Supreme Court Case Provides Yet Another Reason for School Choice

With respect to these books…there was high (student) absenteeism in some schools. For example, dozens of students being opted-out (of a class of 125).”

And there you have it! School boards just cannot allow parents to decide to have their children opt out of certain classes. Why? Because “too many” parents chose to have their children opt out of sexually explicit and “gender-searching” public school classes where books were read out loud to children as young as three.

Arguing this week before the US Supreme Court, the attorney for the Montgomery County (Maryland) School Board said the district had to take away parental choice: too many students want to opt out. Imagine: parents didn’t want their children to be compelled to read or have to listen to a teacher read to them sexually explicit and gender-searching books. The books at issue include “Pride Puppy,” “Jacob’s Room to Choose” and “Born Ready.”

As is sometimes permitted in these types of matters, out of respect for parents’ values or religious faith, the school district initially allowed parents to have their children opt out of these mandatory classes that included reading of these books. But when “too many” parents opted out, the school board reversed itself and canceled all opt-outs: students were compelled to attend.

Because after all, school boards know best — and schools exist to make them happy and impose their will. They apparently can’t have parents messing things up.

This Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is perhaps the most important parents’ rights case in years. At the same time, perhaps unintentionally, it’s the most important new argument of school choice since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of school choice (tuition vouchers) in Zelma v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.

Tragically, as has been the case for over a decade, many public schools — especially in the suburbs — have been shifting the focus off of academic excellence and onto social and political causes. And, all too often, they are leading the culture wars, especially when it comes to race, sex, and now gender discussions. To the surprise of most of us, “educators” and school boards decided that what was wrong with America wasn’t falling test scores but that not enough six-year-olds had considered their gender.

And as we have learned across suburban Philadelphia, many districts have policies that willfully and purposefully withhold information from parents about issues concerning their child’s sexual behavior, gender confusion, and mental health. The arrogance, the disrespect for parents, and the contempt for common sense is almost immeasurable in too many districts.

They compound this with mandatory classes, mandatory reading, and pushing parents away — their values, their role and even pushing them away physically from school board meetings.

For years, school choice advocates had built our case on issues like taxpayer fairness, unsafe schools, and failing academics. Now, there is a new cause: parental values and faith being undermined.

However, leave it to progressive Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to offer us a path forward, if unwittingly.

Jackson advised the courtroom of her perspective during the oral argument before the Court — probably not truly understanding the import of what she was about to say:“If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don’t have to send your kid to that school, you can put them in a different situation.”

Amen, Madame Justice.

Except there is a major problem. You expect parents that want to choose another school to pay twice: once for the local public school — that’s chosen to impose a sexually explicit ideology — and a second time for private or parochial school. And there’s an even bigger problem for many families: there is no school choice if they can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs of paying school taxes and tuition.

Respectfully, Madame Justice, not everyone wants their three-, six- or nine-year-old to be forced to learn about choosing their gender or their pronouns as easily as they choose which shirt to wear. So why should those schools be filled with willing progressive families’ kids, plus poor kids forced to be indoctrinated because they have no way out.

School boards often think they know best and that parents ought to just be silent, comply, and allow the board to mandate the curriculum, lesson plans, and books. Because if parents have a choice then the school boards can’t handle it. And Justice Jackson seemed to agree: so just leave.

Thank you, counsel for the school board for underscoring what too many of us feared: education is about making the administrators happy, not making the parents happy, nor ensuring that children succeed at reading, writing, and arithmetic. You helped make the case for so many important causes: transparency of curriculum, lesson plans and books, and school choice.

Thank you, Justice Jackson, for making the most compelling argument — while sitting in your velvet robe high atop the walnut bench overlooking the parents: if you don’t like it; just go somewhere else!

Now, we just need legislators and governors — like Josh Shapiro — to honor parental rights, protect parents’ values, and allow children to attend a school that works and respects their values.

Opponents of school choice just made another strong case for school choice. Was Harrisburg listening?

Guy Ciarrocchi is a Senior Fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation. A former Deputy Attorney General, he writes for Broad + Liberty and RealClear Pennsylvania. Follow Guy at @PaSuburbsGuy.