By Attorney Thomas B. Mooney, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut

The “Legal Question of the Week” is a regular feature of the CAS Weekly NewsBlast. We invite readers to submit short, law-related questions of practical concern to school administrators. Each week, we will select a question and publish an answer. While these answers cannot be considered formal legal advice, they may be of help to you and your colleagues. We may edit your questions, and we will not identify the authors. Please submit your questions to: legalmailbagcasciacorg. _________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Legal Mailbag:

This “ME” generation of parents is driving me crazy. They want this, and they want that; but they never consider how their demands affect the staff and the other students. The latest is that a parent made an FOIA request and got an electronic copy of our Eighth Grade Health Curriculum. After going through it, she is demanding that her daughter be excused from about 60% of the curriculum, including information on safe dating, sexual harassment, and saying “no” to drugs. She claims that she has a constitutional right to bring her daughter up as she sees fit; and she thinks that the curriculum in those areas is too “raw” and, as such, is inappropriate for her delicate flower of a child.

When I talked to the health teacher about this, I got an earful. He raised reasonable questions about exactly how this would work. Where would the student go and what would the student do when the class is dealing with these objectionable topics? But when I tried to talk some sense in to the parent, she was dismissive and told me, “You figure it out!” Should I assign a paraprofessional to watch the student when the class is working on topics to which the mother objects?

Signed,
I Live to Serve

Dear Live:

The curriculum is not a buffet, and you are not a chef. School officials have the right and responsibility to deliver the curriculum. For their part, parents have the right to enroll their children in the public schools on the condition that they follow school rules, including participation in classroom activities. Alternatively, parents have the right to make alternative arrangements for their children’s education, such as private school or home-schooling. They do not have the right to dictate to school officials what parts of the curriculum are acceptable for their children and what parts of the curriculum are not. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals announced this rule in Leebaert v. Harrington, an important case from Fairfield decided in 2003.

To be sure, there are exceptions to this rule. Specifically, Connecticut law permits parents unilaterally to have their children excused from four areas of the curriculum: (1) family life education, (2) HIV instruction, (3) gun safety instruction, and, as of July 1, 2013, (4) dissection. Otherwise, absent an objection based on religious obligations, parents do not have the right to demand that their children be excused from classroom activities other than in the aforementioned specific areas of the curriculum. When parents object to an activity on the basis that it violates the tenets of one’s religion, however, school officials are obligated to make accommodations, if such accommodations are reasonably possible.

Finally, in such matters, it is important to differentiate between what school officials must do and what they should do. Sometimes, acceding to a parent request is not a problem; and, when school officials make simple accommodations, parents may feel more comfortable with the school program. The key is that school officials have significant discretion in considering most parent requests for excusal.