1. Ch. 7 - Parents, Government, and Children - Authority Over Education in the Liberal Democratic State - Galston

I. INTRODUCTION

Discussion of educational choices for children within a liberal democratic context.
Author's personal decision to send son to a Jewish day school for heritage education and moral community.
Key assumptions:
- Government's right to require and regulate education.
- Parents' principal responsibility to ensure education.
- Parents have the freedom of choice in educational options.
Historical context of these assumptions, which were once contested but now widely accepted.

Historical change in attitudes towards compulsory education from the 19th century to the 20th.
John Stuart Mill considered state compulsion of education a moral duty but noted opposition.
By 1900, 32 states had compulsory education laws; universal by 1918.
Arguments in favor of public education included:
- Limited perfectionism: necessary for intellectual/moral development.
- Social obligations: maintaining economic independence and duties to family.
- Public goods: promoting civic beliefs, national unity, and economic growth.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): Struck down prohibition against teaching in modern languages; affirmed parental rights in educational context.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Invalidated Oregon's law requiring public school attendance, reinforcing parental authority.
Farrington v. Tokushige (1927): Overturned strict regulation of foreign-language schools in Hawaii, upholding parental rights.
Conclusion from these cases:
- Division of authority between parents and the state.
- State cannot impose undue restrictions on nonpublic educational institutions.
- Need for balance between civic education and individual freedoms.

Mill’s view on parental responsibility to educate children, emphasizing societal obligations.
State's interest in ensuring basic education for societal benefit.
Distinction between state control of education and parental choice necessary for diversity and individuality.
Importance of educational diversity for accommodating different human types and fostering individuality.

Expressive liberty defined as the ability to live according to one’s deeply held beliefs.
Parenting is a central task that shapes children’s values and identity.
State’s role in regulating parental authority is limited; must ensure a protected space for parental discretion.
Concerns about 'educational abuse' and overreach by the state in dictating educational content.

Parental expressive liberty: fundamental for parents to raise children in accordance with their values.
Balance between parental authority and children's rights as they mature.
Historical context illustrated through Wisconsin v. Yoder case, which recognized parental rights while considering children's liberty claims.

Parents must not override children’s futures through oppressive doctrines.
The state must respect boundaries of parental authority unless fundamental rights are violated.

Current prevalence of public schooling in the U.S. remains significant.
Emphasis on the moral and theoretical foundations supporting parental choice without undermining public education.
Need for respect for diverse family backgrounds and moral views in educational settings.
Importance of genuine civic unity based on uncoerced consent rather than imposed conformity.