The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, yet the United States has failed to ratify it, despite the efforts of countless supporters. Opponents of ratification in the United States have been effective at preventing ratification by asserting that the CRC will damage family relationships and undermine parental authority, among other things (Fagan, Sauders, & Fragoso, 2009; Farris, 2005; Schlafly, 1993). The author believes--as do many in the pro-ratification community--that these concerns are unwarranted for a number of reasons. First, the language of the CRC is clear with regard to the important role of parents. Second, the author believes that most of the rights contained in the CRC are already granted to children under U.S. law. Third, the CRC can be ratified with statements that can address parental rights and other issues in a manner sufficient to satisfy opponents (Smolin, 2006). Fourth, treaties in the United States are often ratified with non-self-execution clauses, meaning that they require further legislative action in order for them to become enforceable. This article is grounded in the author's belief that educators are the professional group most uniquely poised to safeguard and further the rights of children. Educators understand the needs of the whole child and can help bridge the space between policymakers, the public, communities, and families. Here, the author discusses two broad categories for children's rights-based educator action: action inside and outside of the classroom. Inside the classroom, she suggests that teachers take a global, rights-based approach to some of their instruction. Outside the classroom, she suggests the following actions: (1) advocate for CRC ratification; (2) promote policies that recognize children's needs and respect children's dignity; and (3) support instruction and assessment that reflect the true purposes of education and recognize children's education rights.