Shelley Burtt argues that liberal democratic ideals are best honored when parents are allowed to structure their children's education through an opt-out option in ways compatible with their beliefs religious. This strong principle of parental deference whereby most parental objections to particular aspects of the public school curriculum should be respected and accommodated. Overall I think your argument is pretty weak and that there should be no deference from parents when it comes to religious reasons in public schools. Burtt begins the article by laying out the arguments of those against parental deference, using a couple of past court cases as arguments. example. Using the thoughts of Amy Gutmann as a basis. Some of the reasons she offers as against parental deference are that public schools cannot afford to turn teachers into traffic controllers in an attempt to accommodate their students' various conscientious or religious objections. Then there is also the avoidance of religious divinity. Exempting students from certain classes because of their religious objections to the material presented would obnoxiously highlight the religious differences that public schools are supposed to silence. Accommodating these concerns would too severely compromise the civic mission of public schools, which is to prepare students for citizenship and encourage personal autonomy. He also compares it to the case of Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, the court also ruled in the case of the school requiring students to do some reading. In the second part of the article Burtt argues for the shortcomings of Guttmann's view. that taking children out of the classroom does not compromise the civic mission of public schools, and that... middle of paper... equal opportunities for all citizens will make for the best situation for people, no matter whether changing beliefs, remaining the themselves or simply abandon their beliefs altogether. Public schools may have the constitutional authority to insist on curricular uniformity over parents' religious objections and should, regardless of the legal situations currently involved. Not only should the possibility of parental deference not be respected or welcomed, it should not be allowed at all. I believe Guttman's case against paternal deference was stronger than Burtt's. Evolution education, elimination of roles, planetary systems are fundamental skills, essential for the lives of children and society as a whole. Even if parents do not want their children to be taught these lessons, the state has the right to use paternalism to do what is right for society as a whole.