Parental Rights in the Education of Children

In modern societies, as a practical matter, the state has the power to legislate on a wide variety of concerns. It is a separate question whether the state has the right to do so. One of the most controversial issues facing American society today concerns the right of parents to determine the way in which their children shall be educated. On the one hand, many parents believe that they have a fundamental right to educate their children in any manner they see fit. On the other hand, many people in positions of power wish to limit this parental right by regulating the choices parents may make regarding the education of their children.

Some of these critics of parental choice seek to limit their choices to a range of government-approved and government-regulated schools, whether government-funded or not. Others seek to limit these choices to government-funded schools, often called public schools. Either of these types of restrictions would effectively forbid parents to educate their own children in their own home according to their own beliefs and values. The basic question that must be asked (even though unwelcome to the advocates of omnipotent government) is whether any such restrictions on the right of parents to determine the setting and content of the education of their children is morally within the bounds of legitimate governmental action.

Those who wish the state to regulate and even forbid private education and homeschooling often appeal to the state's interest in having an educated body of citizens, both now and in the future. They argue that the only means to achieve even a basic level of education is to force all students to learn in government-regulated settings. This argument misses the mark considerably. If the goal is to require all children to receive a basic level of education, the state could surely require exactly that: an objective, defined body of knowledge to be learned by all children. Assessment of whether this level of education has occurred could be made by examination. Parents of children who have not acquired this body of knowledge could be punished. None of this requires that the education occur in any specific setting, much less only in a government-regulated school.

One can only conclude that the real goal of those who seek to control elementary and secondary education and to compel parents to send their children exclusively to government-regulated schools is not their stated one. Indeed, it appears that their true goal is not that students learn any objective, defined body of knowledge. Rather, they seek to determine where a student learns, how he learns, and ultimately what values he will hold. This is sometimes hinted at in references to the importance of children being able to get along with others who may be different or live according to different values. Implicit in this approach is a pervasive relativism: all values are equally good, none are better or more true than others, let alone simply true or false. Many parents, and certainly all those who base their lives on the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, will reject this relativistic worldview. The advocates of relativism realize this and hence generally avoid stating the issue clearly. The point of forcing all children to be educated in a government-regulated school environment is to subvert their hearts and minds, to alienate them from the values and beliefs of their parents, and to induce them to adopt the relativistic worldview promoted by the secular educational ideologues. Many parents do realize this (despite the obfuscations and denials of the secularist educational reformers), but other parents are deceived.

To understand the alternative to this Orwellian vision of compulsory government-controlled indoctrination of children, it is necessary to examine carefully the teaching of our Western tradition regarding the role of parents in the education of their children. This in turn leads to a consideration of the fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage and the sacramental significance of Christian marriage. First, it is simply a historical fact that the great bulk of people throughout history received whatever education they had from their parents, or from individuals chosen by their parents. In some cases, this level of education was clearly inadequate. Even into comparatively recent times, parents or tutors chosen and employed by the parents, provided nearly all primary and secondary education. As late as the early nineteenth century, a large proportion of those entering universities had never attended any organized school outside the home.

One example would be John Keble, the English theologian and poet (1792-1866), who was educated solely at home by his father, until he went to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. After a brilliant undergraduate career, winning University prizes for both English and Latin essays and graduating with a Double First at the age of eighteen, he became a fellow of Oriel College and later was elected as Professor of Poetry. His subsequent career was equally distinguished, both in the pastoral ministry and in his publications, which included translations from the Church Fathers, editions of the writings of earlier Anglican divines, original poetry (including the "Christian Year," a Victorian best-seller), and original theological writings.¹ Surely no one ever suggested that Keble suffered from an inadequate primary or secondary education, or that his role and influence in the English Church in later life was hampered by the fact that he never attended any government-regulated or controlled school.

Keble had received his primary and secondary education in the traditional setting that had predominated throughout the history of Western civilization, namely the family home. Only in the last century or century and a half has this pattern become markedly less common. But still, even today, a large number of parents are teaching their children in the same setting. It is estimated that today some 500,000 to 1,000,000 American children are not sent to any formal school, but are taught at home by one or both of their parents. Are these children being kept in some antique state of deprivation that threatens to leave them uneducated, unskilled, and unempoyable, or are they receiving a superior education in a setting that remains the best one for primary and secondary education?

