A Wisconsin charter school is facing potential legal action after rejecting multiple curriculum materials chosen by a parent — materials that are largely non-religious — simply because they were produced by a Christian publisher or contained minimal religious references.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) announced it has notified Lighthouse Learning Academy, a district-authorized charter program, that it is prepared to sue if the school does not reverse course and stop discriminating against Christian educational resources.
Lighthouse, which was created to give families more flexibility and involvement in their children’s education, allows parents to select instructional materials that best fit their student’s needs. But when parent Karen Sharkey selected several textbooks and learning tools from Simply Charlotte Mason — an award-winning national publisher used widely in homeschooling and charter programs — Lighthouse rejected them solely because of the publisher’s Christian affiliation.
The decisions came even though the specific textbooks she selected contain no religious content.
Among the rejected materials:
-
Elementary Arithmetic Series Book 5 – contains no religious content. Denied strictly because the publisher is Christian.
-
Shakespeare in Three Steps – A Comedy of Errors – no religious content whatsoever. Denied because of the publisher’s Christian identity.
-
Using Language Well Book 5 Bundle – rejected because it includes a handful of religious references, even though the content would be administered privately by the parent.
-
Biblingo language platform – teaches Hebrew and Koine Greek; rejected because lessons include videos and imagery from the biblical world.
WILL says Lighthouse’s actions violate both the Free Exercise Clause and parents’ constitutional rights.
WILL Associate Counsel Lauren Greuel blasted the school’s actions as unlawful and rooted in anti-Christian animus.
“Lighthouse Learning Academy is drawing a line in the sand for all the wrong reasons. Denying a parent’s selections for curriculum to best fit the needs of her child because of a Christian affiliation is misguided and illegal,” Greuel said. “WILL stands ready to protect Mrs. Sharkey’s right to choose the best coursework for her child and to demand that the school applies its policies fairly to all parents.”
Sharkey said the school’s refusal contradicts the very purpose of its parent-driven model.
“My husband and I chose Lighthouse for our family because of its commitment to involving parents in the educational process,” she said. “We are surprised and deeply disappointed that Lighthouse has chosen to single out and discriminate against Christian publishers.”
According to WILL, Lighthouse is not only discriminating based on religious status — a violation of the Free Exercise Clause — but is also infringing on parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. That right was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that public institutions cannot interfere with parental control of education without compelling justification.
Lighthouse’s actions, WILL argues, represent the kind of hostility toward religion that courts have repeatedly struck down. If the school does not reverse its decisions and allow the non-religious materials, WILL says it will “pursue legal action to protect parental rights and ensure fair treatment for all families.”
The legal battle could become the latest flashpoint in a growing national debate over parental rights, religious freedom and the direction of public education — especially in publicly funded charter schools that are supposed to empower families, not restrict them.
WILL has issued a formal letter to Lighthouse outlining its concerns and demanding corrective action.
