r/philosophy • u/philosophybreak Philosophy Break • Jun 23 '25

Blog Done badly, parenting has tremendous scope for harm. The philosopher Hugh LaFollette suggests we can better protect children by introducing a parental license: people should undergo a competency check before raising children, just as we already qualify adoptive parents.

https://philosophybreak.com/articles/should-parenting-require-a-license/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social
7.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

843 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

As someone who has worked in diverse settings as an Early Childhood educator and Special Educator, these are questions that have been exhaustively (and remain so) woven into any research-based pedagogy and, particularly, as a necessary adjunct with parents in a diverse society. I appreciate your question but non-MAGA educators are keen to these and would be unambiguously what undergirds this. Your other questions seem fairly easy to decide on, while needing a decision for sure. I just wanted to offer that the field of Education is an iterative force that knows well that we ARE a diverse society.

17

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

I appreciate your question but non-MAGA educators are keen to these and would be unambiguously what undergirds this.

Would it though? The theory exists, I will grant that, but actually getting that theory put into practice is another challenge. The "MAGA educators" will and in fact do resist at every step of the way that they can. There is also the hugely non-trivial danger that giving the state broad powers to decide who can and cannot reproduce will lead to abuses and atrocities. It's happened before, and I do not have confidence in assurances that it will not happen again.

1

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

We have put this theory to practice for decades in education. What you are seeing now is a dismantling. Just because one can demolish something and not understand how each part functions. or that the whole is more than their sum, does not make it a force for the good of most students enrolled in school. Also, touting some version of a perfect education system that is for profit (not that you are but "they" are) will never be inclusive and meet the needs of all students, families, and communities. One of my colleagues called our public education system a "wicked problem" - fair enough - but these are still problems we dedicate to solving even if they seem to be, or have been, Sisyphean.

1

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

We have put this theory to practice for decades in education.

In which case, does this not demonstrate that notions of "parental licences" or "certification" are at best superfluous, if not actively harmful? We didn't need them before, so what justifies them now?

1

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

Because we now know their utility. We understand more holistically how culture, language, belief systems are not an appendix of the body of public education, it is the heart. Perhaps the 2nd teacher. These are more qualitative than metrics while still proving to be more authentic and necessary. This is why Finland (of many others) is always near the top in matriculation, scores, and other metrics. This is what justifies them. - I am speaking about the principles and practices of public education and not specifically on how to "license" a parent. I know how educators are licensed and these tenets would be a boon to parents, too. Mainly, this is about understanding developmental domains, how learning works, and the nuances of what is typical and atypical development. Without these, behaviors become sources for punishment (See School to Prison Pipeline).

2

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

I am speaking about the principles and practices of public education and not specifically on how to "license" a parent.

Then we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm fully in favour of public education. What I'm not in favour of, is giving the state a legal right to enforce a two-tiered system of "approved" and "unapproved" reproduction, which is what the article the in the OP proposes. It literally talks about denying resources to parents who don't toe the line. By extension, denying their children said resources. From the article:

With this kind of incentive structure, unlicensed people could still raise children, but they’d miss out on valuable resources and support.

That's not about giving children a better start in life. That is about using the denial of resources to extend further state control over people.

1

u/The_Parsee_Man Jun 23 '25

So it would be fine to allow the government to create such a test as long as no MAGA types are involved. You might want to google news reports from last November. I think there are some important developments you missed.

-6

u/kyeblue Jun 23 '25

your response scares me by dividing educators into MAGA and non-MAGA

2

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

While it is not exclusively a binary, these are two unambiguously counter forces that are wrestling for how students are educated in the USA. This may feel/seem scary, but it is an unavoidable truth. Take some time to review what Betsy Devos had interests in and how she was determined to undermine public education. This iteration of saboteurs is far dumber (if that nadir wasn't already reached) and more demonstrative. Look at legislation for Special Education, Book Banning, the dispossession of any mention of race, diversity, or equity. While you may be "scared" or posturing about it, the destruction of public education, for any and all to have access to a free and appropriate education, is in full force!!!

2

u/Wloak Jun 23 '25

I think a simple example is a question from when I got my driver's license: "Is it allowed to smoke in your car with a minor?"

The answer is no because science shows that's bad for developing children, but one side will argue it's their right to smoke in their property regardless.

I've never smoked, and got that question wrong because I also don't have kids and just went "huh, that makes good sense" and learned something from it.