Is Ed Tech the New Frontier of Parental Rights?
From classroom storybooks to Google Classroom, how far does the parental right to “direct the upbringing and education of my child” go in school?
About ten years ago, when Google Classroom was a fairly new phenomena, one of the school districts I represented called me with an odd request from a parent. “He’s at it again!” the superintendent sighed. This particular dad had a problem with every. little. thing. the school did. He didn’t like the songs chosen for the 3rd grade musical program. He didn’t like the word problem on the math worksheet. We wondered why he sent his kids to public school at all. “We have no idea how to process his latest request,” the superintendent said.
On this occasion, Dad wanted to opt his daughters out of all technology at school. He didn’t want them using computers, he didn’t want them bringing an ipad home, he wanted all curriculum to be delivered in analog fashion.
Turns out, he may have been ahead of his time.
Lower Merion School District, a high-performing school district in Philadelphia, had a longstanding policy that allowed parents to refuse one-to-one internet-connected devices for their children. In spring 2026, the board started a series of public meetings to revise that policy, as it had become inoperable:
“We’re concerned about screen time and we’ll work with our teachers . . . but part of our curriculum is done with electronic devices. We can’t have a room of 20 or 30 kids that want to opt out, and the rest of the school is operating differently.”
Some parents bulked at this proposal and insisted that their children be able to opt out of all one-to-one devices. The board meetings got so disruptive (or “spicy,” as one parent advocate put it), that several parents were banned from attending future board meetings and board meetings moved to Zoom. By August 2026, the board adopted a new technology policy to balance the concerns that there was too much tech in the classroom but opting out was not a feasible solution:
Grades K–4: No ipads or laptops, and technology in the classroom is restricted to specific needs, like standardized testing
Grades 5-8: One-to-one laptops and ipads assigned at school. Parents can choose if they want their child to bring it home.
Grades 9-12: Students encouraged, but not required, to bring one-to-one Chromebooks home as necessary for assignments.
Within days of the board adopting the new tech policy, litigation ensued. Lev v. Lower Merion School District was filed by a group of parents and EdTech Law Center, a Texas-based law firm of two attorneys who have spent the last two years filing cases mostly related to data breaches with Google or Powerschool.
Lev v. Lower Merion School District appears to be the first type of case using “parental rights” and “opt out” language — most recently applied to religious parents’ arguments against LGBTQIA+ curriculum or school library books — to educational technology.
And while this may be the first, it’s certainly not the last: EdTech Law Center’s website features a pop up window seeking families for similar lawsuits:
What’s fascinating (if you’re a legal or policy nerd) about the Lev v. Lower Merion School District complaint is that it takes recent cases about LGBTQIA+ issues to expand the concept of “parental rights” to ed tech like Google Classroom. The plaintiffs rely upon holdings in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about queer-inclusive books in the classroom library, to argue that the same concepts apply to one-to-one ipads.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, decided in June 2025, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that parents should have a notice-and-opt-out option so their elementary school-aged children would not be exposed to classroom storybooks that included LGBTQIA+ themes. In Mahmoud, a group of religious Maryland parents wanted to opt their children out of reading classroom books that included gay characters or queer background themes, such as a puppy that gets lost at a pride parade. The Supreme Court found the parents had a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children. The Court likened this parental right to Amish plaintiffs in Yoder v. Wisconsin and its progeny, who had a 14th Amendment right to “direct the upbringing and care of their children.” The Supreme Court further reasoned that public schools already have “systems of exceptions”: Schools allow opt-outs for human sexuality education, English language learners services, special education services… so what’s one more opt out? (!)
The plaintiffs’ argument in Lev v. Lower Merion School District takes the arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor one step further: Just as parents have the constitutional right under the 14th Amendment to direct the upbringing and care of their children, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Yoder v. Wisconsin, Mahmoud v. Taylor, Troxel v. Granville, and several other cases, these parents argue they should be able to opt-out of all educational technology. They argue that ed tech allows “students of all ages [to] access online pornography, violent videos, gambling sites, and video games” 24/7/365, in violation of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. (The school district says this isn’t happening and filters are put in place on all devices. Parents say the kids get around the filters and browse social media, shop, watch an “endless stream” of YouTube videos, chat with strangers, bully each other, and cheat with AI chatbots.)
The balance between “Directing the care and education of your own children” vs. “Operating a pluralistic, dynamic, modern school” is being tested in a variety of ways:
Can a parent opt their child out of being taught by a trangender teacher?
Can a school district withhold gender identity information from a parent when the child asks to keep it secret?
Can a parent opt their child out of all AI-assistive devices?
Can a parent opt their child out of interacting with armed SROs?
Can a parent opt their white child out of being educated alongside Black children? Their cisgender child out of the locker room with transgender children?
That dad from ten years ago was a big ole’ pain in the butt. His daughters have likely graduated and moved on by now. But maybe he was a trailblazer. We’ll wait to see if he was right. After all, the line between trailblazer and pain in the butt is usually a thin one.
Imprint Legal Group advises schools and businesses on legal compliance and inclusive cultures. We specialize in civil rights laws (disability, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, etc.) that apply to K-12 schools. To discuss any questions about your particular situation, training opportunities, or media inquiries, please contact: hello@imprintlegalgroup.com.
All posts of Imprint Legal Group and its authors are intended as information, not legal advice. This information is valid as of September 25, 2026. This was written by a real human with a real brain.
