Timothy Swaan

I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose CACR 24. Parents play a central role in their children’s education, and existing federal precedent already protects a parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing and educational path. The question here is not whether parents have rights. It is whether broad, absolute constitutional language is the right mechanism to address policy disagreements. CACR 24 would add to the Constitution that parents have the right to direct the education of their children and that this right “shall not be violated.” The amendment contains no limiting language and no acknowledgment of the State’s constitutional duty to provide an adequate public education. Public education necessarily operates through shared standards, curriculum frameworks, graduation requirements, and licensure rules. In a pluralistic society, disagreements about instructional content are inevitable. Constitutionalizing an undefined and absolute right risks turning ordinary ideological conflicts over curriculum, health education, history standards, or instructional methods into constitutional litigation. That shift matters. It moves authority away from locally elected school boards and the legislature and toward the judiciary. It creates legal uncertainty for teachers and administrators who are charged with implementing state standards consistently. Even if courts ultimately narrow the scope, the interim ambiguity would invite challenges and undermine stability in classroom instruction. If the legislature believes parental involvement needs strengthening, that can be addressed through statute with clear definitions and reasonable limits. The Constitution should not be amended with broad, undefined language that risks destabilizing an already complex educational system. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend CACR 24 as Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your consideration.