Curriculum opt-outs and the classroom: What the Supreme Court’s ruling means for inclusive education

BUFFALO, N.Y. – A U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year has reignited national debates over what students should learn and what families can opt out of.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, decided June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 that public schools must allow parents to excuse their children from lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs. While the case centered on LGBTQ+-inclusive books, the ruling may have far-reaching implications for how public schools approach content related to race, identity and social justice.

LaGarrett King, PhD, professor of social studies education and director of the Center for K–12 Black History and Racial Literacy Education at the University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education, offered his perspective on the challenges schools may face and what’s at stake for students and educators alike.

What challenges might schools face in trying to honor parental opt-out requests while also upholding commitments to inclusivity and belonging for all students?

Balancing opt-out requests with inclusive values may strain school systems both logistically and philosophically. Schools face the challenge of a backlog of opt-out requests, which increases the workload for administrators. In addition, a large number of student absences may occur on these instructional days. Even if alternative assignments are provided, this creates logistical complications.

Opt-out requests may also undermine a school’s mission around inclusivity and belonging. If parents are allowed to opt out of content for religious reasons, what other concessions will schools be expected to make? Does this mean that books featuring LGBTQ+ characters must be removed from school libraries? In this case, some of the parents were Muslim, so could Christian parents now request to opt out of any lesson that mentions Islam?

What do you think is at stake for students—particularly LGBTQ+ youth—if inclusive content is limited or avoided in classrooms?

The most pressing concern is the idea that LGBTQ+ youth are not valued members of their communities. If parents can opt out of LGBTQ+-related education—and if that’s the only type of curriculum families are allowed to opt out of—what message does that send to those students and their families?

Of course, avoiding inclusive content also creates stigma for students who hold those identities. Research has shown that bullying can occur when ignorance about different communities goes unchallenged. With a public-facing policy like this, I worry that students who are not exposed to diverse perspectives could, in turn, be more likely to bully others.

What role should public education play in helping students understand different cultures and identities?

To answer this question is really to answer what you believe the purpose of public education should be. K–12 education has long been tied to developing the skills, knowledge and dispositions that allow students to become responsible citizens.

Part of being a decent and well-informed citizen is having understanding and empathy for people from different cultural and identity groups. There’s truth to the idea that discrimination often stems from a lack of contact, knowledge and experience with those who are “othered” or different. Education helps bridge that gap. Even if students encounter ideas that conflict with their personal or family belief systems, that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to learn about them, especially when they contribute to the greater good.

Learning about other cultural and identity groups doesn’t mean a student must accept those beliefs or change their own. But it does support the development of a more educated citizenry with a greater capacity for empathy.

How could this ruling impact the teaching of Black history and other topics related to race, equity and social justice?

This ruling opens the door for more opt-outs from curriculum and lessons that are deemed polarizing. Black history education, along with content related to race, equity and social justice, has already been subject to opt-out requests in some places.

There have been reports of white parents removing their children from Black History Month programming, and in many high schools, courses dealing with race and equity are already offered only as electives or specialty classes. I expect we’ll see more of this happening in the near future, especially in districts looking to avoid controversy.