The United States Supreme Court just ruled in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case that public schools must respect a parent’s freedom of religion and affirmed the right of parents to direct their child’s education.
The case centered on whether a Maryland school district infringed on the religious freedom of parents who were denied notice and the option to opt out their children from district-approved books on gender and sexuality at odds with their beliefs. Part of the issue was whether the system of notice and opt-outs could work. The court ruling allows for opt-outs to remain and recognizes that public schools must respect these fundamental rights of parents.
Sutherland Institute welcomes the court’s decision as an important protection for parents’ rights.
Though this specific case is now settled, the ruling has important public policy implications. As next steps, state and federal policymakers should (1) strengthen parents’ rights in legislation and state constitutions and (2) codify reasonable accommodations in public schools that reflect pluralism in society.
While parents have inherent, pre-political authority over their children, states and the federal government should explicitly protect parents’ rights in legislation.
A parent’s bill of rights – or sections that protect parents’ rights – exists in the statutory code of many states (over 20, including Utah). These statutes often include explicit protections for how parents can direct their child’s education.
Policymakers in all states should review what’s already on the books and strengthen a parent’s primary right and responsibility in directing their child’s education. Specifically, legislative reforms should include a clear and specific right to easily review approved curriculum and instructional materials used in classrooms or libraries, alongside rights like parent access to their student’s records or the academic performance of their student.
States should also consider state constitutional language that explicitly protects parents’ rights, which creates better guardrails for future statutory language.
Likewise, Congress should lead the way and push a federal parents’ bill of rights over the finish line, which would require any school that receives federal funds to meet the requirements of access and transparency to curriculum, and protect parents’ rights to know about school budgets, educational options, and whether there has been violent activity at the school.
The Mahmoud v. Taylor case also addressed the responsibility of schools to notify parents of certain types of instruction and provide accommodations for parents in those instances.
One issue was the practicality of requiring parents to be notified of what’s being taught in class, especially for something controversial. However, if parents have robust, nearly constant, and transparent access to review curriculum information (made more possible thanks to technology), schools are more likely to meet noticing requirements in natural, low-impact ways.
When ongoing notice of curriculum is paired with reasonable accommodations for parents, schools and parents are stronger partners.
The facts in the Mahmoud case also highlight the wisdom of creating balanced laws that offer reasonable accommodations for parents and students’ free exercise of religion while acknowledging burdens on schools that come from accommodations.
It’s hard to ignore how pluralistic our society has become today; school culture wars have shone a light on this. Public schools are under intense pressure to meet the needs of all students, including their parents’ preferences and values.
Accommodations – or exceptions like opt-outs and opt-ins – are a common-sense way to relieve this pressure on a single system. While parents cannot and should not dictate what a school teaches to all students, they have a constitutional right to direct the education of their children – requiring accommodation when instruction violates something as fundamental as their religious beliefs.
Oral arguments in this case also centered on whether such opt-outs are workable. Different types of opt-outs have already existed in education for years. Furthermore, the devil is in the details in public policy. Public policies can be crafted in almost any way that interested parties want them to be, meaning they can be made workable.
Utah, for instance, has a statute that requires participation waivers for “any aspect” of school that violates a student’s religious belief or right of conscience, or their parents’ religious beliefs or right of conscience.
While it protects a student or parent from being required to explain or defend their reasoning for opting out, it doesn’t require the school to provide an alternative assignment (it says it “may” do this).
From an administrative burden perspective, this balanced, permissive approach is wise policy. It means students don’t have to participate in something that violates their or their parents’ beliefs, but it respects school workloads by not requiring them to generate additional workload.
Other states worried about opt-outs ought to look at this language and consider its fit for their state’s values.
Likewise, Congress should consider these types of balanced accommodations in the legislation it passes.
Whatever one feels about the ruling in this case, it is an important pixel in the picture of parents’ rights in America. Policymakers now have the critical task of protecting this authority in parents’ everyday lives through smarter legislation.
