Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the parents opting their children out of lessons because those lessons include a same sex couple family, please know that the vast majority of us judge you harshly as a bigot and your kids will likely suffer social consequences because of your intolerance. I feel bad for them, especially those who are themselves gay. Shame on you, you intolerant and insecure people.

The vibe has shifted. I think you’ll be surprised at who is judging who here.

No such thing as a "bigot". This is a fake, made up social construct that liberals made up for people who don't agree with them. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone an uneducated, narrow minded "bigot". It just means someone doesn't agree wth your social activist agenda.

It always interesting when folks throw out the phrase social activist as though that is a bad thing. They forgot that the founding fathers are social activist, the suffragist are social activist, Abolitionist are social activist, Etc etc. I’m pretty sure social activist consider themselves in good company of people who people and movements that have had transformational change good for humanity.

Oh yes the whole founding father’s argument again. Show me where they read pornography to children and didn’t let parents opt out.

Also if you label yourself an activist then don’t tell me that you don’t have an agenda that you want to impose on my kids.

That wasn’t me, I’m no activist. I just want school to be for reading, writing, spelling, math, grammar, etc and think you can do all of that without ever discussing gay sex in kindergarten.

All these new trendy or made up curriclums are why kids are struggling. Get back to the basics. Give spelling and vocabulary books yearly and have weekly quizzes and assignments. Same with the basics for math, like math facts. Kids cannot be successful in MS or HS with the foundation work done in ES.

Which school is not teaching those?

All the ones we’ve been to. Zero vocab, spelling, math facts or grammar. We did it all at home.

Which score is that? Actually, the spelling tests almost killed me. Love to know where there’s no spelling tests., or math minutes, or grammar for that matter

Yeah, seriously. That person clearly doesn't have elementary school kids, the spelling tests are constant, there are quizzes all the time, and there's tons of attention to vocabulary, grammar, math, etc.

I have HSers in MCPS. They did not have constant spelling tests and quizzes all the time. When did that start happening? As my HSers will tell you, there was very little time devoted grammar as all the kids are learning it now for testing.

If your experience with elementary school is years out of date, maybe don't comment on things you're not familiar with?

I’ve had 12 years and counting of experience with MCPS. Tons more data points than a parent of an elementary schooler. Plus I’m not the only MCPS parent commenting about the lack of testing. But I’m sure with your 1-2 years at one school you know how the education goes for 160,000 kids.

I mean it's off-topic for this post, but while I'm sure there are some things that longer experience in MCPS equip parents of high schoolers to know better than parents of elementary schoolers, "What is elementary school like at MCPS today?" is not one of them. And while obviously some teachers and schools may deviate sometimes, the math curriculum and both the prior and current ELA curricula have been pretty canned, so for the most part, elementary school kids across the district are getting the same lessons, assignments, quizzes, tests, etc-- it's not just "one school."

Its very school and teacher specific. Friends that have ES kids where we live say they aren't getting spelling, grammar, math facts, and quizzes.

Then their schools aren't following the curricula they're supposed to be following, or the parents are out of the loop of what's actually happening. I don't know what to tell you You can look at the curricula to check if you'd like, they're available online.

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to be pedantic but this ruling was about whether MCPS has to keep the preexisting opt-out in place while this case is litigated - until the case is over we don't know exactly what the precedent will be - I agree it potentially could be a very bad precedent but we don't know yet. I don't think the injunction itself is that bad tbh - cases can take a long time, the kids in question could literally graduate by then.

I may well be oversimplifying it, but it seems to me that a) SCOTUS has made it clear that parents have a right to opt out while this is being litigated b) SCOTUS also made it very clear how they would vote if the actual case ever made it them.

No one is asking to have the books/lessons removed - MCPS would be wise, IMO, to drop their opposition to the lawsuit, re-instate the opt-outs, and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the best way to normalize things is to *not* make such a big deal about it.

Like others have said, it’s 2025. Everyone on the planet can rattle off a long list of beloved gay celebs and many know a gay person IRL. Our state embraces gay marriage.

The fact that kids feel comfortable enough identifying as LGBTQ or non-binary or even as a furry demonstrates that our MoCo community is in fact a safe place.

So why drill down sooooo hard in the schools?

It’s not necessary…particularly at the K-5 level.

As a Gen X’er, I was raised in MoCo to embrace and celebrate diversity…and it seemed to work. My Gen X friends and coworkers have diverse friends groups and a “live and let live” mentality. It wasn’t until the post-George Floyd era that race and then gender identity became some bizarre tribal thing where everyone decamped into strictly defined—and let’s face it, self-segregated—groups followed by a hard push to drill down on special interest everything…including curricula.

Enough already.

Embrace and celebrity diversity. Easy peasy. But please focus on academics, civics, and just treating everyone with the same respect you would expect.

+1

Activist taking over MCPS made it a big issue. It's a non-issue in our county.

