Darcie Cimarusti served on the school board of Highland Park, New Jersey, from 2013 to 2022. She is the communications director of the Network for Public Education. This article appeared in the Bedford Gazette.
She writes:
I have been a local school board member since my daughters, now 11th-graders, were in second-grade. In that time, I have been involved in education policy discussions at the local, state and national levels on issues related to the rights of LGBTQ+ students, standardized testing and the privatization of public education. The rise of the so-called “parental rights” movement in public education has been one of the thorniest, most perplexing issues I have encountered.
There is no doubt that parents play a crucial role in the education of their children. Who would dare argue that they don’t? But in the face of the anti-critical race theory, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-social emotional learning, anti-diversity equity and inclusion juggernaut unleashed by heavily funded, right-leaning astroturf parent groups such as Moms for Liberty, it has become imperative that we have an honest discussion about how much say parents should have in what is (or is not) taught in our public schools.
My district, unlike many, is racially, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse, with 31 languages spoken in the homes of our students. Educating such a diverse student body presents many challenges and requires a nuanced approach to policy and practice that ensures all students have equal opportunities to learn, thrive and grow. While it is easy for school leaders to say they embrace diversity, equity and inclusion, it’s far too challenging to implement policies promoting those principles.
I have spent my time on the school board helping to develop systems that ensure decisions are made collaboratively and with as many voices at the decision-making table as possible. This means making space not only for administrators, teachers, parents and students but also ensuring that historically marginalized groups are represented.
Decisions that affect students should never be based on the whims of those with the most privilege or power and indeed not on who has the loudest voice in the room.
However, the latter has become the hallmark of parental rights activists. They attend meeting after meeting, berating, shouting down and even making death threats against school board members. During the pandemic, battles over masks erupted at podiums at far too many school board meetings across the country and quickly morphed into demands to ban books, censor curriculum and muzzle “woke” teachers that parents accused of “grooming” their children.
In the 2022 midterm elections, parental rights activists were on the ballot in numerous states. With the support and endorsement of Moms for Liberty, they ran campaigns to become school board members in districts in red, blue and purple states. Moms for Liberty operates county chapters that aim to serve as watchdogs “over all 13,000 school districts.” Chapters empower parents to “defend their parental rights” and “identify, recruit & train liberty-minded parents to run for school boards.”
The “anti-woke” agenda espoused by Moms for Liberty endorsed school board candidates who had the greatest successes in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis proudly declared the state being “where woke goes to die.” But in many other parts of the country, parental rights candidates lost their elections, with even conservative political operatives acknowledging that many of their campaigns were “too hyperbolic.”
Chaos has already erupted in several districts where they succeeded and won board majorities, with newly formed, inexperienced boards firing superintendents or forcing them to resign. One board voted to ban the teaching of critical race theory just hours after being sworn in.
After a decade of experience as a school board member, there’s one thing I can say for sure: The majority of parents, teachers and community members do not respond well to instability and disruption in their local public schools. When school boards run amok and rash decisions make headlines, communities work quickly to restore calm. If parental rights school board majorities continue to govern recklessly, they will undoubtedly face a backlash from voters.
Creating and implementing sound school policies and practices that respect and affirm all students requires collaboration. It does not allow for the divisive, polarizing rhetoric and impetuous, rash decision-making that have become the calling cards of the so-called parental rights movement.

Americans should be able to discern who good people are by reading and listening to influencers’ stated beliefs and actions. Ms. Cimarusti has the best interests of her community at heart. She’s a good person.
In contrast, media reported today about the allegations against the head of CPAC (Republican), Matt Schlapp. He and his wife promote their brand of
a religion that Christ wouldn’t recognize. There appear to be few, if any, Republicans who don’t feel entitled and who don’t exploit religion for their own gain.
LikeLike
Thank you for this excellent post. Chaos is not beneficial to public schools and students. The extreme right in this country thrives on lies, propaganda and unprovoked attacks on democracy. We can thank Citizens United for fomenting much of the dissention as the Koch network and other wealthy right wing radicals fund the chaos and hide behind all their dark money.
LikeLike
About the conservative religious underpinnings of groups hostile to public education-
Masspoliticsprofs.org posted in 2021, “Koch Connections and Sham Grassroots of Parents…” Matt Schlapp is a graduate of Notre Dame and, as head of CPAC, he is the face of conservative political campaigns that target the common good. He’s in the news today. The allegations are interesting in light of the Republican churches hostile to public schools coupled with the Koch network’s targeting of public education.
At the YAR site, Schlapp is identified in this way, “he left the White House (Bush) to run the Wash. DC offices of Koch Industries.”
