Last November I was summoned to jury duty, and like most people, I was dreading attending. The possibility of taking a week away from work made me anxious. Not only was Families In Schools (FIS) closing its programmatic activities for the year, but we were also heavily involved in a coalition advocating for a new contract between LAUSD and UTLA that could provide better quality education for all families.

The day finally came and I found myself sitting with more than 200 other people in the waiting room in hopes of not being assigned to a trial.  Before lunch, I was pulled from the waiting room and assigned to a robbery case along with 52 other potential jurors. I was excused as a juror during the second day, but my limited time there deeply impacted my work; not because of the time it took me away from my responsibilities – as I had previously thought – but because it significantly deepened my convictions that guide my advocacy work.

The case was presided by a judge who spent a lot of time explaining the role of the jury. Well, my wife is a devoted fan of Law and Order so I have seen my share of episodes which made me confident that I knew the basics .  The judge explained a very simple concept that triggered me to write this article: Jury of Facts vs. Jury of the Law. The judge explained that in our American judicial system, a jury of peers serves to assess the facts to determine if there is enough evidence to convict a defendant while the judge serves to ensure the proceedings are being carried according to the law.

The role of the jury in a public trial was so intriguing to me, simple but yet fundamental to the American way of life – based on key democratic principles. Our democratic system is grounded upon the belief that everyday people (not experts) can and should make critical decisions affecting their community (popular sovereignty); and that empowering individuals to make these decisions is the only way to bring true credibility to the system (justice and fairness).  Furthermore, these decisions are made through a public trial that helps jurors understand their role and provides access to all relevant evidence for them to make informed decisions (transparency). Granted, no one can claim that this system is perfect, but if given a choice, I would choose this model over any other. I am sure there are many community leaders out there working towards improving the system.

So how does this impact my work? If the judicial system of the United States can be based on day-to-day individuals making life or death decisions for peers, why can’t we have an educational system in which parents are empowered to make critical decisions affecting their schools? Aren’t these parents the same potential jurors making decisions in the courtroom? If they are treated capable jurors shouldn’t they be treated as capable decision makers in their children’s education? The reality is that thousands of families currently send their children to failing schools and their children also face a life or death situation: a life of opportunity, wellness and prosperity that a quality education provides or a life of poverty, disenfranchisement, sickness, prison, and even early death. The question is whether the education system can truly embrace and empower parents — especially low-income — to make critical decisions that affect their children.

For many middle/upper income families frustrated with the quality of public education, they have greater power to make choices on behalf of their children (moving, charters, private schools, homeschooling, tutoring, etc.) But for most low-income families, they are imprisoned in a failing system with limited options. Too many times the education system takes it upon itself to make the choice for low-income parents, wrongly assuming that the system knows best. Unfortunately, the public education system has yet to fully embrace basic democratic principles that are so common place in many of our other democratic institutions.

• How is the school system helping parents access, understand, and analyze critical data to make informed decisions?
• Do parents have access to workshops or other learning opportunities that can help them understand their role at home?
• How is the school system empowering parents to decide how to turnaround their failing schools?
• Are parents given alternative options if they are unsatisfied with their school? How does the school system embed these core democratic principles into its functioning, especially when critical decisions need to be made?

Surly we cannot leave the responsibilities of parents out of this equation: they are the student’s first and lifelong teacher. But, the bottom line is that the education system has its own set of responsibilities that must be fulfilled independent of parents – and one of those responsibilities is to function as a democratic institution.

It is now early January 2012 and these questions swirl in my head – just ask my wife. While daunting, they have refueled my passion in promoting parent engagement. After my jury duty experience, I can see that Families In Schools advocates for more than just better engagement of parents: we are advocating for a more democratic education system which, ultimately, all Americans deserve and want for their communities.

I hope you can join us in this work!

Oscar E. Cruz