Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to speak with you and for all the great work you are doing on behalf of our country. May the Lord bless the work of your hands.

As a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, I submit this comment to express deep concern over rising threats to parental rights in education, particularly through the push to limit the right of parents to opt their children out of lessons in public schools that are inimical to their values, as well as the enforcement of “substantial equivalency” standards that threaten the autonomy of private and religious schools. I urge federal policymakers to ensure that states respect the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, including the right to choose educational environments that differ substantially from government-run schools.

1. The Inextricable Link Between Faith and Education

Faith has always been at the center of education. The late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, was fond of observing that on the eve of the Exodus from Egypt, Moses spoke to the Israelites not of the “long walk to freedom” nor about the “land flowing with milk and honey,” but rather of the duty of parents to educate their children. Likewise, at the end of his life, as the Israelites prepare to enter the Promised Land and build a covenantal society, Moses commanded: “You shall teach these things diligently to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise.” (Deut. 6:7)

Why is education so fundamental? As Rabbi Sacks put it: “To defend a country, you need an army. But to defend a civilization, you need schools. You need education as the conversation between generations. […] We need to teach our children, and they theirs, what we aspire to and the ideals we were bequeathed by those who came before us.”

Our Founders understood this. From our nation’s earliest days, America has striven to make education universal, viewing it as essential both for self-government and for individual advancement. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,” setting the tone for the rise of common schools across the states over the next century. Over time, states began to adopt compulsory education laws to ensure that all children learn the knowledge and skills necessary to be good citizens and productive members of their community.

2. Parents Are the Primary Educators of Their Children

A century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in its unanimous decision inPierce v. Society of Sisters(1925) that “the child is not the mere creature of the state” and that parents have a “right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.” In striking down a Ku Klux Klan-supported law to ban private schooling in Oregon, the Supreme Court recognized that parents—not the state—have the right and primary authority “to direct the upbringing and education” of their children.

This is not to say that the government has no role in education whatsoever. The Pierce decision affirmed the power of the state “to require that all children of proper age attend some school,” as well as the power to regulate schools to some extent. Nevertheless, the government’s role in education is limited and secondary at best.

Nearly 50 years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) that the “primary role” of parents in the upbringing of their children is “established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” The Court also clarified that the U.S. Constitution protects the “fundamental interest of parents… to guide the religious future and education of their children,” sometimes even against a compelling state interest, such as universal compulsory education. The Court stressed that only “interests of the highest order” can override the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, and found that forcing Amish children into high school would “contravene the basic religious tenets” of their faith while offering little benefit to the state. The Court concluded that a “way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.”

3. The Inherent Tension Between Government Schooling and Fundamental Freedoms

There is an inherent tension between government schooling on the one hand and parental rights and religious liberty on the other, because there is no such thing as a “values-neutral” classroom. Schools inevitably transmit values through both the explicit curriculum and the “hidden curriculum”—the unspoken lessons embedded in classroom routines, institutional norms, and which topics are or are not discussed. When teachers choose which historical narratives to emphasize, how to handle discussions of religion or references to God, or what behaviors to reward, they make value-laden decisions that communicate messages about authority, morality, and worldview. Even seemingly neutral choices—from daily schedules that do or don't accommodate religious observances to the way mathematical or scientific topics are framed—reflect particular assumptions about the role of faith and secular knowledge in society.

Government-run schools, by their nature, reflect the values and priorities of the state. As John Stuart Mill warned in On Liberty, government-run schooling runs the risk of “establishing a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body,” especially where the government has a monopoly over education.

This tension is especially acute in areas involving moral and religious instruction. When public schools promote ideologies that contradict the deeply held beliefs of families, parents are placed in an impossible position: either surrender their children to an educational environment that undermines their values or bear the financial burden of seeking alternatives.

