This story was published in print in October 2023.
In October of 2022, the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education announced the addition of 22 books that include LGBTQ+ topics and characters to Pre-K-12 school curricula. Initially, MCPS policy allowed parents to opt their children out of participating in lessons that used the new books, but in March of 2023, the MCPS Board of Education announced parents would no longer have that option. On May 24, 2023, three MCPS families with elementary school students filed a lawsuit against Superintendent Monifa McKnight and the members of the Board of Education, claiming that the no-opt-out policy violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In late August, the plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction to immediately end the MCPS no-opt-out policy, but the court denied the injunction on the grounds that the policy wouldn’t likely cause students to “suffer imminent irreparable harm.” The lawsuit has divided the MCPS community over the constitutionality and morality of LGBTQ+ education opt-out policies.
No, they shouldn’t
MCPS and the communities it serves will only achieve their goal of educating students about diversity through a curriculum that incorporates diverse representation.
As outlined by the United States Department of Education, “Kids thrive when they see themselves in texts and learn about the world around them by connecting with the experiences of others.”
Students who don’t identify with the groups depicted in books they read in school benefit from those reading experiences, as they learn about different perspectives, fostering an environment where students empathize, connect and collaborate with their peers.
In addition to creating a diverse learning environment, depicting the experiences of marginalized groups in books read at school allows children who belong to those groups to see themselves in what they read. This experience teaches them to internalize the idea that their identities are not only acceptable but deserving of empowerment. If parents restrict their children’s exposure to inclusive education for any reason, children who could relate to the books might feel pressured to hide their identities from their peers. That chain of events is unacceptable for educators whose goal for their classroom is to make every child feel welcome.
While parents are able to opt their children out of MCPS health curriculum topics that discuss certain elements of gender and sexuality, the books at the center of the lawsuit do not contain material that overlaps with Family Life and Human Sexuality education. The argument that these books are sexual merely for the fact that they depict LGBTQ+ couples is demonstrably wrong and discriminatory.
Before a book appears in MCPS curricula, it must undergo a rigorous and thorough evaluation process, in which each book is reviewed by a committee of five MCPS staff members and a content supervisor to ensure that the book is developmentally suitable for the students who will be reading it. These books are, in fact, age-appropriate.
The books cited in the lawsuit merely mention diverse populations, including diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, in order to reflect the world realistically and situate those realistic characters in universal stories.
In one of the newly approved books, “Pride Puppy!” by Robin Stevenson, a family dog goes missing during a Pride parade. Throughout the journey trying to find the dog. Stevenson goes through the alphabet. “C” is for an “old Chevrolet car,” “D” is for “dog” and “E” is for “everyone.” Parents argue that they should be able to opt their children out of reading the book because it contains LGBTQ+ characters, yet the book does not contain any material that could be considered adult or FLHS-related content.
The same applies to the rest of the books MCPS approved for K-5, such as “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” by Sarah S. Brannen, which tells the story of a young girl named Chloe who learns that her Uncle Bobby is getting married and worries that her uncle will not have any time to spend with her, the way a child might when any new relationship appears in their family.
It’s a completely ordinary narrative about a family and a girl who loves her uncle; the only difference is that one relationship in the book depicts same-sex marriage and is, therefore, objectionable to some parents.
Meanwhile, books about straight couples, married or otherwise, don’t get flagged as “sexual” at all.
Additionally, MCPS does not require teachers to use any of the newly approved books — the books are just on a list of the many texts that teachers may choose to use in their classrooms. Teachers can put the new books on classroom shelves, recommend one of the books to a student or offer the books as options for small-group reading assignments.
MCPS suggests that teachers incorporate the books into the curriculum for the same reason they’d recommend any other book: to help students master essential literacy skills like analyzing characters, plot and themes.
Books play an extraordinarily important role in educating young students about diverse identities while also reinforcing literacy and reading comprehension. By educating the next generation about different cultures and perspectives, schools can work to create a more accepting world.