Nicely said. A few lessons on it is fine, just like lessons about other groups and beliefs. But it is in every class, the priority and kids are fine with it in this area and don't care. The heavy push makes some families and kids uncomfortable. We've had teachers who condemn the kids for using he/she as their pronouns and want kids to change them. Teachers, Admin and MCPS need to get back to teaching and not keep politics outside. Many teachers think the kids are their friends and way over share. What ever is going on right now since they changed things and took away books isn't working as you can see the scores drop with all the changes.

If true, this is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

[Anonymous]

Questions I would love to ask a lawyer with relevant experience:

A) if MCPS were to reinstate the opt-out, would the plaintiffs lose standing? Would the case be dismissed?

B) oral arguments talked about coercion vs. exposure - what's the exact definition/distinction here in previous cases?

C) the court was clearly evaluating both the books and the way the books were potentially taught (the professional development materials). Since parents generally lack detailed knowledge of lesson plans does that imply a practical limit on how often parents are going to be able to meet whatever burden to request opt-outs in various situations? Relatedly, assuming plaintiffs are going to win, what would the narrowest ruling look like? And how likely is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS elementary school teacher and I have used Uncle Bobby's Wedding and Prince and Knight in my classroom to teach grade level literacy standards. We used these texts to sequence plot events, describe characters, and to compare with other stories. No teacher that I know uses these texts to teach about different family structures.

We have had units in our curriculum that provide read alouds featuring only white characters. I have substituted those texts as well, to show more diversity. (A version of Hansel and Gretel that takes place in Africa, Jack and the Beanstalk with a female heroine, Rapunzel with a Chinese main character, a folktale from Pakistan with a protagonist in a hijab, etc.)

If parents object to their children being exposed to stories, that makes me sad. The two-parent, hetero-normative life experience is NOT the experience of every family, and every child deserves to see themselves represented in the literature they read at school.

I’ve never once seen any part of our family represented in the elementary books read. I even got an email telling me to ask my child not to talk about things happening to them as it made the staff and kids uncomfortable. Every child does deserve to be represented but they aren’t.

Short of domestic violence, what was happening to a kid that they can’t talk about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS elementary school teacher and I have used Uncle Bobby's Wedding and Prince and Knight in my classroom to teach grade level literacy standards. We used these texts to sequence plot events, describe characters, and to compare with other stories. No teacher that I know uses these texts to teach about different family structures.

We have had units in our curriculum that provide read alouds featuring only white characters. I have substituted those texts as well, to show more diversity. (A version of Hansel and Gretel that takes place in Africa, Jack and the Beanstalk with a female heroine, Rapunzel with a Chinese main character, a folktale from Pakistan with a protagonist in a hijab, etc.)

If parents object to their children being exposed to stories, that makes me sad. The two-parent, hetero-normative life experience is NOT the experience of every family, and every child deserves to see themselves represented in the literature they read at school.

I’ve never once seen any part of our family represented in the elementary books read. I even got an email telling me to ask my child not to talk about things happening to them as it made the staff and kids uncomfortable. Every child does deserve to be represented but they aren’t.

Short of domestic violence, what was happening to a kid that they can’t talk about?

And frankly domestic violence is something the kid should be encouraged to talk to safe adults about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious why the Jewish and Muslim families who supported this opt out do not see how this opens the way for parents to push for opting out of having kids read story books with Jewish or Muslim characters on the basis of the religious burden that including these characters might do to Christian kids. Christian parents can argue that seeing these characters at a young age could be burdensome to their religious beliefs and that they want to introduce their kids to the existence of these types of beliefs when they are older. I think people forget that respecting diversity that includes your beliefs also means respecting diversity that does not. Anyways, I get why male, straight, Christian conservative white nationalists would celebrate this ruling. I disagree, but it makes sense. For anyone not part of this group, I do not understand.

The plaintiffs were Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox (not to say Orthodox Jews would necessarily approve of all these books either but almost none of them send their kids to public school in the first place). I'm not convinced most of the people on this thread have actually read the decision - people keep talking as if the case was decided when this was a preliminary injunction, getting random facts of the case wrong, etc so I'm just going to post the link again: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

I agree that most people in this thread, particularly the ones hyperventilating and coming up with absurd scenarios they think will happen as a consequence of the case, are very uneducated about the actual case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS elementary school teacher and I have used Uncle Bobby's Wedding and Prince and Knight in my classroom to teach grade level literacy standards. We used these texts to sequence plot events, describe characters, and to compare with other stories. No teacher that I know uses these texts to teach about different family structures.

We have had units in our curriculum that provide read alouds featuring only white characters. I have substituted those texts as well, to show more diversity. (A version of Hansel and Gretel that takes place in Africa, Jack and the Beanstalk with a female heroine, Rapunzel with a Chinese main character, a folktale from Pakistan with a protagonist in a hijab, etc.)

If parents object to their children being exposed to stories, that makes me sad. The two-parent, hetero-normative life experience is NOT the experience of every family, and every child deserves to see themselves represented in the literature they read at school.