To address this issue, one must look at the underlying issue: the vocation of parenthood and the significance of marriage. For what purposes did God institute marriage? He did so principally for two related ends. The primary end of marriage is procreation. The secondary, but equally important, end of marriage is the education and training of the children. All other benefits of marriage, such as friendship and affection between spouses, are subordinate to these.² Marriage is indeed a sacrament, instituted by Christ,³ and one of the fruits of the sacrament is that married people receive all the graces necessary to fulfill their duties in married life. As Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage):

Thus, married people (by virtue of having received the sacrament of Matrimony) have access to the graces needed to fulfill their calling to married life, but they must consciously and continually make full use of these graces to fulfill that calling.

The married life clearly involves procreation (or at least the willingness to be open to the possibility of procreation). But the procreation of children is hardly the end of the matter. Once a couple is blessed with children, they face the practical matter of raising them. As Pope Pius XI also taught in his encyclical:

The same point is made more succinctly by Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life), quoting the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes: "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children."⁶ Both procreation and the educating of children are fundamental to the married life.

Once this is understood and accepted, the responsibility of parents for the education of their children is clear. They must insure that their children are educated by themselves, or at least by those who share their beliefs and values. They may do so by choosing to send their children to schools that reinforce these values (if such schools are available), or they may directly educate their own children. In either case, the responsibility of the parents is clear: God has entrusted the children to them, and they remain directly and uniquely responsible for insuring that the children are in fact educated in such a manner that they will grow up knowing and loving God and keeping His commandments.

In addition to his remarks on marriage and education in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI also devoted an entire separate encyclical, Divini Illius Magistri (On Christian Education), to the subject of education. His teaching in this encyclical expands and develops the general perspective shown in Casti Connubii. A couple of representative excerpts will give the sense of Divini Illius Magistri:

While Pius XI was clearly referring to the Soviet Union at the end of the excerpts just quoted, a strong case could be made that the same situation is imminent in the United States of the 1990s, as the state continues to encroach on the basic parental right to educate their own children and as the political influence of the National Education Association and others of their ilk clearly committed to "irreligion and hatred, according to the theories of advanced socialism" continues to increase. Finally, one should note that Pius XI emphasized the importance of parents preparing themselves carefully to educate their children, which he termed a "fundamental duty and obligation" of married life. This is a most timely counsel for today, when many parents themselves have received a seriously defective education.

Building upon the teachings of Pius XI, the Second Vatican Council clearly taught the duty of parents to be the primary educators of their children. In the Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis, the Council Fathers stated that:

One must carefully note that the education of children is not a privilege allowed to parents; rather, it is a solemn duty, "a grave obligation," which it would be sinful to neglect.

Such teaching has continued even since the Second Vatican Council. The present pope, in his encyclical Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), wrote:

Again, in his apostolic constitution Catechesi Tradendae (On Catechesis in Our Time), he teaches:

At most, then, parents may voluntarily delegate a portion of their children's education to those whom they know will educate them in full conformity to the parents' beliefs and values. Even this entails a degree of departure from the ideal, namely the direct education of children by their own parents. And large-scale or complete delegation of the religious training of the will and intellect of children is a clear betrayal of the vocation of marriage. As one experienced priest has written,

In sum, parents may legitimately choose to make use of the assistance of others in fulfilling their duty to educate their children, but they may not abdicate their responsibility, nor may they allow individuals or institutions that do not fully share their religious beliefs and values to play any significant role in the education of their children.

This understanding of the duty of parents to educate their children is not a recent aspect of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed it goes back to the time of Moses. After giving the people of Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses taught them:

It is clear that Moses did not intend for parents to delegate the teaching of moral values and precepts to others, let alone to those who did not share the parents' beliefs. This command is repeated later:

While the responsibility to teach children moral values clearly cannot be delegated by the parents, these passages further indicate that this moral and spiritual training must take place at home, throughout the family's daily activities. This suggests that the children should spend all or nearly all of their time in the context of the family. Even sending children to the best religious schools takes them out of the context of the home for a large portion of their waking hours, and thus renders difficult the fulfillment of the parental duty to teach their beliefs and values to their own children.

