Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a major parental rights case in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a challenge to Montgomery County (Md.) requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. It is a case that could produce sweeping changes across the country as parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas.
Parents objected in Maryland in 2022 when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. The country then announced that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks.
Various parents sued, including some citing their Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox beliefs. They lost in the lower courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Court declared that it was “recognized ‘beyond debate’ the First Amendment right of parents ‘to guide the religious future and education of their children.’” In that case, the court held that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade because it conflicted with their religion.
They also argue that the Maryland policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable as required under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. That could produce the greatest number of questions from the justices today. The parents argued that the county has long allowed notice and opt-outs for material and instruction that address family life and sexuality. However, it refused to do so here.
The parents alleged religious hostility in comments made against the challengers. They raise the question of why such children cannot be allowed alternative reading options.
The Montgomery County Board of Education is arguing a narrower view of the free exercise clause and that public education requires a uniform curriculum, including recognition of our society’s diversity. They insist that allowing some to opt out would present an overwhelming burden on the schools.
A decision for the parents could significantly change public schools’ handling of such controversial materials. I have previously written about how administrators and teacher unions are destroying public education by elevating agendas over academics.
Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers. They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests.
As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of “white supremacy.” Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of “equity.”
Once parents have a choice, these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience. If public unions want to maintain funding, they will have to actually improve educational results for these families.
Notably, figures like American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten have opposed the elimination of the Department of Education because it might help voucher schools and alternatives to public education.
In a podcast, Weingarten explained, “We know, for example, what Texas would do. They’ll use it for vouchers. So they won’t give [federal funding] to the kids who have it now, they’ll just give it for vouchers.”
There is reason for Weingarten and the teacher’s union being so concerned. Florida allows for school choice and has demanded greater performance from public schools. Despite attacks by Weingarten and other Democrats, Florida has been ranked as the number one state for both education and the economy.
However, public educators have continued to lower proficiency requirements and cancel gifted programs to “even the playing field.” The result has been to further hide the dismal scores and educational standards of many public school districts.
There is an irony in the position before the Supreme Court by public educators. A reversal may be a critical change in slowing the departure of families from public schools. By limiting such mandatory programs, some families may be less likely to seek alternatives to public schools. These families want to send their children to public schools while retaining their role in instilling religious values for their children. Montgomery County is forcing a choice that few parents will make against their family values.
As on earlier controversies over parental rights, Democrats will find that this is not partisan; it is primal for parents.