I’ve never once seen any part of our family represented in the elementary books read. I even got an email telling me to ask my child not to talk about things happening to them as it made the staff and kids uncomfortable. Every child does deserve to be represented but they aren’t.

What about your family is not represented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions I would love to ask a lawyer with relevant experience:

A) if MCPS were to reinstate the opt-out, would the plaintiffs lose standing? Would the case be dismissed?

B) oral arguments talked about coercion vs. exposure - what's the exact definition/distinction here in previous cases?

C) the court was clearly evaluating both the books and the way the books were potentially taught (the professional development materials). Since parents generally lack detailed knowledge of lesson plans does that imply a practical limit on how often parents are going to be able to meet whatever burden to request opt-outs in various situations? Relatedly, assuming plaintiffs are going to win, what would the narrowest ruling look like? And how likely is that?

Really great questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the best way to normalize things is to *not* make such a big deal about it.

Like others have said, it’s 2025. Everyone on the planet can rattle off a long list of beloved gay celebs and many know a gay person IRL. Our state embraces gay marriage.

The fact that kids feel comfortable enough identifying as LGBTQ or non-binary or even as a furry demonstrates that our MoCo community is in fact a safe place.

So why drill down sooooo hard in the schools?

It’s not necessary…particularly at the K-5 level.

As a Gen X’er, I was raised in MoCo to embrace and celebrate diversity…and it seemed to work. My Gen X friends and coworkers have diverse friends groups and a “live and let live” mentality. It wasn’t until the post-George Floyd era that race and then gender identity became some bizarre tribal thing where everyone decamped into strictly defined—and let’s face it, self-segregated—groups followed by a hard push to drill down on special interest everything…including curricula.

Enough already.

Embrace and celebrity diversity. Easy peasy. But please focus on academics, civics, and just treating everyone with the same respect you would expect.

+1 I completely agree!

How do you embrace and celebrate diversity if we’re not allowed to read or discuss it in class? How do you discuss Civics without discussing the history that led to laws and practices being created or removed? How do you get kids to have respect for something without ever explaining it.

For example, a girl wears a hijab but some kid calls her weird and suggest she take it off. We tell the 2nd kid that’s not nice, but never explain to them that the girl and many others view it as an important part of their faith? But then when someone else comes along and starts screaming that they shouldn’t be allowed to wear hijabs, or that a young man can’t wear a Keffiyeh to graduation, then what? Will that 2nd kid have tolerance or will they return to, it’s weird and so it shouldn’t be allowed.? Meanwhile others will be allowed to wear a cross around their neck.

Good point.

ICYMI: when mcps removed all reference to religion—including Halloween which isn’t actually a religious holiday but somehow became offensive to some immigrant populations based on their religious beliefs—we painted ourselves into a bit of a corner when it comes to celebrating diversity. Instead of celebrating all diversity, mcps went all in on labeling people and lifting up certain groups while not mentioning others. (And some of the most vocal opponents to the lgbtq and other issues are actually not white Americans but other minority groups (whether racial or religious.))

A winter concert with a Christmas Carol, Hanukkah song, etc. celebrates diversity; but we aren’t allowed to celebrate that diversity anymore.

I’m all for discussing civics using real world examples. I had kids in mcps grade school when gay marriage finally became more widespread. It was discussed without needing a yearlong special curriculum.

The best way to celebrate diversity is to lump us all together as human beings…as Americans living in a melting pot where we respect everyone…even if we have different skin, religions, etc.

Honestly, I’ve never understood why anyone took issue with the lgbtq community. Who cares who you love? Why would bedroom practices ever need to be discussed by anyone? Who cares what name/pronouns/vibe you embrace? It really only seemed to become an issue when it went too far that it became a target. Interestingly, there are a lot of gay advocates who think this over-correction was predictable and could have been avoided. Even more interesting, some of those gay advocates blame straight allies pushing an agenda that the lgbtq (or at least the lgbt) community didn’t endorse…at least not so fast and to such a degree.

Exhibit A: I don’t know any gay parents who thought drag Queen reading books to kids was necessary or helpful.

But books in a library with two dads? Not a big deal. Nobody cares…because it’s 2025 and most kids know gay families/people or celebrities…especially in MoCo.

Hyperfixating on it made it a target. And it wasn’t necessary since MoCo has been a safe environment for decades.

Andrew Sullivan has a long and well-written NYT Opinion about this that published after Skrmetti.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/opinion/gay-lesbian-trans-rights.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

I don't agree that parents can opt their children out for any reason - this case was very specifically based on the parents' view that, without opt-outs, and due to the supplemental instructions to teachers about how to deal with/correct children who might voice disagreement with the content, an undue burden was being placed on the free exercise of their religion.

And based on the very public comments made by Lynne Harris and Kristin Mink, it isn't too much of a leap to imagine what a teacher, inside a classroom and not being filmed, might say to students who voice such concerns/disagreements.