top of page
Search

Parental Rights Never Belonged In The Supreme Court

  • Fellow Editors
  • Jun 30
  • 10 min read

The Rights of Parents To Direct the Upbringing and Education of Their Children Should be a Given


ree

When I began teaching, if you had asked me about whether parents had rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children I would have been confused. You see, when I started teaching, parental rights were NEVER in question. When one became a teacher, it was understood that the parents were not only our partners in educating their children but also the final word on their child's beliefs and morals.


It wasn't our job as teachers to venture into the territory of the religious and moral beliefs of our students. We were to teach content, math, reading, writing, history, science, etc. Religious beliefs were left to parochial schools and churches and moral beliefs to parents. Get out of your lane and you would get a reprimand or even fired.


As it should have been.


As I became a parent, I never questioned that my husband and I would be the ones directing the religious, moral beliefs of our children as well as the educational, medical, and other life decisions of our son and daughter until they were adults and could decide for themselves.

Later on in my teaching career I was assigned to train new teachers. I was shocked that we had to tell new teachers that they should NOT divulge or promote information regarding their sex lives or sexual preferences to their students. Our Superintendent at the time, J. Sam Meek, told these new teachers that if they did discuss those areas with their students, "I will fire you." He meant it. He said it on the first day of new teacher training. It left a huge impression.


It was understood that there was a clear line of demarcation between what the rights of the parents were versus the job of educators.


Sadly, it has now become a necessity that the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, should address and affirm the rights of parents:



But here we are. Even more distressing is that states have to pass laws that PROTECT parental rights, something that is so fundamental to the core values of our society and our country.


To date, twenty U.S. States have passed parental rights protection laws.



Sadly, Maryland, the state I live in, has done everything they can to deny parental rights.

The teachers' unions, who have long ago abandoned their real responsibilities as a union protecting teachers' jobs, commented on the Supreme Court ruling:


From the National Education Association via President Becky Pringle:


“Today the U.S. Supreme Court willfully discounted and ignored the expertise of trained professionals in the classroom. This decision could have a chilling effect on students for generations to come and could lead to more educators self-censoring, shelving books and lessons, and preventing some already marginalized students from being seen and acknowledged. In the end, students are the ones who pay the price for censoring what books they can and cannot access and read. Educators know that students can’t learn when they do not feel welcomed, seen, or valued.


“Educators know all students—no matter who they are or what gender they identify with—deserve access to an inclusive public education. By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach.


“The Court’s ruling is a direct attack on our democracy. Public education is founded on the core educational principle of engaging students on a broad range of ideas, allowing them to explore new perspectives, and learn to think for themselves. Students deserve nothing less than to feel supported and valued on that journey, in particular our LGBTQ+ young people and families, who often feel marginalized and excluded.


“Censoring the books and resources students can access puts limits on their freedom to grow, learn and contribute to society. Everyone deserves to see themselves and their lived experiences in books—at our schools and in our libraries. Books are like mirrors and windows. They reflect what we observe and know about the world in which we live and help us understand lives that are different from our own. The Court does students a disservice by limiting access to these opportunities.”



The statement is appropriately arrogant from a woman who melted down and delivered this rant in 2024:



All the things, including indoctrination of children.


Strangely, the American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten has not issued a statement as of press time. Of course, Randi recently left the DNC so maybe she's on "hiatus." But, that's okay. Many different teachers' unions leaders have shared how they view the relationship between parents and children:



And, if the unions don't deny parental rights, some school boards do:



On Facebook, I found some "teachers" stating how awful it was that parents thought they should have a say in the education of their children.


Here's one comment from a teacher and then a response from another teacher:


"As a teacher, I'm heartbroken and furious about the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Mcknight, (Actually it's Taylor) which gives parents the right to opt their kids out of any lesson or story that mentions LGBTQ people. This decision doesn't just target books; it targets LGBTQ students and families themselves; sending the dangerous message that their controversial, inappropriate, or unworthy of respect. Our classrooms are supposed to prepare young people to thrive in a diverse democracy and you can't do that if you're forced to erase entire communities from the curriculum...It will pressure kids like me to censor lessons out of fear, ultimately harming every student's education and weakening the foundation of our democracy."


Apparently, she hasn't seen test scores that show how much teachers like her have "harmed" every student's education. She also doesn't understand the "foundation of our democracy" which is freedom of religion, speech, and to raise our children as we see fit.


Then came a response from a teacher with common sense:


"As a teacher of over 25 years, I suggest you CALM DOWN. We are not social justice warriors. We teach them to read, how to write, how to do math, and how to play nicely with their friends. Why would I need "carpet time" to gather my students around to read a book about how Jimmy has two daddies? Let parents discuss those issues with their kids. Focus on teaching them to be kind to one another without having to explain every type of lifestyle."


There is HOPE, especially since we see more comments like the second one than the first.

Again, it's shocking that we should even have to defend parental rights, since they are the foundation of the family. Perhaps that is the point of those who want to destroy this country. Ask any totalitarian regime how they take over a country. They get rid of the family structure.


In her book, MAO'S AMERICA, Xi Van Fleet wrote, " Since my speech in front of the Loudon County Board of Education in 2021, I have had the opportunity to meet with and talk to countless parents across the country. They have all shared the same concerns; 'They are coming after our children' and 'They want to break up our family."


"Their fear is real and justified. Marxists are coming after our children. Marxists want to break up our family. This is not a hidden agenda. This is openly declared in Karl Marx's COMMUNIST MANIFESTO: 'Abolition of the family!' They mean it. They have done it in the USSR, in China, and anywhere they manage to get a foothold. Now they are doing it in America."


