The distribution of educational authority between families and the state is a fundamental, and fundamentally contentious, topic of modern education. According to theorists, whether parents have a natural right to determine the scope and nature of their children’s education, and the extent to which states are justified to limit this right in the interest of either children or society, is one of the core normative dilemmas of democratic education (Barry 2001; Gutmann 1999). 

Historically, opinions were split along partisan lines (Ansell & Lindvall 2021). Challenging the educational authority of parents (and churches) was an integral element of liberals’ quest for more equal and democratic societies. The resistance to this program, in turn, was fundamental in shaping the mobilisation of the modern conservative movement. The conflict over educational authority therefore constitutes a foundational moment that shaped both the emergence modern party systems (Lipset & Rokkan 1967; Kalyvas 1996) and regional variation in the institutionalisation of education systems. 

The relevance, and partisan nature, of the debate over educational authority in the period leading to the establishment of modern welfare states are undisputed. The same cannot be said for the more recent decades, which have been characterised first by the expansion (1960s-1990s) and then by the retrenchment of welfare states (1990s-…). Some educational sociologists describe this as a period in which global norms and a-political approaches to education erased partisan and regional variations in educational views (Plank & Boyd 1994; Meyer, Kamens, Benavot 1991). Similarly, some political scientists argue that, especially since the 1980s, an inter-partisan consensus has emerged on the need to expand formalised (i.e, state-regulated) education (Jakobi 2011). 

A second set of studies contests these findings. Several authors highlight that some of the most controversial debates of post-WWII education have revolved around educational authority, with issues such as the support (or opposition) to vouchers, religious schooling, or choice increasingly being integrated into dominant ideological programs (Apple 2006; Gingrich 2011). Others contend that the support for expanding formalised education is not as inter-partisan as it might seem at first sight. While left-wing parties are more positive towards increasing provision and regulation of compulsory education, the right’s focus on higher and further education largely targets adults, thus protecting family authority over children (Ansell 2010) – with some regional variation (Busemeyer 2015).

The first view suggests that, after 1945, the conflict over educational authority has essentially lost its relevance and partisan nature, whereas for the second, educational authority continues to constitute a contested dimension of educational politics and discourse. So far, however, we lacked the empirical data to discriminate between these two views and therefore to systematically answer questions such as: is the family vs state dimension still a salient issue of the contemporary political discourse over education? If it is, can we observe varying partisan-ideological and/or regional approaches to educational authority, or have these given way to an inter-partisan “wide-ranging societal support of education” (Jakobi 2011, 190)? 

Our paper draws on a novel dataset to systematically investigate how parties, as the main representatives of contemporary political-ideological movements, have positioned themselves in the family vs state debate over educational authority since 1960 in 20 Western democracies (including 16 European democracies).

This study investigates variation and change in the main historical party families’ discourse over educational authority since 1960. We define educational authority as the extent to which families, respectively the state, should determine: (1) how much formalised (i.e., state-regulated) education children must attend (extent); (2) the kind of education they must attend (kind); (3) individual pathways and exposure to educational content (individual exposure). Since we are interested in the age in which individuals are considered unable to protect their own interests, we focus on the debate concerning ages 0-18 and ignore discussions about state-involvement in further and tertiary education. We use two methods to systematically analyse parties’ discourse over educational authority. Both are based on an original database that we call FamStat. This is a text database that includes all sentences related to educational authority as defined earlier mentioned in the electoral manifestoes and programs of the main liberal, conservative, left-wing (social-democratic and communist) as well as far-right parties in 20 Western democracies from 1960 to 2022. We code and analyse this data in two ways. First, to systematically explore variation in views on educational authority across time, regions, and parties we perform a quantitative correlational analysis. For this purpose, we code, for each manifesto, whether it supports more family or more state involvement in regulating the extent of formalised education (extending/limiting period of formalised education), kind of formalised education (more/less involvement of families in decision-making and curriculum content), and individual exposure to formalised education (more/less rights for families with regards to school choice, private provision, and curricular exceptions). We then match this data with information on political ideology, government participation, and ownership of private schooling to assess potential drivers of systematic change and variation. Second, we use qualitative content analysis to delve deeper into the meaning of partisan discourse on educational authority. This part of the study explores which specific topics are being politicised and the discursive nature of this politicisation. Relying on framing theory (Snow 2004), a specific focus is put on the justifications parties provide to support their views (e.g., labour market needs, social cohesion, equality) and how these relate to dominant political ideologies.

Children are typically considered unable to protect their own interests, including their educational interests. This project explores to what extent political ideologies (and regional variations thereof) still shape views on whom should act in their lieu when it comes to education: their family and or the state. Preliminary findings show that there is no one world of educational authority discourse. Unlike in the 19th century, parties now do largely agree that the state should be given a role either in providing and regulating education. Regardless of their ideological affiliation, parties also endorse the need for the state to ensure that schools convey specific types of content (and norms) to the next generations – be this religious education, national pride, or tolerance for minorities. Other dimensions of educational authority, however, continue to be highly contested, and highly partisan. Ongoing – and increasing – disagreement exists on the need to expand formalised education to both older and younger children, with conservative parties recently joining far-right parties’ scepticism in this regard. Parties are even more divided when it comes to parents’ rights to determine the kind of education their own child is exposed to. Here, a more communitarian left-wing position opposes more individualistic and family-centred conservative views, with liberal and far-right parties taking a middle position. This suggests that ideologies still play a role in shaping educational views – and resulting education systems and worlds.

Ansell, Ben W. 2010. From the Ballot to the Blackboard. The Redistributive Political Economy of Education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Ansell, Ben W, and Johannes Lindvall. 2021. Inward Conquest. The Political Origins of Modern Public Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Apple, Michael W. 2006. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Falmer Press. Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Busemeyer, Marius R. 2014. Skills and Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gingrich, Jane. 2011. Making Markets in the Welfare State. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gutmann, Amy. 1999. Democratic Education. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press. Jakobi, Anja P. 2011. “Political Parties and the Institutionalisation of Education: A Comparative Analysis of Party Manifestos.” Comparative Education Review 55 (2): 189–209. Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1996. The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. New York: Cornell University Press. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan, eds. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignment. New York: Free Press. Meyer, John W, David H Kamens, and Aaron Benavot, eds. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses. London: Falmer Press. Plank, David N, and William Lowe Boyd. 1994. “Antipolitics, Education, and Institutional Choice: The Flight from Democracy.” American Educational Research Journal 31 (2): 263–81. Snow, David A. 2004. “Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A Snow, Sarah A Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 380–412. London: Blackwell Publishing.