The October 14th State Board of Education’s meeting was a barn burner as various ("far right") groups opposed the proposed August update to Michigan's Health Education Standards Framework:
Debate erupts over Michigan’s proposed health ed standards and LGBTQ+ inclusion in schools
By Kyle Davidson - October 15, 2025Parents, former school employees and conservative advocates packed out the State Board of Education’s meeting room Tuesday, offering their opposition to a proposed update to the state’s health education standards framework, which they argued would marry sex education into the state’s health curriculum, despite requirements in state law for this instruction to remain optional.
While the board was not scheduled to hold a vote on the standards, more than 40 individuals – including members of the far-right groups Moms for Liberty and Citizens Defending Freedom – arrived to offer their thoughts on the proposal, with more signing up to offer their comments online.
Though the updated standards had their supporters, the majority of commenters argued adopting the standards as-is would violate both state and federal law by preventing parents from opting their children out of the curriculum by weaving sex education into health education.
Several commenters, including Republican Attorney General candidate Kevin Kijewski, pointed to Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which parents of various religious backgrounds successfully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court their religious and parental rights had been violated when they were not given notice or permitted to opt their children out of curriculum involving LGBTQ+-inclusive story books.
However, Michigan school districts are not required to use these standards. According to the Department of Education, school districts decide whether to offer sex ed and what to include. Content for sexual education is recommended by Sex Education Advisory Boards of which at least half of their members must be local parents, and the local school board must approve the content.
Under state law, parents must be notified if sex education is offered locally, must be allowed to review the materials and can opt their child out of instruction without penalty.
Ahead of the meeting, the board of education issued a statement emphasizing that optional sex education standards would remain separate, as would local control over how or if schools use these standards.
Regardless, several commenters took issue with standards for sexual health education for students in grades 6-8, which recommended schools:
* Define gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, and explain that they are distinct components of every individual’s identity
* Explain how biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression are distinct concepts and how they interact with each other
* Explain that romantic, emotional, and/or sexual attractions can be toward an individual of the same gender and/or different gender(s), and that attractions can change over time“These proposed standards go far beyond physical health, they cross into deeply personal and spiritual territory, normalizing behaviors that many families find harmful and contrary to their faith,” said Monica Yatooma, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State. “This is not education. It’s indoctrination. It’s an assault 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 2024, introducing legislation to update the state’s sex ed curriculum to be “medically accurate, research-informed, inclusive and age- and developmentally appropriate.”
However, the legislation failed to receive a hearing, being introduced in the midst of a tumultuous lame duck session, with Republicans set to take control of the chamber in the new year.
Opponents of the standards repeatedly pointed to Michigan’s 44th in the nation ranking for fourth grade reading scores and 31st in the nation ranking on eighth grade math scores arguing schools should focus on improving education rather than incorporating discussions of gender and sexuality into health education.
However, the supporters of the educational framework argued an update is long overdue, with the previous health education standards adopted in 2007.
“This means that an entire generation of students has gone through school using outdated guidance that does not reflect what we now know about mental health, technology, vaping, healthy relationships, consent, among many other topics,” said Taryn Gal, executive director of the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health.
Christy Gibson-Marshall, the 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 increasing school violence as some of the many factors shaping the lives of today’s students.
Gibson-Marshall acknowledged that the standards include LGBTQ+ students in discussions, which she said fosters a sense of belonging and acceptance.
Both Gibson-Marshall and Gal similarly called out the new standards’ emphasis on critical assessment skills to help them navigate the vast amount of information and misinformation presented to them through social media, in the news and on the internet.
Gal also noted that the standards do not include education on abortion, despite concerns to the contrary.
Though members of the board did not vote on the Health Education Standards, the board did consider a resolution put forth by Nikki Snyder, one of the board’s two Republican members.
Snyder’s resolution called attention to several items within the proposed standards centered on gender, sexuality and sexual identity, arguing their inclusion goes against the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud V. Taylor, though Ellen Lipton, one of eight Democrats on the board, noted the difference between the curriculum discussed in the case and the standards in front of the board.
“I think I might be the only attorney at the table. Although I’m not a constitutional attorney, I am pretty well versed in reading cases and extracting precedent from those cases,” Lipton said. “And Mahmoud, although a fairly consequential opinion, is still based on a certain set of facts that the Maryland School Board and the Maryland district was facing, and it does, when it talks about the interweaving, it was really based on the way that the curriculum was being delivered.”
She reiterated the difference between laying out standards for education and delivering curriculum, noting the local nature of Michigan’s curriculum selection and delivery.
The motion to adopt Snyder’s motion was rejected, with Tom McMillin, the other Republican on the board, joining Snyder as the only other vote in support.
According to the board’s earlier statement, Michigan Department of Education staff is reviewing the written public comments on the proposal and will recommend updated health education standards to the board at a future meeting.
Sponsors
Friends of MHF
Kirsten DeVries
Tom & Karen Nunheimer
Steve Ahonen
Ron & Faith Bosserman
Marlin & Kathy Klumpp
Sign Up for MHF Insights to keep up on the latest in Michigan Health Policy
