A Jurisprudential and Policy Analysis of the Michigan State Board of Education’s New Health Education Standards

The Michigan Department of Education’s most recent revision of the Health Education Standards represents not merely administrative fine-tuning, but a wholesale ideological shift in the purpose and scope of health instruction in Michigan schools. The Board voted to approve the updated health-education/sex-education standards on Thursday, November 13, 2025. The magnitude and nature of these changes raise profound constitutional concerns—particularly regarding parental rights, local control, administrative overreach, and the rule of law.

This analysis also reflects concerns expressed across Michigan’s diverse communities—including Christian, conservative, home-school, and minority parents—who share a common conviction: education policy must serve the public, not indoctrinate it.

A Program of Ideological Indoctrination, Not Health Education

The starting point for any lawful state action is the statute. The Legislature has already defined what “Health Education” must include. Michigan law is explicit:

The program shall be designed to educate youth with regard to critical health problems and shall include… drugs, narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, mental health, dental health, vision care, nutrition, disease prevention and control, accident prevention and related health and safety topics.

—MCL 388.382, expressly incorporated by MCL 380.1170

These are clear, traditional, non-ideological matters of physical health, hygiene, disease prevention, and safety. Michigan law also sets apart Sex Ed and education on any sexual topic as a different subject, governed by different laws (MCL 380.1507, MCL 380.1507a-b, MCL 380.1169), and specifies that teaching on sex is shaped by local boards acting in accordance with the law. The Michigan State Board of Education is not authorized or tasked with developing standards, guidelines, or suggestions on sexual topics anywhere in Michigan law. Yet, the standards enacted ignore the Legislature’s clear direction.

Statutory Topics Are Minimally Addressed

A simple word-count reveals how far the proposed standards drift from the Legislature’s requirements:

Legislatively Required Topic	Times Mentioned
Physiology	7
Hygiene	12
Drugs	25
Narcotics	0
Alcohol	9
Tobacco	1 (legal reference only)
Mental Health	18
Dental Health	4
Vision Care	0
Nutrition	18
Disease Prevention & Control	19
Accident Prevention	0
CPR (Required by MCL 380.1170a)	8
HIV (Required by MCL 380.1169)	28

All required health-education content combined appears only 151 times.

Sexual and Gender Topics Appear 253 Times

Despite no statutory mandate for gender theory, “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “gender expression,” or sex-based political ideology, the standards reference sex and gender 253 times—far eclipsing every legislatively required health topic combined. This imbalance is not accidental. It reflects a policy choice: to reshape health education into a venue for controversial sexual and political ideology.

Abstinence—Legally Required to Be Stressed—is Minimally Mentioned

Michigan law requires abstinence to be stressed whenever sexual content or HIV is discussed (MCL 380.1507; 380.1169). The term “abstinence” appears only 18 times, buried among pages of sexual content.  The law requires abstinence to be emphasized. The standards relegate it.

The State’s Emphasis Is Political, Not Educational

Non-health social and political topics appear with startling frequency:

• environment – 30 times

• culture – 21 times

• social/society – 77 times

These are not core health topics. Their presence indicates the standards are being used to advance a particular social and political worldview, not to teach health, hygiene, or safety.

The Central Question

Given the Legislature’s clear priorities, given the constitutional limits on state indoctrination, and given the overwhelming imbalance in content --

Why is the Michigan Department of Education obsessing over sex in a Health Education curriculum?

The question deserves an answer.

Sexualizing Children and Imposing Disputable Gender Ideology

Disproportionate and Developmentally Inappropriate Emphasis

Most school-age children are below the age of consent. Yet the standards saturate the curriculum with topics of sexual identity, attraction, orientation, and expression—many introduced at the earliest grade levels. No medical or psychological consensus justifies this level of early sexualization by state authority.

Make no mistake: early sexualization of children can do lifelong harm to the children and can create serious public problems. The adopted Health standards teach 11–12-year-old children who are well below the lawful age of consent about sex, sexual consent, and making autonomous reproductive decisions (without parental involvement). In so doing, these standards fight against the very healthy lifestyle our laws are designed to promote. Studies show that when minor children engage in sexual activity—even when “consent” is given—a host of lifelong health issues follow, including higher rates of STIs, alcohol and drug use, depression, higher adult divorce rates, suicidal thought, and increased likelihood of sexual abuse.1 Open communication with parents and encouraging abstinence before marriage are key deterrents of these harms. Despite clear legislative action to ensure these protections, these safeguards are missing in these health standards.

