Teachers can keep curricula secret from parents, Michigan high court rules

Teachers can keep parents in the dark about what their children are being taught in the classroom, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled last month.

Since December 2021, Carol Beth Litkouhi has been trying to obtain information from a Rochester public school about a course being offered to her child called “A History of Ethnic and Gender Studies.” The school has refused.

Litkouhi filed a FOIA request for the information. She also filed a request for documents related to the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training. The school provided little information, claiming the rest was protected by copyright because it was developed by the teachers.

In 2022, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against Rochester Public Schools on Litkouhi’s behalf. The district argued that teachers are not bound by FOIA law and therefore are not obligated to reveal their lesson plans or materials.

This February, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the district, and on September 25th, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling.

Any secrecy ‘is a red flag’

“The implications of this decision are enormous,” said Mackinac Center Transparency and Open Government Director Steve Delie. “It means that records held by local government employees across the state — whether they be teachers, police officers or township workers — are likely exempt from public disclosure, making it much harder for citizens to hold their local governments accountable.”

Litkouhi said that secrecy in the classroom is a red flag.

“At the heart of my lawsuit was a simple but critical principle: Nothing taught in our schools should be under the cover of secrecy,” she said in a statement reported by Michigan Capitol Confidential. “If there is any reason why secrecy is desired or needed, that alone is a red flag. The Rochester School Board felt it best to keep classroom materials secret from parents. They took money away from classrooms to fight this fight. Sadly, they have now succeeded in setting a new, disturbing legal precedent.”

The ruling is the latest blow to parents who seek transparency in schools, particularly when it comes to gender ideology indoctrination.

California: Schools may hide developmental health from parents

In July, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB1955, a new piece of legislation that allows schools to hide information about students’ developmental health from their parents. School employees will no longer be required to tell a child’s parents if he or she identifies as “LGBTQ+,” according to the new law, and schools are forbidden from taking action against an employee who keeps that information from a child’s parents.

This is not the first California law designed to erode parental authority.

Last year, Newsom signed a bill granting the state a monopoly on education and requiring schools to integrate gender ideology in their curricula.

Previously, school boards were free to remove material from curricula they deemed objectionable. But with Newsom’s approval of AB1078 in September, boards will now be required to first seek permission from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) before removing any materials.

Those materials are now required to include indoctrination about gender ideology and how those who suffer from gender dysphoria have contributed to society.

Federal court: Religious parents cannot opt out of gender ideology

In May, a federal court rejected an appeal from parents of all three major faiths to opt out of gender ideology in school.

As of the 2023-2034 school year, all children who attend publicly funded schools in Montgomery County, Maryland must read LGBT materials that are listed as assigned reading. These include books such as “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” which is about a biological boy who says he is a girl. Small children will also be exposed to “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet book about a little boy who loses his puppy at a Pride parade.

The books were approved by the Montgomery County Board of Education in 2022. One year later they were made mandatory.

A group of six Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education over the new mandate. The parents argued that a compulsory curriculum that glorifies homosexuality violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The parents were joined by the parental rights group Kids First.

A lower court rejected the parents’ bid, prompting an appeal. Last Wednesday, a 2-1 majority on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling. Bush appointee Judge G. Steven Agee and Obama appointee Judge DeAndrea Benjamin both rejected the parents’ complaint.

“At present, however, no evidence in the record connects the requisite dots between the Parents’ children’s ages or mental capacity and their unknown exposure to the Storybooks to conclude that the Parents have already shown that a cognizable burden exists,” Agee wrote.

The dissenting opinion was given by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., a Trump appointee. Quattlebaum agreed with the parents that their right to choose their children’s religious upbringing is being violated by the LGBT mandate.

Attorney Eric Baxter represented the parents. “The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,” he told NBC News.

The parents have appealed to the US Supreme Court.

‍