The role of parents in the education of their children
AS a father of three basic education schoolers myself, and as a lawyer for many private schools, I have come across the term “helicopter parent” several times in discussions.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “helicopter parent” as a parent who is closely involved with his child’s life and tries to control it too much, especially the child’s education.
Observing how education is today, there is an increasing pressure for learners to do well and exceed expectations not only in school but in all aspects of their life. Some say this is caused by social media influencing parents to be highly competitive to secure a better life for their children patterned after media and showbiz personalities perhaps, and so many of them tend to micromanage their children to give them that added boost to be academically excellent.
This leads to some parents being too sensitive, overly aggressive and controlling with school administrators and teachers where their children are obtaining their education.
In managing conflicts between parents and schools, understanding their roles in education is very important.
So who is in charge of educating a child? The schools or their parents?
Art. II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution recognizes child-rearing as a natural and primary right and duty of parents. In fact, even when the Constitution makes elementary education compulsory under Art. XIV, Section 2 (2), it states so with the caveat that it is not to be construed as limiting the rights of parents to rear their children. Indeed, the rearing of children, which necessarily includes their education and discipline, belongs to the parents before anyone else.
The qualifier, “primary” connotes the primary right of parents, a superior right over the State in the upbringing of their children. Thus, the choice of school whether public or private, the age when children start formal schooling, the platforms available, in person or online, are all matters within the discretion of parents.
‘The child is not a mere creature of the State’
In the landmark case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, when the state of Oregon passed a law that compelled parents to send their children, ages 8 to 16, to public schools only, the US Supreme Court struck down the said law for being unconstitutional as it deprives the parents of their right to direct the education of their children. The opinion of the court in this landmark case provides that, “The child is not a mere creature of the State.”
While parents have the primary role in child-rearing, this is not exclusive but rather complementary to the State’s role as parens patriae in protecting minors. Thus, in Spark v. Quezon City, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of curfew ordinances and explained that they only amount to a minimal — albeit reasonable — infringement upon a parent’s right to bring up his or her child, particularly in allowing them in public places without parental accompaniment during curfew hours.
Special parental authority of teachers
When parents send their children to formal education, parental authority is shared with the school, teachers and school administrators because they are clothed by law with the same parental authority under the principle of in loco parentis. Under this principle, teachers and school administrators exercise parental authority over the learners while they are under their supervision, instruction or custody.
While special parental authority gives teachers and school administrators special rights over their students as if they were their own children, it also gives them great responsibility under the law. Such that when there is negligence in supervision and discipline of students, teachers and school administrators may be held liable for damages or injuries as a result thereof under the in loco parentis principle.
Moreover, student enrollment creates a school community composed of parents, schools and students. Each of them has responsibilities under applicable laws. Schools are mandated by state laws and regulations to deliver quality education. On the other hand, students have the concomitant duty to study and obey school rules and regulations.
This duty is extended to parents as they are called upon by law to cooperate and coordinate in the implementation of school programs, both curricular and co-curricular. In other words, they also must abide by the school’s rules and regulations binding upon their children. After all, education is also a contract, and as such it is reciprocal and gives rise to bilateral obligations between the parties — parents and schools.
The parents’ power to choose schools, necessarily includes the power to “unchoose” them. In the case of Yap Chin Fa v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court resolved that if the relationship between the school and the parents have become so strained, in arguing and fighting about implementation of certain policies, the school may ask the parents concerned to look for another school elsewhere for their children.
On the other hand, parents and students may invoke the State’s intervention when abuses or violations of applicable laws and regulations happen in the school. The Department of Education for basic education and the Commission on Higher Education for colleges and universities may act on these complaints through the administrative enforcement of rules affecting the authority of schools to operate, and revoke their permits or recognition if found to be noncompliant with reasonable regulations and standards after due process.