Andrea Picciotti-Bayer writes for us today that “parents should be able to opt out of gender madness in Montgomery County,” a sound argument that seems, well, mad to oppose. Andrea’s piece comes after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against parents who oppose the district teaching their children about gender and sexuality using “pride storybooks.”
Read the piece for more clarity on the recent decision. Here’s a broad overview of the case: In 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools — Maryland’s largest school district — implemented a “gender and sexuality curriculum” into the district’s language arts curriculum, skirting around laws that bind Maryland’s health curriculum (which parents are usually able to opt out of, as it’s the curriculum that addresses sex, etc.). The district at first allowed parents to opt out of the ELA curriculum. Then the district abruptly stripped the right to opt out away, with no explanation, and forced parents to file a lawsuit against the district for interfering with their rights to instruct their children on gender and sexuality as they see fit.
All parents have asked for is the opportunity to opt their own children out of the curriculum. Montgomery County is an insidious machine, and refuses to allow parents even the choice. The court argued last week, Andrea writes, that:
“[T]here was no information ‘about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the Storybooks in the Parents’ children’s classrooms, how often the Storybooks are actually being used, what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have ensured about their themes.’ In a word, the majority demanded that parents first expose their children to what they believe will seriously undermine their religious formation before they can get help from the court.”
Part of what makes this case so frustrating is that the district has been explicit during proceedings in its mission to — and this is an overused but apt word — indoctrinate students into a specific understanding of gender and sexuality, one administrators deem appropriate, “representative,” and “inclusive.” One of the district’s lawyers said explicitly that an opt-out policy would undermine “specific goals the district is trying to advance,” we reported in August:
A student’s right to reject instruction in sexuality is “precisely what this [gender and sexuality] curriculum is trying to prevent,” MCPS lawyers said in court. Mandatory gender and sexuality instruction is “critical for educating children in a diverse society,” the lawyers argued, adding that the curriculum “doesn’t work” if only some children participate.
What will it take to cause a reckoning in Montgomery County? While parents fight for their right to opt out, the district has been dealing with a host of other issues, ones that should cast a spotlight on Montgomery County’s failure to (a) protect and (b) instruct their students. For example, the district is embroiled in a sex-pest lawsuit, after the Washington Post revealed that administrators ignored numerous sexual-harassment complaints against a principal and promoted him anyway. There’s also been a rise in antisemitism in Montgomery County schools — one that teachers say administrators often ignore or endorse. Also, there’s a gun scare, lockdown, or threat nearly every week on one of the district’s campuses, and many Montgomery County kids are deficient in math and chronically absent. Districts can tackle many problems at once, especially a district like Maryland’s, which has a massive budget. But in the past few years, school safety, education, and campus culture have become worse — yet gender and sexuality curriculum is the thing in which Montgomery County invests time, and resources, to establish and defend. “Mad” doesn’t begin to describe the district.