The U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing religious parents to withdraw students from lessons involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks will change how districts on Long Island handle similaropt-out requests and could lead districts to alter their curriculum, local school leaders and advocates said.

The decision, handed down in a 6-3 ruling on Friday, could increase the number and breadth of parental opt-outs — though it remains unclear to what extent, school experts said.

"It really expands the scope of choice in public schools,” said Lars Clemensen, superintendent for Hampton Bays schools and past president of New York State Council of School Superintendents.

Educators and attorneys said opt-out requests for instruction were generally rare in Long Island schools and typically concerned specific parts of the curriculum rather than entire themes.

For example, Clemensen recalled a student who did not want to dissect a frog, so her teacher found a virtual version of the task for her. Often, educators said they worked with families on solutions or alternatives.

Jay Worona, former general counsel for the New York State School Boards Association, called the court’s ruling last week a game changer.

In the past, a district could have denied similar opt-out requests but now they would find themselves in trouble, he said.

“We never had a decision until Friday that says … that parents have a right to opt their children out of those portions of the curriculum that they find to be religiously objectionable,” said Worona, now a consultant for the association.

Friday's ruling came after a group of parents challenged the refusal of the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system to let parents opt out of lessons that used LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The district had previously allowed opt-outs but reversed course when the "growing" number of requests became too difficult to accommodate, according to the ruling.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said the storybooks “convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender” and their use in lessons went beyond exposure to different perspectives.

“We express no view on the educational value of the Board’s proposed curriculum, other than to state that it places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ religious exercise if it is imposed with no opportunity for opt outs,” he wrote.

Rosalind Hanson, the mother of a student attending Montgomery County schools, told Newsday that she and her fellow parents did not wish to have the books removed, but rather to retain their choice of opting out. Hanson, the Montgomery County chapter chair of Moms for Liberty, was part of Kids First, a group of parents and teachers that was a petitioner in the case.

“It was never to change curriculum or change books but rather to respect that we do not have a one-size-fits-all society or one-size-fits-all set of beliefs,” she said. “The best way to achieve that … and respect the wishes based on religious liberty of all families was to keep the opt-out.”

Hanson, a Catholic, said she hopes the ruling will strengthen the bond between school districts and parents.

“With the transparency in education for parents to know what their children are being taught and when, so that way they can be true stakeholders in the education and the rearing of their children,” she said."It is our fundamental right to direct the upbringing of our children."

Critics said the majority ruling could have a chilling effect across the country on how schools approach curriculum.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the court's dissent that some schools might strip their curriculum of content that risks facing religious objections to avoid costly litigation.

“In the current moment, that means material representing LGBTQ students and families, like the Storybooks here, will be among the first to go, with grave consequences for LGBTQ students and our society,” she wrote.

She also raised the possibility of more topics that could be eliminated from classroom instruction.

“Next to go could be teaching on evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines,” Sotomayor wrote.

David Kilmnick, president of the LGBT Network, said “allowing religion to dictate curriculum and education in our public schools is a dangerous road to go down.”

“Today, it's LGBTQ people,” he said. “Tomorrow, it could be Black people. The next day, it could be women.”

Kilmnick said allowing religious parents to opt out also robs their children of exposure to diversity.

“Their kids may be the ones who need it the most,” he said. “They could either be LGBT themselves and that visibility will save lives, or that the kids will learn from early on that there is diversity in our world and there are people who live and love differently than they do.”

The scope of such requests would most likely be limited to religious objections, said Howard Miller, an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King who has worked with school districts.

“I think there could be other things that are introduced in curriculum that parents may say interferes with their religious beliefs,” he said. “I don't know that this decision is going to create such wholesale changes in curriculum.”

When considering the ruling's impact, Clemensen said he is guided by his responsibility as an educator.

“Next week at my board meeting, I will swear an oath to uphold the law,” he said. “I also included in that oath [to] affirm that I will implement the goals of the Hampton Bays school district, which includes a welcoming and safe environment for all kids and staff.”