Here’s a paradox. Many people against school choice argue parents cannot make good, informed choices about education. Parents shouldn’t be trusted to manage their children's schooling. However, now with coronavirus dictating American’s daily schedules, bureaucracy has tied the hands of thoughtful, public school teachers. Although they are willing to help students at home, in many situations they can’t. Instead, administrations are encouraging parents to make sure that their children keep learning.

There’s an attitude of “something is better than nothing” here. But why, when the system is in crisis, are we willing to give parents more power? And in contrast why, when an individual child is in crisis, are the parents often made into an enemy of the education system? Take, for example, the story of a child who experienced brutal harassment at school for over two years... 

Deminski v. The State Bd. of Educ.

In 1997, the NC Supreme Court ruled that children in NC are entitled to a “sound, basic education.” This ruling gave NC education a qualitative component. But now, a recent case in the NC court of appeals has defined what the “sound, basic” education means for the families in NC, and it is hard to imagine that families will want any part of what the state has to offer.

In Deminski v. The State Bd. of Educ., the Plaintiffs’ lawyers contended that bullying and sexual abuse deprived several students of access to a sound basic education. But a 2-1 majority of judges agreed that the state constitution is still providing the opportunity for a “sound basic education” even if a child is experiencing “repeated” and “severe” bullying and ongoing sexual harassment. 

Mitch Kokai, a writer for the Carolina Journal describing the harassment of these elementary students, wrote, “Even the judges ruling against the students labeled the alleged behavior ‘extremely disturbing.’ ‘[N]o child should be subjected to this sort of harassment at school or anywhere else,’ according to the majority opinion.’’

And yet the students experienced ongoing harassment for over two years, ultimately falling far behind in school, and having to transfer. According to Kokai, the only action taken by administrators was to suggest that it would “take time” for the harassment to end, but no substantive measures were taken.

In other words, the 2 judges and the school district ultimately asserted that a guarantee of a sound, basic education would not include freedom from “repeated abuse.” According to this definition, a child could experience significant abuse and still be receiving their constitutional rights. For example, a child’s head could be repeatedly flushed down a toilet during math class, but as long as an adequately-paid adult with the correct education certificate is somewhere in the building talking about math, that child has the “opportunity for a sound basic education.”

Describing similar concerns with the ruling, the dissenting judge stated:

[I]t would be credulous to differentiate, for constitutional purposes, between a student whose teacher refuses to teach math and a student whose teacher fails to intervene when other students’ harassing and disruptive behavior prevents her from learning it… In the latter instance, the instructional environment may be so disordered, tumultuous, or even violent that the student is denied the opportunity to receive a sound basic education.

Now consider the parent perspective. Would you rather send your child to a school where administrators claimed to have “done what was required of them” but failed to protect children from severe abuse and sexual harassment? Or would you rather send your child to a place where families are treated as customers to be served and pleased? Because low-income students cannot move to a better school district or choose a private school, public systems like this one know they do not have to “care for their customers” or even protect them from abuse. They only have to provide what is legally required of them. It is no one wonder thousands of NC parents are enrolling their students in public charter schools, private schools, or choosing to homeschool. 

Parent choice is important because no administrator (or judge) will ever care more for a child than a parent, as exemplified in the sad case of three abused Pitt County elementary students. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, includes this phrasing in its assertion on the right to education, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” North Carolina needs to update its understanding of what a “right to an education” means in the 21st century.

Maybe this crisis of the system will lead more people to consider what type of education the children of your community have a right to, and ask, “Is it enough?”