A parent’s email has prompted Lehighton Area School District school board members to consider whether to adopt a policy that would formally give families the ability to remove their children from certain lessons and activities.

“This would be a policy that gives power to parents to know about certain curriculum items and to be able to opt out ahead of time,” board President Joy Beers said. “I’ve read through it. I think it’s worth looking into and perhaps asking our lawyer to review it.”

Director Jeremy Glaush said he sees no harm in exploring the issue.

“There are subjects that some parents don’t want their kids to be a part of, and if keeping them in our school as opposed to cyber means letting them opt out of programs, that makes sense,” Glaush said.

The proposal followed the circulation of a model “parental opt-out rights” policy that has been shared with school boards nationwide. The document states that adopting a clear policy “reinforces the vital role of parental involvement in guiding their children’s education and respects the fundamental right to religious freedom affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Model policy

The model policy, published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, calls for school districts to provide advance notice of potentially sensitive or controversial instruction, such as sex education, student surveys, mental health screenings, guest speakers and certain social issues. It also directs that parents be allowed to review instructional materials upon request, including printed handouts, digital resources, audiovisual content and assessments.

Parents would be able to submit written opt-out requests to teachers or principals. Requests must identify the specific lesson or activity and describe the religious or moral basis for the objection. The policy says that “religious opt-out requests need only state that the instruction conflicts with the family’s religious beliefs and shall not be subject to questioning.”

The document cites Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), a U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring public schools to honor religious-based opt-out requests unless the district can demonstrate a compelling interest using the “strict scrutiny” standard.

Local concerns

Lehighton officials debated Monday how such a policy would work locally. Superintendent Jason Moser noted that state law already gives parents the ability to opt out in certain situations.

“We probably already have a lot of instances where we offer this,” he said. “What’s really in this policy is codifying that ability.”

Others, such as district resident Ryan Bowman, expressed caution about how far it might go.

“Where’s the balance between letting educators be educators and parents directing curriculum?” he asked. “Otherwise, we’ll have parents coming to the board saying, ‘I don’t want my kid in math, I don’t want my kid in science, I don’t want my kid in language.’ ”

Board member Kerry Sittler pointed out the challenges faced by teachers when parents have different expectations.

“There are some things that parents would rather teach their children in their own way, maybe because of their religion or culture,” she said. “That’s nothing against teachers, but things change so quickly, and there are topics I wish my own children hadn’t been taught in school.”

Possible next steps

Beers suggested that the district seek outside legal guidance before making a decision.

“We could send this policy to the Independence Law Center and get their opinion,” one board member said. “It’s free advice, and we could still run it by our own solicitor.”

Others floated the idea of going beyond opt-outs.

“As far as I’m concerned, parents are in charge,” Director Duane Dellecker said. “I’d love to even take it one step further. Instead of opting out, have parents opt in.”

Topics of concern

Monday’s conversation also turned to sensitive issues such as mental health screenings. Dellecker said he read about school districts forcing mental health screenings on students and expressed skepticism about blanket assessments.

“If a problem develops during the school year and our staff recognizes it, then you take action,” he said. “But screening kids in advance for mental health? That sounds like somebody just trying to create a job.”

Others questioned whether young children could be misunderstood by such screenings.

“You take a child in kindergarten who says they want to be a dinosaur,” Glaush said. “Does that make them mental?”

The board also discussed how sex education is handled in the district. High school teacher Mike Lusch explained that instruction is aligned with state standards. “Students are presented with factual information, and at no time are they told how to behave,” Lusch said. “They are taught how to make decisions with the information they’ve learned.”

Lusch added that transparency already exists in the way the district approaches sensitive health topics.

“We are not pushing opinions or directing students to make decisions based on what we think,” he said. “We provide them with the tools to make their own decisions.”