No. 32
October 1, 1999
Gwynne Coburn*

The bill, AB 33, by Assemblywoman Nell Soto (D-Pomona), establishes a home visitation program managed by teachers. Touted as a way to save California’s failing public education system, this measure would seriously infringe on individual rights and harm the already-strained public school system.

In addition to traditional classroom responsibilities, teachers often play the roles of parent, psychologist, nurse, and counselor, and do not need the added responsibility of being home monitors. While this program purports to strengthen the bond between parent and child, it might actually further deteriorate and undermine the role of the parent in the student’s life.

As the state begins to take over more of the responsibility of the parent by physically coming into a home to check on a child, the parent may see this as an opportunity to abdicate his or her role. The proposed home visitation program raises serious individual freedom and privacy issues, and runs on questionable motives.

Participating schools will receive between $25,000-40,000 if they meet the criteria set forth in the legislation. These funds are contingent upon 50 percent of parents and 50 percent of teachers agreeing to sign the parental compact requiring periodic home visits or participation in community forums. Again, money becomes the incentive for participation in a new state project.

It is not out of the question to wonder what types of pressure might be brought to bear on parents and teachers alike so that schools can be assured of the required 50 percent and therefore their extra funding. And what if parents do not sign?

Will their children be treated differently, targeted by the school as a kind of second-class citizen? In the worst-case scenario, the student would be targeted by child protective services as having parents deemed to be uninvolved, uncaring, and potentially abusive, simply because they value their family’s privacy.

And if home visits occur, how can the state ensure the safety of teachers as they enter potentially hostile environments? Teachers, who are not trained to enter homes with drug abuse and violence, may face such situations in the homes of their students, putting themselves, as well as the students, at risk. It is an incredible responsibility that teachers should not be mandated to shoulder.

Conversely, parents are at great risk of having their personal parental choices scrutinized. Every parent has a different idea as to what is best for his or her child, and parents should not have to worry that an outsider may come in and reprimand them for exercising their rights as parents.

Forms of discipline perfectly acceptable to many parents, especially those of different cultures, may obligate a visiting teacher to report them to authorities. Once a parent is accused of child abuse, the stain is often impossible to erase. Aside from these difficulties, there is little evidence that the visitation program will improve education or prevent child abuse.

Current visitation programs, such as the Healthy Families Association Initiative, show little effectiveness at preventing child abuse. There is scant evidence that the more ambitious Soto measure would either prevent child abuse or improve education.

California parents should encourage greater public debate over these new efforts to extend the nanny state. For his part, Governor Davis has shown himself willing to veto bills that are unreasonable and violate personal rights.