been included. Although we have tried to demonstrate the way these seemingly distinct issues feed and fold into one another, we know there are many more ways this interconnectedness can be uncovered by readers. We invite readers to consider why so many interests are using the term and the tactics of “parental rights”.
This issue is also intended to be educational. As the authors in this issue reveal, there is a lot of mis/disinformation about “parental rights” and the role of religious rights and private values in public schools. We hope this issue challenges the pervasive discourses being used to legitimize and validate “parental rights” in public education.
Finally, this issue is a form of advocacy, to put on display the way that parental rights rhetoric is being used to dismantle public education and undermine public values and the public good more broadly. It is essential that those who endorse upholding human rights, research-informed curricula, comprehensive sex education in public schools, and diverse texts in libraries make their voices heard by curriculum developers, provincial governments, and mainstream media—even if we feel unaffected in the short term, or if we no longer have kids in the school system. Otherwise, a small group of “parents” will be determining the future of our public schools—not just for their kids, but for all kids.
