The Great Education Debate
Charles J. Russo May/June 2026CASE COMMENTARY How far do parental rights extend beyond the schoolhouse door?
Do parents or public school officials bear primary responsibility for directing children’s education? It’s a question that has been contested for more than a century. In Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Despite this principle, public school authorities have at times exceeded their proper limits, prompting parents to push back. And in multiple Supreme Court decisions, parents have prevailed, securing recognition of their primary right to direct their children’s educational upbringing.
In light of continuing disagreements between parents and educators, the first part of this article briefly examines five key Supreme Court decisions recognizing the primacy of parental rights in determining both where their children are educated and what they are taught, particularly when instructional materials conflict with familial religious beliefs. The second part considers two recent controversies involving human sexuality and curricular content, and whether educators are obligated to inform parents when students seek to identify as transgender by socially transitioning within the school setting.
Parental Rights
In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) the Supreme Court invalidated a state law banning foreign
language instruction in grades lower than the ninth—a law which led to the conviction of an instructor in a non-public school for teaching German. The Justices rejected the statute’s purported goal of promoting civic development. It ruled, instead, that the law violated parents’ Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rights to control their children’s educations.
Two years later, in Pierce, quoted in the opening paragraph, the Supreme Court rendered its arguably most significant judgment on parental religious freedom rights in education. The Justices struck down an Oregon statute mandating all children—other than those needing what today is called special education—to attend public schools. The Court held that parents could comply with compulsory attendance laws by enrolling their children in private schools, because the right to direct a child’s upbringing belongs to parents, not the state.
In Farrington v. Tokushige (1927) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the parental right to send their children to non-public schools in order to satisfying compulsory attendance laws. The Justices rejected attempts by officials in Hawaii to regulate foreign language schools, most of which were Japanese.
At issue in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) were the rights of Amish parents and their wish to excuse their children from formal public education beyond eighth grade. The parents argued that their children would receive all the educational preparation they needed within their home communities. While recognizing the authority of states to adopt reasonable educational regulations, the Supreme Court relied on the First Amendment’s free exercise clause in finding in favor of the parents. The Justices determined that because the Amish way of life and religion were inseparable, ordering the children to attend public high schools may have destroyed their beliefs and those of their families.
Most recently, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), an interfaith coalition of parents in
Maryland successfully objected to their school board’s refusal to allow them to opt their young children out of lessons using books with LGBTQ+ characters and inappropriate sexual content. The Justices concluded that the board violated the parents’ First Amendment free exercise rights by exposing their children to age-inappropriate materials inconsistent with the parents’ religious beliefs.
Human Sexuality Curricula
Mahmoud is the Supreme Court’s most significant parental-rights decision since Pierce, and a much-needed corrective to earlier rulings that curtailed parents’ authority over their children’s education. The decision marks a new direction by affirming the right of parents, on religious grounds, to excuse their preschool and early elementary-age children from sexually explicit instruction for which they are not intellectually or emotionally prepared. It further recognizes that such curricula may substantially interfere with parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious development.
In reviewing Mahmoud, it is important to realize that it did not occur in a vacuum. Among the materials the parents objected to was an assignment directing young children to locate such words as “drag queen” and “king,” “leather,” “lip ring,” and “intersex.” Moreover, the only text expressly approved for use with three- and four-year-olds in pre-K and Head Start classes depicted a family who lost their puppy at a LGBTQ+-pride parade, with page devoted to each letter of the alphabet celebrating pride day. Other disputed books “include stories about a same-sex marriage, a transgender child’s rainbow-colored wig, and elementary school students replacing girl/boy bathroom markers with non-binary signs.”
At some point children surely need to learn about evolving social mores including those about human sexuality. Even so, while not wishing to afford parents a hecklers’ vetoes over materials with which they disagree, Mahmoud serves as reminder to educators that because parents are the primary caregivers of their children, school officials must take their religious beliefs into consideration in devising content and age-appropriate curricula.
Gender Transitioning
The Supreme Court’s March 2, 2026, order in Mirabelli v. Bonta is another significant victory for parental rights in educational settings. It follows a series of lower court judgments that permitted school officials to adopt policies denying parents information about the status of their children.
At its core, Mirabelli involved a parental challenge to a local California school board policy, adopted pursuant to a state directive. The policy prohibited teachers from notifying parents when their children—as young as fifth grade—adopted gender identities or used pronouns different from their biological sex, absent the student’s consent to such disclosure.
After a federal court enjoined the policy and the Ninth Circuit granted the board’s motion to stay its order pending a full appeal, the Supreme Court intervened as part of its so-called shadow docket, wherein it addresses procedural matters and requests for emergency measures without oral arguments.
A divided Supreme Court, in an unsigned six-to-three per curiam order, decided that the
policies of concealing information from parents about their children’s gender dysphoria likely violated parents’ First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to raise their children according to their faiths. The Justices thus enjoined the policies both because the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, and the Court’s failure to act would have caused them irreparable harm. On remand, the Ninth Circuit vacated the stay, allowing it to proceed.
While students with gender dysphoria certainly need love, concern, and respect, Mirabelli is a reminder that parents have ultimate responsibility for the lives of their children. For this reason, educators cannot refuse to inform them about what their children are doing in school.
An Enduring Principle
It goes almost without saying that being a parent in today’s rapidly changing world is challenging, as are the roles of teacher or school administrator. Even so, the Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that primary responsibility for directing a child’s education rests with parents, not educators, including in matters bearing on religious formation.
Article Author: Charles J. Russo
Charles J. Russo, M.Div., J.D., Ed.D., is the Joseph Panzer chair in education in the School of Education and Health Sciences, director of its Ph.D. program in educational leadership, and research professor of law in the School of Law at the University of Dayton. He can be reached at crusso1@udayton.edu.