The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in June that Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents’ First Amendment rights to freedom of religion for denying them the right to opt their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed curriculum in kindergarten and elementary school. 

This ruling is based on specific circumstances, and does not provide specific details on how schools should approach handling educational material that potentially runs counter to religious beliefs. This means that each local educational agency must itself determine what materials require a notice and opt-out process and how to implement this process. 

Because the Supreme Court ruling itself did not provide detailed guidance, PUSD responded by sending parents a blanket opt-out form to cover all its bases. The form broadly asked if parents would like their student to be “excused from instructional materials that include content related to gender identity and sexual orientation.”    

Unfortunately, the lack of specifics in the form leaves a lot of uncertainty for everyone involved. When parents opt their students out, they don’t know if what they disagree with is even being taught, and teachers don’t always know why the parent opted out either. Teachers have been individually reaching out to parents to determine expectations and discuss possible curriculum conflicts, but this isn’t a sustainable solution as it doesn’t scale, and parents don’t always respond. 

Furthermore, the form’s lack of specificity transfers pressure onto schools and teachers to decide what material is considered related to gender identity and sexual orientation. While the blanket form protects the district from lawsuits, teachers now have to face the pressure of deciding what is permissible to put into lesson plans. Especially in AP classes where some material will be tested on the exam, teachers have to find a balance of teaching in an optimal way and trying to not get sued

PUSD interpreted that though the case is about elementary curriculum, the court’s language is not limited to elementary schools. Opt-out forms were therefore sent out to parents of students across K-12 schools. However, extending broad opt-outs into high school, where students deal with different subjects, more mature issues, and more advanced classes, is much harder to justify on developmental grounds. 

According to Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, high school-aged students have already developed abstract and hypothetical thinking abilities, allowing them to reason critically and consider multiple outcomes and perspectives. High school is the critical period where students are prepared to become knowledgeable, smart voters based on the well rounded education students receive. This ruling may make students, not just the ones who have been opted out, miss out on key parts of their curriculum such as civil rights history, current events, and sensitive but relevant political topics. 

While further litigation is required to define the true scope of the court’s ruling, presenting blanket opt-out forms for high school students may cause unintentional harm and confusion. Going forward, transparent and precise handling of such cases can help ease pressure on both students and staff.