In recent years, these tensions have become more obvious as ideologues have coopted many public schools to push radical agendas on a captive audience of children. Parents have increasingly objected to lessons that are inimical to their values, especially those dealing with gender and sexuality. While some parents have sought to exercise their right to opt their children out of such instruction, as recognized in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), many schools have embedded the same ideological themes across the curriculum, leaving families with no meaningful escape. In effect, the only option left is to withdraw from the public school system entirely. However, this solution imposes a significant financial burden on parents who must shoulder the costs of private schooling or home education. As the Supreme Court held in Mahmoud, the “availability of [private and home schooling] is no answer to the parents’ First Amendment objections” as “many parents cannot afford such a substitute.”

In recent years, these tensions have become more obvious as ideologues have coopted many public schools to push radical agendas on a captive audience of children. Parents have increasingly objected to lessons that are inimical to their values, especially those dealing with gender and sexuality. While some parents have sought to exercise their right to opt their children out of such instruction, as recognized in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), many schools have embedded the same ideological themes across the curriculum, leaving families with no meaningful escape. In effect, the only option left is to withdraw from the public school system entirely. However, this solution imposes a significant financial burden on parents who must shoulder the costs of private schooling or home education. As the Supreme Court held in Mahmoud, the “availability of [private and home schooling] is no answer to the parents’ First Amendment objections” as “many parents cannot afford such a substitute.”

4. School Choice Respects and Reflects America’s Freedom and Pluralism

The best way to resolve these tensions is through a robust system of universal school choice. As Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman observed, the government’s interest in ensuring that every child has access to a quality education does not imply that the government should run the schools. Instead, public funds should follow the child to the educational environment that best meets their learning needs and aligns with their family’s values.

School choice respects parental rights and religious liberty, and fosters a more diverse set of schooling options that better reflects the great diversity of American families than the one-size-fits-some status quo. School choice also promotes educational excellence by encouraging innovation and making schools directly accountable to parents. Research consistently shows that school choice programs improve academic outcomes, raise graduation rates, increase parental satisfaction, and boost civic knowledge and participation. But for school choice to be meaningful, private school autonomy must be preserved.

In the landmark Pierce decision, the Supreme Court held that “the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose” prevents the government from attempts “to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” The same fundamental liberty should prevent the government from imposing regulations on private schools that would standardize private education.

Unfortunately, some states have sought to do just that. For example, New York has sought to impose public school curricular norms on private yeshivas serving Orthodox Jewish communities. State law requires that private schools provide an education that is “substantially equivalent” to that offered by the public schools. In recent years, the New York State Education Department has interpreted this statute to require private schools to provide instruction in eleven specific subjects for more than seven hours per day. Although the Court in Pierce held that states may require private schools to teach “certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship,” that is a far cry from requiring them to be “substantially equivalent” to public schools. Such burdensome requirements exceed a state’s constitutional authority. The Constitution protects the right of parents to choose schools that are substantially different from public schools.

This is not merely a local dispute. Just as the Pierce and Yoder cases had implications far beyond the Catholic and Amish communities, the New York yeshiva case concerns fundamental issues regarding parental rights, religious liberty, and the limits of state power in education. The federal government has a compelling interest in ensuring that states do not violate constitutionally protected parental rights. It should not stand idly by while states use regulatory tools to coerce conformity and suppress educational freedom and pluralism.

Conclusion

America’s constitutional tradition has long recognized that parents are the primary educators of their children. Parental rights and religious liberty place meaningful limits on state power over education. To honor those principles, policymakers must both safeguard the autonomy of private and religious schools against regulatory encroachment and ensure that public funding follows students to the schools of their families’ choice. Only by protecting parental rights and empowering parents with school choice can we ensure that America’s education system respects and reflects our deepest commitments to freedom, diversity, and self-government.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason Bedrick
Research Fellow, Center for Education Policy, The Heritage Foundation

*******************

The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at any level, nor does it perform any government or other contract work.

The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United States. During 2024, it had hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation, and corporate supporters representing every state in the U.S. Its 2024 operating income came from the following sources:

Individuals 81%

Foundations 14%

Corporations 2%

Program revenue and other income 3%

The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 1% of its 2024 income. The Heritage Foundation’s books are audited annually by the national accounting firm of RSM US, LLP.

Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals discussing their own independent research. The views expressed are their own and do not reflect an institutional position of The Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees.