Orange County school districts are scrambling to update their policies and procedures in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which requires schools to notify parents and allow students to opt out of certain lessons that conflict with their family’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
The ruling, which centered on LGBTQ-themed storybooks in Maryland elementary schools, leaves key questions unanswered, including how specific opt-outs must be, how much notice parents should receive and what constitutes a “substantial” burden on a child’s religious development, forcing local districts to use their own judgment on how to implement the decision.
“The ruling does not provide a checklist of materials that must be flagged, nor does it define what constitutes a substantial burden on religious development,” Dr. Stefan Bean, Orange County’s superintendent of schools, said.
Last week, the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board approved an overhaul of its policy on religion in schools, which had not been updated since 1978. The revised policy, approved by the school board Sept. 9 after initial discussions in August, outlines the district’s approach to discussing religion objectively, prohibiting indoctrination and allowing students to express beliefs in classwork and homework while preserving individual religious rights.
The district now provides an opt-out form that allows parents to request their child be excused from lessons or instructional materials for religious reasons.
The district’s lawyer, Todd Robbins, told trustees at the Aug. 5 meeting that the district has reviewed its entire curriculum and identified areas where opt-outs can be offered. Assistant Superintendent Olivia Yaung said parents will receive notice at least two weeks before those lessons and be asked to explain the religious belief at issue and how the lesson would interfere with their child’s religious development. District officials will then conduct a “fact-intensive analysis” to decide whether the opt-out request should be approved.
“It will depend on the specific religious beliefs and practices as asserted, as well as the specific nature of the educational requirement or feature at issue,” Robbins said. “I think Justice Samuel Alito would acknowledge that it’s gotta be taken on a case-by-case basis.”
Robbins, who called the court’s directive “murky” on the details, added that Mahmoud v. Taylor centers on classroom instruction and parents’ ability to excuse their children from lessons that convey “normative” messages about certain topics that may conflict with religious beliefs, not the presence of diverse teachers or students in the classroom.
“This is not a case about being around people with whom we may disagree,” Robbins said, clarifying that parents cannot excuse their children from class simply because a teacher is transgender, in response to a question from Trustee Leandra Blades on whether parents could do that after a staff member at one campus reportedly transitioned over the summer.
Doing so could open the district to litigation, he said.
Robbins also said there are some lessons parents cannot opt out of.
“You can’t opt out of FAIR Act-compliant curriculum. At least you couldn’t prior to Mahmoud. You probably still can’t now,” Robbins said, referring to California’s requirement that schools teach about the contributions of LGBTQ people. “Just presenting the fact that someone is gay … is not conveying some sort of position on the issue.”
Although the Supreme Court decision pertains to LGBTQ books, the way it’s written could open the door to parents seeking opt-outs from other lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs, said Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association. The CSBA works with school districts statewide, providing sample board policies and administrative regulations on current issues, including PYLUSD’s policy on religion in schools and opt-outs.
“That’s an interpretation that has yet to be decided and certainly will be litigated heavily, but school districts should be prepared to think about that,” he said.
Irvine Unified in August updated its administrative regulation on religious beliefs and customs to “provide a clear, legally grounded process that respects parental rights while ensuring educational continuity,” district spokesperson Annie Brown said.
The district has also introduced an opt-out request form for parents who want their children excused from instructional content that may conflict with specific religious beliefs, customs or practices.
Each request is required to be submitted directly to the school principal. The superintendent or a designee may consult with the district’s lawyers as needed to determine whether a request should be granted.
Because administrative regulations do not require school board approval, the change was handled internally, Brown said.
Capistrano Unified, the county’s largest school district, has long allowed parents to challenge instructional materials, but spokesperson Ryan Burris said the district is now working to standardize its opt-out procedures in light of the ruling.
“Right now, we are identifying some procedures, aligned with the Supreme Court ruling, that we can standardize throughout the district to make the opt-out process clear and consistent for families and teachers,” Burris said. “Part of this work is to identify a process to ensure parents have prior knowledge of curriculum that will be covered in class.”
He said the district expects to roll out guidance for teachers and families in the coming weeks, including the possibility of creating alternative lessons that are consistent across classrooms. Burris added that opt-outs have historically been minimal and that he does not expect a dramatic increase. Still, the district is exploring options for alternative lessons drawn from existing resources, either digitally or on paper, to make the process manageable for teachers and consistent for students, he said.
Officials in several other districts, including Santa Ana Unified, Newport-Mesa Unified and Garden Grove Unified, said they are still reviewing the decision with their attorneys.
Questions remain
The Supreme Court did not specify how opt-out forms should be structured or how far in advance parents must be notified, nor did it set expectations for how far ahead teachers should plan lessons. Flint said these details will need to be determined at the local level.
The ruling also doesn’t set a deadline for when districts must come into compliance. Santa Ana Trustee Brenda Lebsack said that is concerning, “because it feels like they could draw this thing out for a long time.”
When it comes to her own district, she said, “I’m trying to give a lot of grace, because I know our district leadership. We’re dealing with a lot of issues, but at the same time, we are responsible for following the law, especially federal directives.”
Flint said though no deadline was created, if a lawsuit is brought against a district, “then that will create scrutiny around whether the district is compliant with the law.”
Blades, the PYLUSD trustee, pressed for more clarity at both the August and September board meetings, saying parents still don’t know what lessons qualify for opt-outs.
“I’m getting calls daily on what is going on here,” she said. “If we aren’t transparent with our community, we’re just going to keep losing trust.”
Flint said school districts are bracing for lawsuits no matter what they do.
“The threat of litigation is definitely looming, and that’s from both sides of the aisle,” he said.
Some left-leaning groups have warned that complying with the ruling could amount to discrimination against LGBTQ students and families, Flint said, while others on the right argue that failing to immediately follow the Supreme Court’s decision could result in lawsuits for noncompliance.
“Districts are facing a litigious environment all around,” Flint said.
The Orange County Department of Education is offering recommendations on compliance, including encouraging districts to consult with their lawyers and put board policies on the agenda. According to a July memo to superintendents, the department’s legal services team will provide resources to help coordinate local legal responses and will host consortia and discussion groups “to create consistent model policies.”
“Our role is to help promote consistent understanding and share updates and resources as clearer guidance emerges,” said department spokesperson Ian Hanigan. He noted that neither the court nor the state education department has said districts must create standardized alternative lessons or overhaul their notification systems, leaving those decisions to local boards.
“What that looks like in terms of notification, frequency of notification, and what happens with students who are excused from class, that is being determined on a district level,” Flint said.
He said he believes many school boards are reluctant to call attention to the issue at all.
“They feel it’s a lose-lose situation,” he said, noting that some worry about reputational damage or even personal safety if the debate becomes too heated.
“But beyond that, I think they see two sides that have little, if any, common ground on this issue and they worry that whatever solution they propose, they will either be accused of unlawful conduct or of discriminatory conduct,” he added. “And I think districts are struggling to thread the needle on this issue.”