...(I)t represents a sustainable exercise of the trial court's discretion to determine the educational placement that is in daughter's best interests.The case arose from a contest for control between divorced parents. I see nothing but typical snobbery against people of faith, dressed in legalese and weasel words. Expressed as a principle (the quote above), it authorizes nearly unbounded intrusion into parental rights.
For the counter-argument, read John Coons, "School Choice as Simple Justice" (First Things).
Until yesterday it was also the practice of our schools to force dissenting and nonbelieving children of the poor to behave like Protestants. Eventually the courts said no. That particular tyranny is behind us only to be replaced by another: children of whatever belief now must study the gospel of secular neutrality.Note that system defenders typically blame parents for system failures. Parent involvement is beneficial, except when it's not.