Coming attractions. Tomorrow, Friday, at 1p ET, Kathleen deLaski and I will talk college and alternatives to college for students. The what, why, and how of that issue. Her new book approaches that question from a design perspective.
I’m moderating the keynote session at the NACPS annual conference in Orlando at the end of this month. Join us for a lively discussion on where charter schooling stands in 2025.
New Report Card podcast out: Rick Hess, Nat Malkus, and I chop it up, like the kids say. We discuss how much it truly is for that little DOGEie in the window, trench warfare at Harvard, and the reconciliation bill. Plus, a summer-themed Grade It. More.
New Report Card podcast out (Part 2): OK, it’s been a while since a posting. In the actually newest new episode just out yesterday, Nat, Rick and I talk more about Harvard and international students and “equity grading.” Also, a lot of quiet grumbling about EWA’s recent meeting from journos, we go on the record with our concerns about what it means and why it matters for discourse in the sector.
SCOTUS ended up 4–4 on the Oklahoma religious charter school case. Big question: will proponents of religious charter schools find a better vehicle and avoid a Barrett recusal next time? My colleagues Hailly Korman and Indira Dammu break that down. Meanwhile, Charlie Barone says the Dems need to up their game on charters.
Jed Wallace and I talk about all that—and more, including book recommendations—on a new WonkyFolk. Listen or watch here or wherever you get your podcasts. And we’ll be recording one in Florida at the NACPS meeting in July if you are interested.
Worst book club ever? In Ed Week Rick Hess and I take a look at the Mahmoud v. Taylor case currently before SCOTUS and talk books. Rick doesn’t like Lawn Boy; I think it’s a good book—but not for young kids (the author agrees). We get into age appropriateness, activists, and how these books all get lumped together when case-by-case is a better approach. More generally:
One thing Rick and I don’t get into: teacher training. In the hands of a poorly trained teacher—or one with an agenda or insufficient boundaries—any book can become a problem. But the solution isn’t to put blinkers on kids. It’s to train and support teachers and addressing the freelance problem. Now, if you’re wondering whether school leaders are up to that task given all the swirling ideology—well, that’s a good question. And that brings us to Mahmoud v. Taylor and a question worth pausing on:
Is Mahmoud v. Taylor the dumbest Supreme Court education case ever?
It just might be.
And that would be no small feat. In this jurisprudential lineage, for every Pierce, Barnette, or Tinker, you get a Bethel or a Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Or more recently, the Kennedy case, featuring a coach whose crusade for school prayer was apparently so vital to him and his allies that after prevailing he’s now seen only on milk cartons.
At the appeals level, we’ve seen cases like Newsom v. Albemarle County, where a school district tried to ban an NRA T-shirt. And of course, we routinely revisit the Co-ed Naked Band or “I ♥ Boobies” genre of cases. Returning to Barnette: every few years, some administrator forgets you can’t compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (that precedent is only eight decades old—be patient).
Now, about Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case started in Montgomery County, MD, and was argued this April. It’s absurd, but no joke. The issues at stake are important. So are the underlying dynamics. Yet, it’s a case that never should have made it to the Supreme Court. Here’s one Montgomery County parent on that.
Natalie Wexler makes the case that courts shouldn’t decide issues like this—local parents and school officials should.
Worth noting: the number of amicus briefs supporting neither party—just trying to limit the damage. Here’s one from education associations. Here’s another.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
Once the case was filed, the school district should have paused. It should have stopped fighting and moved toward a more sensible policy. Note: The original case was Mahmoud v. McKnight, but that superintendent left the district, and the new superintendent, Thomas Taylor, a respected Virginia administrator, inherited the case and is now the named defendant. This is quite the parting gift.)
The core issue: Can parents opt their children out of public school activities that conflict with their religious beliefs? In some ways, this question is settled—sex ed, for example, often allows opt-outs. About a century ago, SCOTUS affirmed parents’ right to choose religious schools in Pierce. But this case goes further because the material in question isn’t a discrete unit—it’s embedded in the curriculum. That’s why the stakes are so high.
What happened: Post-2020, Montgomery County started using a collection of books to teach about LGBTQ+ topics, intersectionality, and related themes. Why? Because 2020. Still, as I noted in my discussion with Rick Hess, it’s a mistake to treat these books as a uniform set—they vary. Some are overtly political; others just feature gay characters in otherwise timeless narratives.
In any case, many parents began opting out. And while the immediate assumption was that this was just white reactionaries at it again, it turned out to be a cross-section of families—including many Muslim parents. The lead plaintiff is Muslim. I heard a lot of quiet WTFs from parents in Montgomery County who are fairly left in their politics. A few things worth pausing on:
First: This reaction surprised people—especially the loud leadership class oriented white progressives steeped in the essentialness of intersectionality (never mind most hadn’t heard of the term or idea a year earlier). Despite preaching “cultural competence,” at the rest of us many of these folks in Montgomery County seemed shocked that Muslim families wouldn’t be thrilled about Pride Puppy. We can debate whether that’s good or bad—but it’s real. The resulting rhetoric was… not great.
Second: Come on. It’s 2025. Your kids are going to encounter gay people in the world. If that’s a dealbreaker for you then public school may not be the right fit. Maybe look into living like this? Because seriously—what’s the limiting principle? No openly gay teachers? No mention of different family structures? At the same time we can leave some space for families with different views who want space—especially in the early grades. That’s the core issue here. Pluralism must go all ways, and we badly need that conversation in schools right now about how to balance things. This is not it. (Worth flagging here: The Supreme Court just declined to hear an adjacent and consequential First Amendment student speech rights case).
Today’s education leaders increasingly frame the fight as “Don’t Say Gay” vs. “Gender Theory for Kindergartners,” and then pick a side—sometimes reluctantly, sometimes enthusiastically. But the real loser isn’t either faction (they’re both fundraising and thriving on social media just fine)—it’s public schools. Because it’s the wrong fight. The real threat is the erosion of trust and the activists fueling it alongside declining enrollment, demographic changes, and fiscal pressure.
Montgomery County saw the wave of opt-outs—so many they claimed it was a problem—and instead of seeing it as a signal to heed, they doubled down. They eliminated opt-outs and simply made the material part of the curriculum. That created awkward inconsistencies: for instance, depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were disallowed, but LGBT-themed material that some parents objected to remained. Parents were enraged. And remember: this was all happening in kindergarten and early elementary classrooms. Age really matters to this conversation. It should be one of the first questions you ask when this comes up.
It was the education version of “but the groups,” and a missed chance to lead and show that these things can be balanced. We’re not as divided as the activists on both sides would have you believe.
In other words, it was a terrible choice of hills to die on—and, of course, the county got sued. And now, we’re possibly facing a major SCOTUS decision with broad implications. About something that could’ve been resolved through basic dialogue and principle-based leadership. Certainly without the Supreme Court.
Great work, everyone.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
View the original article and our Inspiration here