Gender Ideology Inserted Without Legal Authorization

The standards direct districts to teach concepts of “gender identity and expression,” despite these terms appearing nowhere in Michigan’s statutory framework for health or sex education.

The State Board is not a legislature. It has no authority to insert ideological constructs not authorized in law.

Misrepresenting Pregnancy as an STI

Repeatedly, pregnancy is listed among “other STIs.” This is medically wrong, ethically alarming, and reveals a worldview that treats new life as pathology. This is not education. It is indoctrination.

Parental Rights: Respected in Form, Undermined in Substance

Opt-Out Rights Are Rendered Meaningless

While the standards acknowledge the statutory right to opt out of sex education, sexual and romantic content is woven throughout other “health” sections. Parents cannot opt out of content that is hidden in non-sex-ed sections.

Encouraging Children to Withhold Information from Parents

Sixth graders—children as young as 11—are taught about “the rights of adolescents to maintain their own health.” As framed, this minimizes the role of parents and encourages minors to act autonomously in matters parents are legally and constitutionally entitled to guide.

“Trusted Adult” Language Weakens the Parent-Child Bond

Using the phrase “trusted adult” 28 times, the standards repeatedly redirect children toward non-parental authority figures for guidance on personal, moral, and sexual matters. This is a direct affront to the foundational principle recognized by courts for a century: Parents, not the State, possess the primary authority to direct their children’s upbringing.

Decreasing Local Control and Compelling Ideological Speech

From 14 Pages to 74: A Transformative Power Grab

The 2007 standards were 14 pages; The current draft is 74 pages. This is not guidance. This is prescription.

Compelled Instruction Contrary to Teacher Convictions

The document specifies not merely what must be taught but how teachers must think, speak, and explain. Many teachers will be compelled to articulate messages violating their sincerely held religious conscience. Compelled ideological speech by the State violates the First Amendment.

Risking Federal Funding Through Non-Neutral Ideological Content

Federal regulations require neutral implementation of certain equality and civil-rights provisions. By directing local districts to adopt politically charged gender ideology, the standards may expose districts to loss of federal funding for noncompliance with federal neutrality requirements. The State should never encourage schools to jeopardize student resources for the sake of ideology.

A Call to Restore Lawful, Balanced, Parent-Respecting Health Education

The Michigan Constitution, Michigan statutes, and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent all recognize the family—not the administrative state—as the fundamental societal unit. Government’s role is supportive, not supplanting; educational, not indoctrination.

The proposed Health Education Standards:

• exceed statutory authority,

• downplay legislatively required health topics,

• fixate on sexual ideology,

• erode parental rights,

• diminish local control, and

• compel ideological speech in violation of constitutional protections.

Michigan’s children deserve health education, not political or sexual indoctrination. Michigan’s parents deserve deference to their constitutional rights, not strategic circumvention. Michigan’s teachers deserve freedom of conscience, not compelled ideological speech. And Michigan’s local communities deserve local control, not prescriptive state-level mandates.

A constitutional republic cannot long endure when state agencies elevate ideology above law. The State Board must return these standards to the statutory and constitutional boundaries established by the people of Michigan and their elected Legislature.

Footnote

1. Life Course Indicator: Early Sexual Intercourse (LC-50), a study conducted by the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs and funded by the W.K. Kellog Foundation found that, “Early sexual intercourse initiation by youth…has a range of negative public health consequences. Early initiation of sexual intercourse is associated with increased risky sexual behaviors including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners…risk for HIV infection and STIs, unintended pregnancy, and other negative social and psychological outcomes…Other risk behaviors and adverse outcomes that are linked with early sexual intercourse are alcohol and drug use, depression, suicidal thought and rape [of others]. Compared with peers who delay sex, adolescents with early sexual debut are more likely to use alcohol and exhibit problems with use of alcohol.” (Page 2) https://amchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LC-50-Early-Sexual-Intercourse_Final_9-15-2014.pdf A more recent, concurring study published on the National Institute for Health’s National Library of Medicine observes the same risks and attributes a lack of poor communication with parents and an adverse opinion on premarital abstinence as significant factors in children choosing to engage in early sexual intercourse. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6325413/