Parental Involvement in Education

March-April 1997

By David Van Heemst

WASHINGTON, DC—David Van Heemst teaches political science at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois. Along with more than two dozen doctoral students, he participated in the Crossroads Program, organized by Evangelicals for Social Action with the sponsorship of the Center for Public Justice. The resuit of collegial efforts among the doctoral students and their faculty and policy advisers is a series of monographs written by the students, edited and published by Crossroads director Keith Pavlischek. Monograph #8, by Van Heemst, is titled "Public Justice and Education: The Case for Parental involvement," from which the excerpts below have been drawn. [Other recent Crossroads monographs include "Local Government's Contribution to Justice in Housing," by Karen Kispert; "Christian Reflections on American Child Support Policies," by Perry Glanzer, and "Social Policy and Homosexuality," by Charles Hall. The views and conclusions of each monograph are those of the author alone. For information on all the published monographs, including an ordering form, contact Crossroads, ESA, 10 East Lancaster Ave., Wynnewood, PA 19096; 610-645-9399; fax-610-649-8090.—Ed.]

This monograph first reviews biblical and constitutional perspectives on the parental role in education. After assessing the current educational options available, the monograph rebuts the five most common criticisms of school choice: 1) it is unconstitutional; 2) it will harm the poor; 3) it will destroy the public school system; 4) it will infringe upon private and parochial schools' freedom; and 5) it will cost too much. Finally, it outlines ten elements of a school choice proposal to improve the American educational system.

The purpose of a school choice system is to improve education for children by empowering parents to choose a school for their child. This choice should be available regardless of religious commitment or financial status, and should enable teachers to teach with few restrictions. This goal, in turn, will create new schools. A proposal for a school choice system should have ten elements.

1. All parents will receive a tuition voucher.

2. Schools will not be funded by district, since that system has perpetuated the cycle of poverty.

3. States should adopt tuition vouchers instead of tax credits.

4. A voucher should cover no less than 80% of the average district school cost, since anything below that might be insufficient for a small group of parents to start a new school.

5. A tuition voucher should provide a reasonable extra voucher amount for children needing additional transportation to reach the school of their choice, paid for through the savings provided by school choice.

6. A school choice program should be implemented gradually

7. Private and parochial schools must be included in the program since 85% of all non-state schools are parochial.

8. Schools should be free from extensive governmental regulation, which might infringe on their autonomy and identity.

9. Schools will set their own policies for retaining students.

10. Each school district will establish a Parent Information Center, to assist parents with information and counseling in choosing the best school for their child.

School choice grants teachers more latitude to innovate, by freeing them from a stifling bureaucracy; it empowers poor parents, by offering them fair access to the state's finest schools; it enables parents who prefer private or parochial schools to choose without discrimination; and it promotes the growth of new schools to challenge those already in existence.

These positive developments promote a better education for America's children. A system of school choice safeguards religious liberty, promotes social equity, and offers distributive justice to all of America's children. In so doing, it will help promote justice for all Americans.

The time has come to dismantle the public school monopoly and to implement a system of school choice. Out of the resulting educational pluralism, a genuine national unity might emerge, one founded on a vigorous debate among contrasting creeds, rather than a false consensus that cries, "peace, peace," when there is no peace.