LikeLike
What must be understood about groups like this that are sprouting up for virtually every issue, not just education. They then provide the “constituency” for “reform” that policymakers can cite as authoritative although, as we here well know, their interest is in destroying and replacing with new profit making entities, with the profits going to their choices. We must all understand one important thing: this is part of a political strategy for ALL issues, not just education. If we make it just about education, we will lose because education has very rarely ever–I would argue, if ever–been a source of political decision making for voters.
They want to destroy, not disrupt. See every department and agency head in the Idiot’s administration. Their goal is to install administrators (adminimals for you newbies) who will slowly drain public systems of resources. An apathetic public will continue to ignore it and parents will continue to bake cupcakes for school sports events and be sure they are doing something to support public schools. Meanwhile the system slowly dies because administrators are more concerned about following bad rules than they are in the welfare of students, teachers, and the communities they ostensibly serve. I see it in action in my community.
It acts like an undetected cancer that will only be treated when it is too late to stop it from committing murder to its host and suicide for itself. Moliere summed it up in a play ostensibly about medicine but is actually a metaphor for education policy and everything affected by this strategy: “It is better to die through following the rules than to recover through violating them.”
LikeLike
I live in a very conservative area. While driving home from an errand, I heard an ad on the radio for a company called Patriot Supply Company. They are “doomsday preppers.” The ad listed foods and kits that can be purchased for “these uncertain times in order to prepare for what’s coming.” It all sounded very ominous to me.
LikeLike
Ominous sells!
(And selling is all that matters.)
LikeLike
Darcie hit the nail on the head!
LikeLike
This “Parental Rights” thing is getting way out of hand. These so-called parent groups act as if whatever they want should be listened to and then get done their way. My question is–how should school boards vote on issues if half of their constituents favor one side, but the other half favor the opposite side? What if one of those sides is extremely vocal & passionate about their point of view, while the other side is just quiet & logical while expressing their views? And how many parents can actually attend, or even speak at these meetings? Who should the board listen to? Parental involvement is wonderful and important, however parents need to understand that just because they want certain policies enacted or changed, it doesn’t mean that they automatically get their way. Board members, or any other public officials were elected to use their best judgement to formulate policies that are best for the majority of their constituents. Just because you elected someone does not mean that you then have the power to manage their every decision. No decision will please every constituent, so we all need to learn & understand that our elected officials were elected to make decisions that may not always please everyone, but ultimately we all have to accept those decisions & if we don’t like them, go vote in the next election.
LikeLike
Parents in a public system have a lot more rights than in a private school, and their children have a lot more rights in a public school as well. What parents don’t have is the right to take over the schools and force everyone to follow their world view and agenda.
LikeLike
Follow the money and it almost always leads to ALEC or someone similar with wealth and power that wants to get rid of anything they do not agree with.
These groups did not sprout from the grassroots level, from the bottom. They are funded from the top.
LikeLike
In Alberta, Canada, private schools are now funded by public monies, which makes no sense to me. They are still charging parents to send their kids to private schools, but that money is now going to profits. Education institutions should not be in business to make profits. Cirriculums are changing even in public schools, to emphasize employment futures over life futures, and to cover past atrocities committed by white folk. This is being done not be school boards, but by yhe provincial government itself.
I’m not really sure of the point I am trying to make, but allowing governments to decide how to teach children, and what can be taught seems to be a big step backwards. The Moms for Liberty sound like they qre doing the same thing. Dumbing down education, if you will pardon the term!
LikeLike
“Education institutions should not be in business to make profits.”
I have no problem with someone making profits off education. . . as long as no public monies (tax monies) are used by the profit making entity. Let the vaunted free market (sic) decide.
“but allowing governments to decide how to teach children, and what can be taught seems to be a big step backwards.”
No, it’s not a “big step backwards”, at least here in the USA, as public education is one of the most fundamental and the closest government institution to the common person that most people will ever deal with.
Now the question might be better stated: Who in public education should determine the what and how to teach? Should it be the teachers (yes, in my view), the adminimals/school boards (only as a formal process to review and check what the teachers decide), or the parents (whom the teachers could take into consideration as needed), the students (they don’t have the life experience(s) to be able to make those decisions)?
LikeLike
Right now in Alberta, it is the conservative white Christian mostly male politicians. That is what I meant by government, as they have a huge majority, at least for a few more months. deSantis could take lessons from them!
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
No problem. You can’t read my mind. Or I yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A recent election in the state of Victoria, Australia, delivered a result which was not predicted. Media reports focused on the most vocal critics and predicted the incumbent government would fail, or at least suffer a much reduced majority from its landslide victory at the last election where they secured 55 seats. The result this time – they won 56 seats. Analysis indicated that the quiet majority made the decisions, and not the loud ones. A lesson for the wise I think and for good governance.
LikeLike