Debate is erupting over Michigan’s proposed health education standards and LGBTQ+ inclusion in schools

State Board of Education member Ellen Lipton, board chair Pamela Pugh and interim state superintendent Sue C. Carnell. October 14, 2025 | Photo: Kyle Davidson/Michigan Advance

Parents, former school employees and supporters packed the State Board of Education meeting room Tuesday to voice their opposition proposed update to the state’s health education standards framework, which they argue would include sex education in the state’s health curriculum, despite state law requirements that it remain optional.

While no vote on the standards was scheduled, more than 40 people – including members of the far-right groups Moms for Liberty and Citizens Defending Freedom – showed up to share their thoughts on the proposal, and more signed up to share their comments online.

Although the updated standards had their supporters, most commentators argued that adopting the standards as is would violate both state and federal law by preventing parents from opting out of the curriculum by weaving sex education into health education.

Several commentators, including Republican attorney general candidate Kevin Kijewski, he pointed to the case of Mahmoud v. Taylorin which parents of diverse religious backgrounds successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that their religious and parental rights were violated because they were not given notice or allowed to opt out of an LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum.

However, Michigan school districts are not required to apply these standards. According to the Department of Education, school districts decide what and what to include in sex education offerings. Sex education content is recommended by sex education advisory committees, at least half of whose members must be local parents, and the content must be approved by the local school board.

Under state law, parents must be notified if sex education is offered locally, must be given the opportunity to review the materials and can withdraw their children from classes without penalty.

Before the meeting, the teaching council issued a statement emphasizing that optional sex education standards will remain separate, as will local control over how and whether schools apply these standards.

Separately, several commenters questioned the sexual health education standards for students in grades 6–8, which recommended schools:

• Define gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation and explain that these are distinct elements of each individual’s identity
• Explain how biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression are distinct concepts and how they interact
• Explain that romantic, emotional and/or sexual attraction can involve people of the same sex and/or different sexes and that attraction can change over time

“These proposed standards go far beyond physical health into deeply personal and spiritual territory, normalizing behaviors that many families consider harmful and contrary to their faith,” said Monica Yatooma, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State. “This is not education. This is indoctrination. It is an attack on family values, faith and the sacred bond between parent and child.”

State Rep. Joseph Pavlov (R-Kimball) noted that House Democrats proposed similar changes in 2024introducing legislation to update the state’s sex education curriculum to be “medically accurate, research-based, inclusive, and age- and developmentally appropriate.”

But the bill didn’t get a hearing because it was introduced in the middle of a tumultuous, lame-duck session in which Republicans were expected to take control of the chamber in the fresh year.

Opponents of the standards have repeatedly pointed to Michigan’s 44th place nationally in fourth-grade reading scores and 31st nationally in eighth-grade math scores, arguing that schools should focus on improving education rather than incorporating discussions about gender and sexuality into health education.

However, supporters of the education framework argued that the update was long overdue because the previous health education standards were adopted in 2007.

“This means that an entire generation of students has gone through school with outdated guidelines that do not reflect what we currently know about mental health, technology, vaping, healthy relationships, consent and many other topics,” said Taryn Gal, executive director of the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health.

Christy Gibson-Marshall, an assistant principal at Oxford High School, said Michigan communities have undergone significant changes since the previous standards were adopted, pointing to the rise of social media, mobile devices, the Covid-19 pandemic and rising school violence as among many factors shaping the lives of today’s students.

Gibson-Marshall acknowledged that the standards include LGBTQ+ students in discussions, which she believes promotes a sense of belonging and acceptance.

Both Gibson-Marshall and Gal similarly emphasized that the fresh standards emphasize critical assessment skills to facilitate them navigate the huge amounts of information and misinformation presented to them through social media, the news and the Internet.

Gal also noted that despite concerns, the standards do not include education about abortion.

Although board members did not vote on the Health Education Standards, the board did consider a resolution introduced by Nikki Snyder, one of the board’s two Republican members.

Snyder’s resolution highlighted several points in the proposed standards regarding gender, sexuality and sexual identity, arguing that their inclusion conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud V. Taylor, although Ellen Lipton, one of eight Democrats on the board, noted a difference between the curriculum discussed in the case and the standards presented before the committee.

“I think I could be the only lawyer at the table. Even though I’m not a constitutional lawyer, I’m pretty good at reading cases and drawing precedents from them,” Lipton said. “And Mahmoud, while it’s a pretty consistent opinion, is still based on a certain set of facts that the Maryland School Board and the District of Maryland were dealing with, and indeed, in terms of the intertwining, he was based on how the curriculum was implemented.”

She reiterated the difference between setting educational standards and implementing curriculum, noting the local nature of curriculum selection and implementation in Michigan.

The motion to adopt Snyder’s motion was defeated, with Tom McMillin, the other Republican on the board, joining Snyder as the lone supporting vote.

According to the board’s earlier statement, Michigan Department of Education staff will review written public comments on the proposal and recommend updated health education standards to the board at its next meeting.