By Jennifer Pignolet, MediaNews Group
School districts that want to teach sex education along with other health topics like vaping, consent, social media and healthy relationships now officially have guidelines from the state, despite concern from some board members and parents about instruction in gender identity and sexual orientation.
The State Board of Education on Thursday passed the first major update to its health education standards since 2007, significantly broadening their scope to match the issues facing today’s youth. The standards are not requirements for Michigan schools, but are guidelines for districts to use when choosing a health education curriculum on best practices that align with science, said officials from the Michigan Department of Education.
The standards help districts address subjects like substance abuse, decision-making, balanced eating, mental and emotional health, and boundaries, tailored to various age levels.
The sex education section includes standards on gender identity and sexual orientation, which prompted significant pushback from conservative groups.
Parents still will be able to opt their children out of sex education, as they have been able to do through state law, MDE officials said several times during Thursday’s meeting.
“I am proud of what we just did,” said board President Pamela Pugh, D-Saginaw, after the vote. “We (made) safer spaces for students, for all students.”
The vote was 6-2 along party lines; two Republican board members, Tom McMillin of Auburn Hills and Nikki Snyder of Goodrich, dissented.
The meeting often was contentious, with McMillin and Snyder using the words “grooming” and “groomers” to describe the standards and the people who were advocating for them.
“I don’t know what the obsession with sex is among you people,” McMillin said. “It is a true grooming that’s going on that is really sad, and people understand that’s the intent of what’s going on here.”
Pugh fired back at McMillin, asking him to retract his statement that anyone at the table was grooming children.
“You said that people at this table were groomers and intentional groomers,” Pugh said. “Those are dangerous words, and you need to be careful what you say at this table.”
Snyder commented that the standards were designed to “groom the public.”
The board debated the standards at its meeting in October, where about 60 people spoke during public comments. Most were opposed, but cited reasons that state officials said were based on misinformation, including the idea that parents would no longer be able to opt their students out of the curriculum.
MDE officials said Thursday they took that feedback, along with comments in thousands of emails and survey answers, and edited the standards to include additional references confirming that no standard overrides state law, and that parents’ rights remain intact.
If districts teach sex education, they will still have to follow state law, which requires focusing on abstinence, and cannot include lessons on abortion. They would have to have a local sex education advisory board, with at least half the members as parents, and must notify parents ahead of a sex education lesson. Parents also reserve the right to review all materials that will be used in the class. All districts are required to teach about HIV, regardless of whether they teach sex education.
Thursday’s public comments more than doubled from last month’s meeting, with more than 130 people signing up to speak. The board voted 6-2 to suspend its bylaws to let everyone speak, but only for one minute each.
Speakers were more split in their support and opposition, with a significantly stronger showing from those who support the new standards.
One woman said she received the survey request but thought she didn’t need to send a response because she supported what the state was doing.
“Then I realized you needed to hear everybody’s opinion,” said Catherine Zetterholm-Fisher , who strongly supports the inclusion of gender identity in the sex education standards.
“That’s how we develop empathy, being able to understand how other people feel and experience life,” she said.
Speakers spoke rapidly in their one minute or spoke off-the-cuff to make their positions quickly.
Rachel Hayes said by choosing to pass the standards, the state was “choosing education over fear.”
“Inclusion is the cornerstone of academic success,” she said. “Students can’t learn if they don’t feel safe. When they’re valued, they’re engaged. And when they belong, they thrive. Not just emotionally, but academically.”
Several speakers identified themselves or immediate family members as members of the LGBTQ+ community. Many described experiencing bullying, and confusion of their own identity due to a lack of understanding and education from an early age.
One high school student described feeling scared to come out at school and struggling with academics due to feeling unsafe. A sex education lesson prompted Jeff Soukhojnk to come out, which led to academic success.
“To think that really all that it took was a health class instructor that briefly taught about transgender people in an accepting way,” Soukhojnk said.
Viva Rosenfeld said she has two children who are LGBTQ+, and they had to change school districts because of how they were treated.
“In our old school district, the message to them was clear: ‘You don’t belong here,’” she said. “We moved to a more inclusive district, one that taught acceptance. Within weeks my kids were happier.”
Patrick Cox said his son came out as transgender when he was 18, and although his family embraced him fully, he was bullied at school, where they lacked a sex education program that included LGBTQ+ experiences.
“He didn’t have the education for that, and he’s in therapy right now because of all the bullying, all the homophobic slurs his friends said from kindergarten all the way up through school,” Cox said.
Parent Dani Jones spoke in favor of the standards for a simple reason: “My kid can handle learning about reality.”
Susan Estep said she and her wife have three children in public school and previously served as a school board member. She said she wanted to make it clear that parents’ rights also apply to parents who want their children to receive comprehensive sex education.
“I want to make sure that everyone hears this — I have parental rights too,” she said. “My children also have rights, rights to talk about their two moms. Guess what? They do it in elementary school. Just as any children can talk about their parents.”
Those who spoke against the measure spoke strongly of parent rights, and whether schools should be the ones educating children about sex and gender. Some still worried they would not be able to opt their children out of sex education.
Sheryl Miles expressed concern about students being exposed to information about sex too young.
“It overloads young minds,” she said.
Katie MacFarland said Democrats on the board were showing “blatant disregard for parents, especially Christians.”
“I look forward to seeing all of you sued,” she said.
Eileen McNeil said she believed parents and organizations should have been more involved from the start of the process to rewrite the standards.
“What is the hurry?” she said. “Why now, why today, why this? If you really want to address health and the sex ed, then let’s take time.”
Carol Ream said her daughter had a negative experience in a sex education class 25 years ago, feeling forced to put a condom on a banana or face failing the class. She said she didn’t want children to experience that today, and argued against teaching gender identity as more than a binary concept.
“Children deserve education rooted in biology, safety and respect, not ideology disguised as health education,” she said. “I urge you to reject these standards today and honor the trust Michigan parents have placed in you.”
Board members thanked the public for comments supporting or opposing the standards.
Board Vice President Tiffany Tilley, D-West Bloomfield, said misinformation that led to comments directed at board members was “very concerning.”
“We’re not pushing anything,” Tilley said. “We are doing our jobs, though, which is making sure some very old standards and guidelines are being updated today.”
Tilley said the state board can’t ignore the LGBTQ+ community any more than they could ignore populations of students who are immigrants, have special needs or are in foster care. If parents don’t want their children to have sex education, she said, they can opt out.
“It is your right, it is your choice, but there are also parents who would like their children to learn sex ed, to learn about LGBTQ definitions,” she said. “No one wants to groom anyone here. No one wants to influence children to be a part of the LGBTQ community. But we do want to support children where they are.”
Board member Snyder, who was admonished by interim Superintendent Sue Carnell for calling MDE staff liars, commented about those who spoke in favor of the new standards.
“We’ve found out today that many people believe fundamental parent rights should be taken away,” she said.
