Purchase a subscription to the Journal of Markets & Morality to get access to the most recent issues.
Learn more at MarketsAndMorality.com | Subscribe
Read our free quarterly publication that has interviews with important religious figures and articles bettering the free and virtuous society. Visit R&L today.
Phone: (616) 454-3080
Fax: (616) 454-9454
Contact Us Online
Request a Speaker
Subscibe to Print/Email
Refer a Friend
What is RSS?
Acton PowerBlog
Latest Site Updates
Acton Events
Radio Free Acton Podcast
Acton Commentary
© 2013 Acton Institute | Privacy Policy
School Choice and Parental Duty: Returning Subsidiarity to Education
With the upcoming presidential elections, much has been made by both candidates about the importance they place on the education agenda. Political platforms notwithstanding, such national attention offers an excellent opportunity to revisit education policy from a moral perspective. State monopolies on education violate the moral principle of subsidiarity by restricting or eliminating the parental role in education.
If we are to accept the principle of subsidiarity, integral to Christian social teaching, it is clear that the current systems of education in many states need to reemphasize the roles of parents. Subsidiarity teaches that social groupings nearest to a challenge should meet those challenges first, before resorting to larger or more remote groups for help. The classic Christian teaching that parents are first and foremost responsible for the education of their children is a perfect example of how the subsidiarity principle affects a social issue. When a school supplies education for a child, it should be because the parent seeks this aid, by choice, from a school.
Freedom to act on their children’s behalf is necessary if parents are to fulfill their duties. We can identify in Scripture the early duty of parents to educate their children in the Law of God: “and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7) This biblical duty has further implications for the general education of children. Pope Paul VI further clarifies:
Addressing the moral foundations referred to by Paul VI, as well as the many practical issues surrounding choice, a conference was hosted by Children First CEO America, in Grand Rapids, Michigan on May 17. Speakers from states where school choice experiments have been initiated detailed the positive results. Whether they be vouchers or tax credits, or home, charter, or private schools, all facets were found to further empower parents in the education of their children. Commenting on school choice through vouchers, John Norquist, Mayor of Milwaukee, said:
And thus a moral outcome of a free market is once again illustrated. In a free market of education, parents who are free to choose the best schooling for their children enter into a mutually beneficial exchange with an institution of learning.
The emphasis here needs to be on “mutually beneficial”; sadly, many of the neediest children benefit not at all when trapped in bad government-run schools. Dick DeVos, President of the Amway Corporation and keynote speaker at the Children First CEO America conference, remarked, “People, more specifically, parents, were crying out for help, for deliverance from schools that are failing to educate their children. Parents want their children to have the same dreams and hopes that you and I grew up with!”
Newark, New Jersey, City Councilman Cory Booker added a distinctly Christian note. “We are all children of God. And reflected in God’s image, we share His creativity. We need the freedom to let our children attend schools that can hone that creativity to the best of their abilities.”
Civic leaders as well as leaders in business and education are increasingly coming together on an issue of vital importance. The Christian reflection of Paul VI rings forth with special force and clarity today: there must be “no kind of school monopoly, for this is opposed to the native rights of the human person, to the development and spread of culture, to the peaceful association of citizens and to the pluralism that exists today in ever so many societies.” ( Gravissimum Educationis, #21)
Comments
PUBLICATIONS
Recent commentary
Recent commentary by this author