Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t see how this is going to work. Mcps 4th grader social studies teaches the kids what it means to be “two spirited”.
This isn’t shared with parents beforehand or even after.

I guess you are going to have to understand social studies. Know what is being taught and figure out what is "against your religion"... but I'm not sure how learning Native Americans believe people may has a masculine and feminine spirit is against your religion but sure... go for it.

NP. Two-spirit as adopted by the LQTBQ+ community is considered a deeply colonialist and racist interpretation of the beliefs of a subset of Native American tribes. It should not be taught on that basis alone: it is the wealthy white bastardization of certain tribal beliefs.

I don’t think you and the people pushing “two spirit” care at all about Native American belief structures but you sound extremely racist here FYI.

This post is incorrect but is also a distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

The original ask was that kids can opt out, be it leave the classroom or not go to school that day as an excused absence. MCPS initially agreed but then six months later rescinded that due to the many requests from parents.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents
by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story-
books would be taught and permitting their children to be
excused from instruction involving the books. That policy
was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Re-
specting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided
that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasona-
ble and feasible adjustments to the instructional program
to accommodate requests from students, or requests from
parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused
from specific classroom discussions or activities that they
believe would impose a substantial burden on their reli-
gious beliefs.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 220a–221a

If you keep your kid at home due to your objection, that's an excused absence.

This is not an affirmative statement that the school does NOT need to provide an alternative. It just says they are excused from the activity. It doesn’t even say the kids can stay home with an excused absence.

The school does not need to make alternate plans. So yes, you have to keep them home for that lesson. Sorry! Be careful what you ask for.

Why on earth do you think MCPS should handle this opt-out any differently from the other opt-outs MCPS already accommodates for sex ed, field trips, animal dissection, etc.?

Because LGBTQ agenda is a special agenda and we have full control over central office. Anything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

The original ask was that kids can opt out, be it leave the classroom or not go to school that day as an excused absence. MCPS initially agreed but then six months later rescinded that due to the many requests from parents.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents
by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story-
books would be taught and permitting their children to be
excused from instruction involving the books. That policy
was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Re-
specting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided
that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasona-
ble and feasible adjustments to the instructional program
to accommodate requests from students, or requests from
parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused
from specific classroom discussions or activities that they
believe would impose a substantial burden on their reli-
gious beliefs.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 220a–221a

If you keep your kid at home due to your objection, that's an excused absence.

This is not an affirmative statement that the school does NOT need to provide an alternative. It just says they are excused from the activity. It doesn’t even say the kids can stay home with an excused absence.

The school does not need to make alternate plans. So yes, you have to keep them home for that lesson. Sorry! Be careful what you ask for.

Why on earth do you think MCPS should handle this opt-out any differently from the other opt-outs MCPS already accommodates for sex ed, field trips, animal dissection, etc.?

+1

MCPS has opt out situations for lots of this. This is one of them. Nothing new here.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe in two-parent families. I need to opt my child out of reading any book, including those of historical fact, if a family is mentioned or described that has two parents. My child will also not refer to any teachers as Mrs, since this signifies that they are married and could be a part of a two-parent family!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

But the debate wasn’t about rewriting curriculum. Reread the chain. The poster said she was going to change her curriculum on purpose in hopes families that she serves go bankrupt. You are introducing concepts not under discussion.

Changing the actual books is not changing the curriculum. Do you even know what curriculum is?

Your legal reasoning skills are so atrocious it’s hard for me to believe you are not a troll. No wonder your side keeps losing in court.

We won, you have to stay home.

The case is not over? MCPS will be paying lots more legal bills on this one.

[Anonymous]

MCPS SHOULD just have the opt out kids stay home when they are too young to be unsupervised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how the teaching of evolution and science stands under this policy

This. We're going to re-litigate Scopes and people who don't see this as paving a way for that scenario and kidding themselves because they want taxes and white supremacy, but the acceptable kind.

[Anonymous]

I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree with parents who want to remove their kids from this portion of the curriculum, but I don’t think we should be limiting parents’ rights either. Honestly if you are shielding your kid this much from the true facts of how the world is, you’re not doing them any favors but it’s your right.

Comments like this show you don’t know all the policies in MCPS. They already allowed so many various types of exemptions but got hung up on this narrow pointless category.

Central offie is infested with LGBTQ lobby. I am horrified with tax payers money wasted by MCPS over this.

Infested? So dramatic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. Kids have no problem with the concept of love and marriage and will do whatever is in the culture happily. There is such broad support for gay marriage that I see no reason to keep beating the drum.

So no saying Bride and Groom because that teaches sexual orientation, right?

Bride and groom is normative.

it also is a sexual orientation I don't want my children exposed to.

Cool go live in a cult and not expose your children. In the public setting you don't get to decide that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

I’m not. They were trying to protect teachers. They lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

I’m in MoCo and a registered Democrat. I’m stunned by the hubris that went into MCPS’s decisions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree with parents who want to remove their kids from this portion of the curriculum, but I don’t think we should be limiting parents’ rights either. Honestly if you are shielding your kid this much from the true facts of how the world is, you’re not doing them any favors but it’s your right.

Parents rights assume parents are always right and quite simply they are not. Parents rights also assume a silo around their own children which is impossible is real world practice and so my right as a parent for my kid to get taught about accepting all families is going to be trumped by the loudest bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

I’m not. They were trying to protect teachers. They lost.

If they took Puppy Pride out of the curriculum or kept opt-outs, the teachers would actually have been better protected, as it turns out. There were lots of points to end this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

+100

Embarassing to be honest. A poor situation created by MCPS.