Grammar school exists to teach kids the basics - the "Three R's." It has been coopted over the last 30-40 years in an attempt (mostly successful) to append all sorts of social, sexual and (im)moral "instruction" to American youth that is directly counter to the wishes and values of parents.
Parents, NOT the state, are the primary educators of their children. That's simply the natural law in practice. The fact that many parents abdicate this responsibility is immaterial here. Millions still do not. Even where they do, that is due mostly to their own laziness and the instilling of moral relativism in their OWN education.
We're not talking about the crank "flat-earther" who objects to universally acknowledged geography curricula. We're talking about moral and religious principles being contermanded by the very same state that has already BANNED direct expression of religious principles in the political forum. These topics are properly within the sphere of parental upbringing, not state tutelage.
The state has long since banned student-initiated reference to religious principles in political and educational discourse, thus instilling a prejudice and/or shamefaced disavowal of such principles in these students. That's bad enough. Now, we have the state saying that parents "cannot" control the basic moral worldview of their children, even in a cultural moral vacuum already engineeered, in large measure, by the state! This is simply an outrage.
A return to proper subject matter is what's really needed. Let's lose all of these peripheral subjects that have nothing to do with a traditional primary and secondary school education. If only for the practical considerations! Kids can't read, write, spell and figure because most of their school day seems caught up in all of this extraneous nonsense.
In the meantime, what ever happened to the idea that parents can at least "opt out" their children in scuh situations?
The school system sent out a consent form. The school also stopped the surveys once parents complained. The parents sued anyway.
I agree with your statements for the most part. I just don't think that the Court's legal reasoning was faulty in THIS case.