Public schools do not exist to validate adult identity or ideology.
I n June, the Supreme Court gave a major win to parents in the court case of Mahmoud v. Taylor. After Montgomery County Schools removed an opt-out option for families that didn’t want their kids reading books with LGBT content, parents sued and won.
Specifically, the court emphasized that the First Amendment protects parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children, even during the school day. With the removal of the opt-out option, students were required to receive instruction that conflicted with their families’ religious beliefs. Recognizing students as a captive and impressionable audience, the Court held that failing to provide notice and an opt-out opportunity for such content violates parental rights.
For teachers, the ruling reinforces that the classroom is not a stage for personal expression. Under Garcetti v. Ceballos, public school teachers do not have full First Amendment rights while carrying out official duties. They are government employees, not private actors, and their job is to teach the curriculum, not to promote personal viewpoints.
As Mahmoud reminds us, public schools do not exist to validate adult identity or ideology. They exist to serve families and teach children. That calls for humility, not activism, at the front of the classroom.
So, where does this leave the teachers themselves, and their own conscience rights? Put simply, teachers — like many professionals — are hired to carry out a defined role. As a restaurant expects its employees to serve a certain cuisine, so districts hire educators to teach specific content. Were a chef at a Mexican restaurant to refuse to make tamales and instead made lasagna, his employers would be in their rights to fire him. Were a math teacher to spend precious class time covering the finer points of Star Wars lore or refuse to teach long division, a school would send her packing. That we disapprove of the content in this particular case doesn’t change this dynamic.
That doesn’t leave teachers entirely without recourse. Even within these boundaries, teachers can protect their conscience. They can contextualize any objectionable content with phrases such as “Some people believe . . .” thereby presenting it as one theory among many, not truth itself. They can prescreen materials to remove the most egregious graphics and messaging. They can present alternative viewpoints if the curriculum allows for supplementary materials. They can help parents exercise their religious opt-out rights by providing advance notice and erring on the side of transparency, as the Mahmoud decision underscores.
But unless teachers are willing to risk their employment, they must follow the curricula set by their local school board. First Amendment protections do not grant educators the right to substitute personal beliefs or agendas for official instruction while on the job. State laws authorize school boards to establish curricula as part of their governing responsibilities, reflecting the democratic principle that communities, not individual teachers, decide what children learn.
Even in their personal capacities, the legal landscape is complex, and speaking out, especially publicly, can carry risks, as cases like Darlingh v. Maddaleni demonstrate. Still, there are constructive and protected ways for educators to raise their voices, advocate for students and families, and seek change within their schools and communities.
As private citizens, teachers have a fundamental right to free speech. And they should use it. They can and should use their voices to raise concerns, whether by speaking at school board meetings, writing op-eds for local papers, or engaging in open dialogue with administrators and colleagues. They can and should expose when a curriculum mandates that they teach explicit materials. Transparency and accountability start with teachers willing to stand up for students and families.
If a school board is unwilling to eliminate objectionable content, adopting a clear policy on controversial issues that compels presenting multiple perspectives may be an easier sell. After all, progressive teachers are no more eager to teach a curriculum like Hillsdale College’s 1776 than regular teachers want to cover the 1619 Project. And for what it’s worth, the majority of teachers aren’t rabid progressives and really do want to focus on math, science, history, or whatever academic content it is that they love.
The Court in Mahmoud affirmed that parents have a voice that schools must respect. Teachers deliver curriculum set by elected boards and must promote transparency by giving parents advance notice and opt-out options. To assist, attorneys at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have created a model opt-out school board policy and an opt-out form for parents to submit to schools.
When schools respect parents’ rights to direct their children’s upbringing and opt out of objectionable content, trust is restored, family rights are respected, and focus returns to rigorous education, not ideology.
Cory Brewer is an attorney at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, where she works on the nationwide initiative Restoring American Education. Daniel Buck is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Conservative Education Reform Network.