Thankfully, the Supreme Court of the United States put a small speed bump in front of that effort.


However, this is a battle in a war that shouldn't have to be fought. Parental rights should be a given. But, since it has become a battle, we can predict that the school systems will not readily give in. We need to understand the ideas behind the ruling as described by Justices Alito and Thomas:


In a 41-page opinion that was accompanied by color reproductions of pages from the storybooks, Alito explained that the school board’s use of the storybooks—along with “its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs—substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that” the Supreme Court found unacceptable more than 50 years ago, in a decision, Wisconsin v. Yoder, that ruled for Amish parents challenging a Wisconsin law that required children to attend school until the age of 16. 


The school board, Alito wrote, “requires teachers to instruct young children using storybooks that explicitly contradict their parents’ religious views, and it encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being ‘hurtful’ when they express a degree of religious confusion.” 


When a policy imposes a burden like this, Alito continued, it is subject to the most stringent form of review, known as strict scrutiny, which asks whether the policy “advances ‘interests of the highest order’ and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.” 


Although the board may generally have a compelling interest, as it argues, in maintaining a safe and non-disruptive learning environment, Alito acknowledged, the board’s argument is weakened by the opt-outs that it allows in other scenarios – for example, from sex education.


“This robust ‘system of exceptions’” also “undermines the Board’s contention that the provision of opt outs to religious parents would be infeasible or unworkable,” Alito wrote. 

Alito indicated that going forward and until the litigation in this case is finally resolved, “the Board should be ordered to notify” the parents “whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.” 


Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which he outlined “additional reasons why the Board’s policy cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.” First, he contended, the board’s efforts to promote equity and inclusion and reduce disruption in the classroom are not the kind of very important interests “sufficient to justify the policy’s interference with parents’ First Amendment rights.” To the contrary, he suggested, the inclusion of the storybooks and the “exclusion of traditional religious views … constitute an impermissible attempt to ‘standardize’ the views of students.”


Second, Thomas continued, the board’s contention that it wants to avoid disruption in the classroom by barring the opt-outs is simply “a product of its own design” insofar as the board has tried to include the storybooks as part of its everyday curriculum, rather than using them as part of separate and discrete units. “If the Court were to accept the Board’s argument,” Thomas wrote, “we would effectively give schools a playbook for evading the First Amendment.”


Two take aways from the decisions are that the districts will be required to notify parents when potentially controversial topics are being taught AND will have to allow for parents to opt out their child from those books and materials. Second, Thomas indicates that Montgomery County brought this problem on themselves by attempting to include books in curriculum that they KNEW would offend parents.


So now what can we look forward to? Here is a statement on the decision from Montgomery County Public Schools:


Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of MAHMOUD ET AL. v. TAYLOR ET AL. concerning the use of LGBTQ+ texts and opt-out processes for families. Although not surprised, we are disappointed in today’s ruling. This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system. It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community.


Montgomery County Public Schools remains a welcoming and inclusive school system that embraces and celebrates each and every one of our students. We will maintain an environment where all students feel valued and supported. Equity is one of our core values and is foundational to who we are as a system that serves one of the most diverse communities in the United States of America.


We will continue to analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today’s decision and, as importantly, our values. Schools and families will receive further guidance prior to the start of the upcoming school year. MCPS will continue to have inclusive books, which reflect the rich diversity of the students and families that we serve in Montgomery County.


Interpretation? All one needs to do is look at the scare tactics about a "chilling effect" this will have on members of our diverse community. Montgomery County is going to do everything they can to avoid compliance with this order. They will fight parental rights as hard as they can.


What about school systems in general? What will they do?


Anyone who has ever worked in a school system can predict what actions districts will take. Some will just remove books that are controversial or simply allow opt outs or alternatives. They won't want to deal with what could be a legal boondoggle for them. Plus, they might actually understand that these materials are inappropriate.


Others, like Montgomery County, will dig their heels in, in much the same way they have with FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT requests. When parents started filing FOIA's, many districts either slow walked the requests, charged outrageous and therefore unaffordable fees for the information, or put ridiculous restrictions on how and when parents/the public can view the information. Imagine how complicated a request for an opt out can be made by an education bureaucrat with an ax to grind.


Even more districts will claim that none of the controversial topics, books, units etc. are being taught in their schools. They will remove any overt reference to LGBTQ, DEI, CRT, etc. in lessons and claim the topics are not embedded. Or, they will put blame on a "rogue" teacher who may have taught something not in the curriculum when n inappropriate lesson is pointed out.


It's a fight parents should have never had to engage in. Common sense and the strong belief in family values in our country should be enough to keep this nonsense from happening. Unfortunately, it isn't and parents will have to keep on fighting for rights that are inherently theirs.


James Madison once said, “Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe, until a trespass on the constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents an invasion of the dearest rights, until every citizen shall be an Argus to espy (catch sight of), and an Aegeon to avenge, the unhallowed deed. "James Madison, Speech to Congress, 1792

*Argus was a figure of perpetual vigilance in Greek Mythology. Aegeon was a defender of the Titans in the war against the Greek gods.


Parents, be perpetually vigilant.




Jan Greenhawk, Author

June 27, 2025


Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.


This article was originally featured on the Easton Gazette.  


 Please consider joining the Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition and follow us on FaceBook to stay informed of what's really happening with education in our schools. Copyright DelmarvaPTC.org





 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page