Utah students have the legal right to not do an assignment or take a class if it violates their religious beliefs or right of conscience. But what if it’s part of the state’s core education standards — the things every student is expected to learn?
The Utah State Board of Education approved a rule amendment in September to deal with this situation, but parents’ rights advocates and conservative groups claim it's unconstitutional.
The Utah Legislature passed a law earlier this year giving all K-12 students the right to “refrain from participation in any aspect of school that violates a religious belief or right of conscience of the student.” Parents already had the right in Utah code to pull their kids out of classes or school activities based on this reasoning.
The education board updated some of its rules to reflect that students have this autonomy, and not just their parents.
Currently, if a parent objects to part of a class, “the parent shall be responsible for the student’s mastery of Core Standards to the satisfaction of the school” before the student can move on to the next grade level.
In September, the school board approved changing that rule to say if a student refrains from a class or part of a class because it violates their right of conscience, “the parent and school may work together to establish a reasonable academic accommodation, which allows the student to demonstrate mastery of Core Standards” before they go onto the next grade level.
In order for Utah high school diplomas to mean something, board member Molly Hart said, students have to meet the core standards set by the state board of education and those standards can not be waived.
While the amended rule passed, not all were behind it. Board member Natalie Cline asked what would happen if a student or parent objects not just to a particular assignment, but an entire core standard. Then, Cline argued, students’ rights would be infringed upon if they were still required to master that core standard.
The conservative group Higher Ground, which has worked with Cline in the past, sent a request to the state board to hold a public hearing on the rule.
During the Oct. 23 hearing, Higher Ground’s Monica Wilbur told the board she thought the amended rule was unconstitutional. To her, the rule should simply say “a student or parent may refrain from participation,” and leave out anything about requiring students to demonstrate mastery of core standards.
The state board previously considered amending the rule to just have the simplified language, but during an August committee meeting, Deputy Superintendent Angie Stallings said this might unintentionally send the wrong message. She said districts may interpret this as if a student opts out of a class, the school has to just give them credit for the course and can not give an alternative to show the student’s proficiency.
Most of those who spoke at the public hearing opposed the new amended rule, including Republican state Rep. Phil Lyman. Some spoke in support and said they appreciated that the rule included parents working with schools. The board is also accepting comments submitted via email until Oct. 31. The feedback will be presented to board members who will take up the issue again during their Nov. 2 meeting.
In an email to KUER, communication coordinator Kelsey James wrote that after receipt of the report, the board will consider whether to let the rule take effect, hold it, amend it or refer it back to committee for further consideration.
