George Theoharis, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. He is the author of “The School Leaders Our Children Deserve.”
As students and teachers head back to school, implementing the Supreme Court Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling from this past June is, at best, messy, and, in reality, troubling. The case centered on picture books that were part of the regular curriculum. These picture books had LGBTQ+ characters and families. The Supreme Court decided that families should be able to opt out their children from school content that does not align with their religious beliefs. The ruling indicated that merely being exposed to this content is a burden on the family’s religion because exposing students to the curriculum normalizes that same religion-conflicting content.
Prior to this ruling, most school districts made affordances for opting out of health and sexual education curriculum. Mahmoud v. Taylor greatly expands that tradition by allowing families to opt out of school content that they feel conflicts with their sincerely practiced religious beliefs. This necessarily means that educators now must inform families of any content that might conflict with religious beliefs and allow students to be opted out of any such lessons. As a former public school teacher and principal who currently prepares future teachers for elementary school classrooms, I find this ruling in conflict with the purpose of public school in our diverse democracy. It also raises many unanswered questions about the implementation.
Part of the New York state social studies standards requires elementary students to learn about family traditions — their family’s traditions and other peoples’ cultures. Thus, it is common for first grade classrooms to have a unit on family traditions where students, and often families, present their traditions as part of the formal curriculum. When my students learn to plan elementary lessons, we use the composition of an actual class of elementary students to make practicing more authentic and less hypothetical. That class provides real-life examples that raise questions about this ruling.
First, there are two Jewish students in the first grade class, Moira and David. When their parents came into their kindergarten classroom to share how they celebrate Hanukkah, another student’s family objected to learning about Hanukkah because it “conflicted with their evangelical Christian faith.” In planning for a unit on family traditions, if Moira and David’s families want to share about traditions regarding their Jewish faith (like they did about Hanukkah), do teachers need to give other families advanced notice so they can opt out? If we allow students to be opted out, what are we teaching Moira and David about valuing their Jewish family traditions?
Will allowing families to opt out of lessons on Judaism jeopardize the school’s funding because the school is not addressing antisemitism? Does the teacher also need to give advanced notice for content that relates to Christianity to allow the Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist families in the class to opt out if that conflicts with their religious practices? There are many questions.
Second, Madison is another little girl in the class. Her biological mom is a lesbian and married to another woman. It is clear from the conservative majority’s Supreme Court ruling that if Madison and her moms present about their lesbian wedding, the teacher needs to give other families the ability to opt out. What message are we sending to Madison about the value of her family?
This ability to opt out — and the reality that elementary teachers need to keep kids who have been opted out safe and supervised — raises key logistical questions because leaving 6-year-olds unattended at school is a bad idea. If Madison and her moms are presenting in one corner of the classroom, can the teacher send the student who has been opted out away from the group, back to his desk? He will likely still be able to see and hear what is being presented. What about to the back of the room? The Supreme Court did not specify the specific distance that student needs to be kept away from gay marriage.
Do teachers need to use a portable divider so the student cannot see what is happening? Should the teacher send the student who is opted out into a neighboring classroom? What if that other classroom is having Drag Queen story time? Can families opt out of the space their child is placed when they are opting out of the classroom lesson? Is the teacher responsible for planning an alternate lesson for each student who is opted out? Can families opt out of the alternate lesson? Is there a limit on the number of opt outs per child? Per lesson? There are many implementation questions.
Third, Luke is a little boy in this class. His parents are not married and have been together for 12 years. There are families in the class that believe that sex outside of marriage is a violation of their sincerely held and practiced religion. First grade classes often celebrate each child’s birthday as part of how the classroom operates. Since Luke was conceived through out-of-wedlock sex, celebrating the day Luke was born is clearly normalizing sex outside of marriage. Does the teacher need to let all families know that Luke was conceived from sex outside of marriage? Does the teacher need to give advanced notice so families can opt out of when the class celebrates Luke’s birthday? What about Luke’s sense of himself when some kids are not part of his classroom celebration?
Finally, consider Grayson. His mom is an ordained protestant minister. She has a “Matthew 25” bumper sticker on her minivan reflecting her sincerely held beliefs regarding Bible verse Matthew 25 where Jesus said, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” As such, Grayson’s mom leads her church in ministry for newcomers to the community.
In the news, we see how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses unidentified masked men to grab people off the streets and throw them into unmarked vans as they pursue a crackdown on immigration. ICE’s actions targeting “the least of these” violates the Christian practices of Grayson’s family. Do teachers need to give Grayson’s family (and other families) opt out notice from any presentation that involve ICE employees to avoid normalizing throwing Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” into an unmarked van? Grayson’s family is the most religiously active family in the class. What about protecting their religious beliefs?
In the Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling, it appears that the Supreme Court is advancing one religious perspective at the expense of LGBTQ+ families. This is counter to the ideals and traditions of this nation’s public schools. Yet, even if this ruling and the forthcoming implementation is serious about all families being able to opt out of school content that conflicts with their religious beliefs, the court has created a troubling mess for schools, families and our religiously diverse communities.
