Maybe the "power" but not the legal right to go against the ruling of the SCOTUS - as they are finding out, one by one.
In 1925, the Supreme Court decided the Pierce v. Society of Sisters6 case, thereby supporting Meyer’s recognition of the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and to control the process of their education.
In Pierce, the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon compulsory education law which, in effect, required attendance of all children between ages eight and sixteen at public schools. The Court declared,
Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.
In addition to upholding the right of parents to direct the upbringing and the education of their children, Pierce also asserts the parents’ fundamental right to keep their children free from government standardization.
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excluded any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
That should be plain enough for anyone to understand - even if they've been subjected to the watered down 'education' of the Government Indoctrination Camps.
I am waiting for parents to also wake up to this part of the SCOTUS ruling "Pierce also asserts the parents’ fundamental right to keep their children free from government standardization."
That means that a great deal of the mandated curriculum of the schools across this country are illegal...
Good. I wasn’t aware of this ruling. It’s just darned lucky that the case was brought in 1925, as I can’t imagine today’s Supreme Court issuing a ruling so totally “anti-state power”.