• The Mahmoud v. Taylor case may have important implications for education policy.
• Better parent access to curriculum information is the solution to concerns about the feasibility of parent opt-outs in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case.
• Opt-outs in education exist and can be feasible.

​Coverage of the oral arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor suggests the U.S. Supreme Court is sympathetic toward the Maryland parents who claim their right to freely exercise religion is violated if they cannot excuse their children from instruction counter to their beliefs.

In 2022, the Montgomery County school district approved LGBTQ-themed books for use in classroom discussions. Though the district previously had an opt-out policy, they told parents they would no longer be given advance notice of using these materials, nor would they be allowed to opt out their children from this instruction.

Part of the oral arguments covered the feasibility of providing notice and opt-outs to parents about curriculum before instruction.

Questions prompted by the oral arguments include: Is giving notice to parents too onerous for school districts? Are opt-outs too burdensome administratively? Or are these reasonable accommodations for parents simply asking not to have their children participate?

If the court rules in favor of the parents, as they appear poised to do, here are two policy considerations to help education leaders think through these issues.

Parent access to curriculum policies helps give notice

Better parent access to curriculum policies – or curriculum transparency – is a solution to the administrative concern of providing parents notice in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case.

Increasingly, parents want to know what their children are being taught in school. As a result, states have been pursuing policies that give parents more transparent information about the instruction given to their children. The policies vary, but the purpose is to give parents a chance to learn more about the curriculum before it’s taught.

If parents were to have robust curriculum transparency – yearly, weekly, and/or daily – they would effectively have notice about instruction, nearly continuously, and presumably early. Under these circumstances, school districts may be relieved of the burden of discerning when notice is required and proactively providing notice to parents. The parents’ responsibility to know would increase, sharing the burden between families and administrators.

Policies that increase parent access to curriculum have been saddled with similar criticism, based on the fear that they are too burdensome for teachers. This is a legitimate concern. At the same time, many teachers say they are already doing this work thanks to new technology. So clearly, there are feasible ways to share more with parents. For educators who are not yet sharing more, states should consider incentives (rather than just mandates) to push more teachers to share what they teach in class without overburdening.

In short, as curriculum transparency becomes the norm in education, providing notice may already be met.

Opt-outs in education already exist and can be feasible

Opt-outs in education already exist, so the idea that parent opt-outs are categorically unworkable is inaccurate.

For instance, most of the 50 states offer an opt-out for sex education. In some states, like Utah, parents must go so far as to opt in to sex education, in a move that signals strong respect for the parents’ role in education. Likewise, Utah has long offered an opt-out for standardized assessments for parents concerned about testing.

Moreover, Utah passed a law that ensures students have waivers of participation for “any aspect of school that violates a religious belief or right of conscience of the student.” Likewise, parents “may waive the student’s participation in any aspect of school that violates the student’s or the student’s parent’s religious belief or right of conscience.” This part of the code clarifies that students or parents need not justify their decision, and schools may (but are not required to) offer an alternative for the student. This policy hits the right balance: students and parents are not dictating what the schools do, but they can decline to participate. While specific instances may be tricky, the intent is clear: law can accommodate opt-outs and often already does.

Conclusion

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the Maryland parents, public policy can be crafted to help schools accommodate those with religious beliefs while still serving the broad needs of students.