In New Hampshire, parents rule the curriculum. Phonics? Civil Rights? Not if Mom and Dad say no. Once upon a time in Bedford, N.H., a teacher in a high school personal finance class set out to educate her students on what day-to-day life was like in a minimum wage job. The teacher assigned the students to read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America." Here's Ms. Ehrenreich on her time working as a member of a corporate housekeeping team: So here I am on my knees, working my way around the room like some fanatical penitent crawling through the stations of the cross, when I realize Mrs. W is staring at me ... would she at least be inspired to offer me a glass of water? Because I have decided that if water is actually offered, I'm taking it, rules or no rules ... Not to worry, though. She's just watching to make sure I don't leave out some stray square inch, and when I rise painfully to my feet again, blinking through the sweat, she says, "Could you just scrub the floor in the entryway while you're at it?" Those aren't words that would inspire me to choose a life of scrubbing floors, and they might just have stayed with me, as a high school student, at a moment when I was deciding between the apparent immediate gratification of independence at minimum wage and sticking it out through high school and beyond. But they won't stay with the students of Bedford, N.H. As you might have gathered from the quote, Ms. Ehrenreich's attitude toward work is scarcely reverent, and neither is her attitude toward historical religious figures. At one point she describes Jesus as a "wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist" (while making the point that he would have been sympathetic to the struggles of low-wage workers), and she is occasionally mildly profane. One parent objected to that. Objected so strongly that the school district removed the book from the curriculum. The resulting flurry of argument and debate over the rights of parents in public schools led to New Hampshire legislators passing a law (over a gubernatorial veto) that allows parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Any subject. Any objection. This appears to be the broadest such law in the nation. Many states (including New York) allow parents to opt their children out of sex education classes. Texas allows for the exception of students from any class or activity that "conflicts with a parent's religious or moral beliefs." But only New Hampshire permits parents to have their children opt out of anything from the teaching of evolution to the teaching of phonics. The mechanics of an "opt-out" are unclear: this is a law created by politicians, not educators. The school district is obligated to develop an alternative plan for each student that still allows the student to meet specific state educational requirements on the subject manner (should they exist). The parent is obligated to pay for the cost of the change. How the cost will be calculated or a new curriculum for one implemented aren't addressed. But on the substance, the law is clearer. Think your child should be shielded from an understanding of the civil rights movement? Believe spelling is a waste of time in the age of spell check? Just raise an objection, and in New Hampshire, your child should be accommodated. Education isn't the private right of parents. It's for students, and for the public good. We, as a nation, have an interest in a well-educated citizenry, and we should have the ability to define that education on a local, state and sometimes national level. Shielding students from information or discussion that conflicts with an individual parent's view of the world is not in the public interest. You don't have to live in New Hampshire (as I do) to be concerned about the impact of New Hampshire's new law, which is at the forefront of a general trend. In 2009, when President Obama addressed the nation's students over the Internet, schools across the country were faced with calls from parents demanding the right to shield their children's eyes and ears. A "parental rights amendment" to the constitution has been proposed and has 17 co-sponsors; it states that "the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right." What began in New Hampshire may well sound like an excellent idea to legislatures in other states. As a nation, we're moving toward an education system that turns e plurubis unum into "out of one, many" (and no outdated, elitist Latin for my child, thank you very much). Do you share my sense that this is a dangerous trend, or would you welcome the opportunity to demand that your child be allowed to drop "Singapore math" or skip that unit on the Holocaust? Is education for the overall good, or is it a private right?