The importance of the passing on of true religious values and beliefs is clear. It is apparent throughout the Scriptures. To take just one example, we read in the Psalms:

Failure to pass on the tradition leads to "a stubborn and rebellious generation" that fails to order itself in the manner commanded by God. On the contrary, the successful and diligent transmission of the tradition leads to generation after generation living in a right relationship to God and enjoying His favor and blessings. Faithful parents who understand their vocation and conscientiously seek to fulfill it can take great assurance from Proverbs XXII:6: "Train up a child in the way that he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Not only are parents commanded to teach moral values to their children, but also they are commanded to pass on the religious tradition and its observances. When God gave the Jewish people the feast of the Passover, He explicitly told them that they (and not other people) were to teach the significance of the feast to their children:

It is not sufficient for parents merely to participate in religious observances. It is not even sufficient for them to participate and to cause their children to participate with them. Instead, parents must explain and teach the meaning of the observances and lead their children to participate intelligently according to their developing abilities. This strongly suggests that all aspects of religious education are intended to occur in the context of the family and at the hands of the parents, even if the parents choose to delegate some other aspects of the education of their children to formally organized schools outside the home.

This leads directly to the most fundamental questions of all. To whom do people belong? To whom do children belong? The answer of the Western tradition is simple: all people belong to God, Who created them (whether or not they acknowledge Him). Children also first belong to God, but they are entrusted by Him to parents. He has given the parents (and parents alone) the responsibility of bringing them to realize their dependence upon Him and living lives in accordance with that fundamental fact of reality.

The real conflict between those who wish to see the state regulate all primary and secondary education and those who resist such efforts lies at this very basic level. The secular relativists base their worldview upon the implicit or explicit denial of their dependence upon God, Whose very existence they often reject. If they vaguely acknowledge some sort of deity, they certainly reject any objective moral order and any possibility of divine revelation.

If God does not exist and there is no objective, unchanging moral order, it is a small step to claim that all people belong to the government. And essentially that is what the educational establishment believes. They hold that children belong to the government, which naturally claims the right to determine where and how they will be educated. Parents likewise belong to the government and must not resist the government's efforts to indoctrinate their children through compulsory education at government-controlled and regulated schools. Clearly this philosophy or worldview is incompatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition. To effect a radical transformation of that tradition, its enemies must interrupt the transmission of the tradition by parents to their own children. The attempt to deny the parents' God-given right and duty to teach their children is the latest and perhaps gravest threat to that religious and cultural basis on which our civilization depends.

The future of our civilization and our faith hangs in the balance. Perhaps it is the vocation of Christianity in these latter days to return to the catacombs from which it sprang. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new age of martyrs for the faith. Each Christian must simply do his duty, holding the faith as he has received it and passing it on without alteration or diminution to the next generation. Parents in particular must be faithful in this regard. After all, today as in every age, their immortal souls and those of their children are at stake. As Lord Acton knew, the fundamental rights of man come from God, not the state, which at most may recognize man's God-given rights. No government can legitimately deny people rights that owe their origin to God; they are truly inalienable. Among these rights, we must clearly number the right and duty of parents to educate their own children. Any attempt by any government to frustrate the exercise of this right is a grave injustice and must be resisted by Christian parents, regardless of the consequences. The rights of the individual are primary, whether recognized by the state or not. Remaining faithful to God's will, His revelation, and His Church are not optional aspects of the Christian life. Rather they are its essence. Each individual must eventually render an account of his fidelity to God Almighty. May each of us at that time be found faithful and hear those blessed words of Jesus: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. ... Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."¹⁶

Gregory P. Randolph (second place winner) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of History at the University of Chicago, specializing in English ecclesiastical history. Graduating magna cum laude from Yale University in 1985, Mr. Randolph has received several academic awards, including the Richard H. Weaver Fellowship and E.K. and Lillian F. Bishop Foundation Scholarship.