Yes, they should
Individuals often associate the key questions surrounding opt-out policies with their personal views on LGBTQ+ issues; however, the MCPS lawsuit doesn’t actually discuss what kinds of gender and sexuality content students should learn. “The case is about parents’ rights. The question at the center of the lawsuit is straightforward: Should elementary school students be required to participate in lessons and conversations about LGBTQ+ characters against their guardians’ wishes?
Regardless of your religious or moral beliefs, the answer is no. Due to the sensitive nature of discussions surrounding gender and sexuality, a one-size-fits-all education policy is inappropriate, especially with regard to young children. Preventing parents from using their discretion regarding stories that focus on LGBTQ+ issues is disrespectful to families’ religious beliefs and contradictory to Maryland state frameworks for the instruction of sexuality in schools.
Parents deserve a seat at the table when sensitive decisions are made about their child’s education; the county’s misguided decision to hand down a totalitarian policy on this topic will only serve to alienate families with religious political views that contradict the country’s.
The no-opt-out policy jeopardizes families’ efforts to raise their kids according to their personal and religious values.
One plaintiff in the lawsuit, the Mahmoud/Barakat family, believes that, based on their interpretation of teachings in the Quran, “‘gender’ cannot be unwoven from biological ‘sex’… without rejecting the dignity and direction God bestowed on humanity” at birth. The family, among many others with similar beliefs, argues that they have a “sacred obligation” to pass this lesson on to their children, and that the discussions these books raise directly contradict their religious beliefs.
Based on MCPS’ own guidelines, if a school lesson “would impose a substantial burden on [families’] religious beliefs,” schools should make the reasonable adjustments necessary to allow parents to excuse their children from the discussion.
Regardless of the inclusion of LGBTQ+ issues in these stories, some of the books’ content is inappropriate for elementary school children simply due to the implication of sexual and romantic relationships. In an internal memo, Mike Bayewitz, a leader of the Montgomery County Association of Administrators and Principals, raised concerns about the story “Love, Violet,” in which a young girl falls in love with another girl in her elementary school class. In regard to this story’s approval for elementary school students, Bayewitz wrote that it is “problematic to portray elementary school-age children falling in love with other children, regardless of sexual preferences.”
A policy allowing parents to exempt their kids from sexuality-based discussions is consistent with the Maryland Health Education Framework. The framework requires families to be able to opt their children out of the Family Life and Human Sexuality unit in health classes, stating that the provision respects “individual parents’ values and beliefs concerning family life and human sexuality instruction.”
The very same lesson topics that parents are allowed to opt kids out of in health classes, such as discussions of gender, sexuality and love, are topics covered in the new list of LGBTQ+ books. The books are intended for students as young as Pre-K, a demographic much younger than those who participate in Family Life lessons. Maryland officials have decided these lessons are optional in health classes; the same legal principle should apply to language arts instruction.
Although exposing children to diversity through books is a valuable and important idea, it is not the sole effect of reading books that depict different kinds of families.
When elementary school-age kids read about concepts they’ve never heard before, they will ask questions that parents may have decided to postpone answering.
This inevitability is well-known by MCPS — an MCPS curriculum document titled “Sample Responses To Students” suggests that if students ask what “transgender” means, teachers may respond, “when we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’… Our body parts do not decide our gender.”
MCPS’ suggested response to this question goes directly against the values the plaintiffs have a right to impart to their children. MCPS’ selection criteria for school books includes goals to “promote deep engagement” and “leave room for discussion and curious exploration,” showing that the books’ purpose is not simply to promote inclusion, but rather to spark discussion about LGBTQ+ topics — and it isn’t public school educators’ right to leap ahead of parents’ timelines.
The verdict in this lawsuit will not only be about LGBTQ+ books and when and where they can be read in schools; the decision will serve as a precedent for future education-related cases regarding religious freedom, parental rights and forced participation. Regardless of one’s beliefs about LGBTQ+ communities, the verdict must restore MCPS parents rights to prevent school systems from overstepping boundaries and silencing parental voices.
