Quantcast
Home / education / Parents can’t opt out of Common Core testing, AG says

Parents can’t opt out of Common Core testing, AG says

Students620

Parents of students in public schools have no legal right to withdraw their children or opt out of statewide standardized tests, Attorney General Mark Brnovich concluded today.

In a formal opinion, Brnovich acknowledged that state law does permit parents to exempt their children from certain learning materials and activities they find objectionable. That even includes keeping them out of a class or lesson where the material is being used or discussed.

But Brnovich, in response to a question raised by state schools chief Diane Douglas, said standardized tests are “separate and distinct” from such materials or activities. And he said nothing in the exemption law specifically includes a right to withdraw from standardized tests.

The attorney general also rejected Douglas’ suggestion that parents gained new rights in 2010 when the Legislature passed a “Parents Bill of Rights.”

That law, he said details the obligation of local school boards to ensure they inform parents about their rights to opt out of certain assignments. It also includes the ability to refuse to have children immunized and the right not to have children taught about AIDS.

But nowhere in that law, Brnovich said, did lawmakers include testing.

“The Legislature’s failure to include such a right is especially telling because the statute specifically mentions the ‘right to review test results’ and the `right to receive a school report card,’” he wrote.

Yet Brnovich pointed out that, even in amending the law in 2010, the Legislature did not see fit to include opting out of testing in that list. And he said that when lawmakers make an extensive list like this, it is presumed they know what is not on it.

Brnovich said parents do have the right to direct the education of their children.

He said, though, that involves whether to send a child to a public district or charter school, a private or parochial school, or to choose to school a child at home.

“It does not allow a parent who sends a child to a public school to prescribe the details of that child’s education,” Brnovich wrote.

The formal opinions of a state attorney general of the meaning of a state law are not the same as a court ruling. But they can be cited by parties who argue a case and provide a legal defense to schools that follow the ruling.

3 comments

  1. Another lawsuit? I think so –

  2. read the 14th amendment dude.

  3. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents possess the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The Court also declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35) The Supreme Court criticized a state legislature for trying to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.) In recognition of both the right and responsibility of parents to control their children’s education, the Court has stated, “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for the obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.” (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

ducey-home01a

Ducey’s mansion is yours for $8.75 million (access required)

The governor is hoping to get $8.75 million for the French farmhouse mansion that sits on a gated two-plus acre parcel. Records in the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office show Ducey and his family built the home in 2009, a year before he was elected state treasurer on a parcel of land he has purchased four years earlier for $1.82 million.