There is a long-held assumption that schools serve to educate children on subjects such English, math, and reading, and that it is the job of parents to shape their children spiritually, emotionally, physically, and mentally.

What happens when schools cross that line and begin to assume what biblically, constitutionally, and historically has been the role of parents? What happens when schools not only assume that role, but—in following rules and mandates set by the state—make decisions for students that exclude the parents, without regard to the parents’ beliefs, rights, or wishes?

Rockford Public Schools is standing on a policy from the State Board of Education that they claim allow them to hide a student’s gender identity change from the parents.

In October of 2022, two Rockford parents found that the staff at their daughter’s school had been referring to her with male pronouns and by a different name. The parents, Dan and Jennifer Mead, had not been notified or included in the decision. The Meads withdrew their daughter from the school when the superintendent couldn’t guarantee the practice wouldn’t continue.

The parents sued Rockford Public Schools (RPS) in December of 2023. The lawsuit states in the introduction:

“… the Meads had no reason to think the District would make important decisions about G.M.’s [their daughter’s] education and health without first telling them—let alone without seeking their consent.

The Meads were stunned when they discovered that the District had— without seeking their consent and while actively concealing information from them—begun to treat G.M. as a boy, referring to her with male pronouns and a masculine name at school… As directed by the District’s policy, District employees—employees the Meads had trusted with sensitive information about G.M.’s mental health— deliberately changed G.M.’s school records to conceal the fact that the District was treating their daughter as a boy without their knowledge. The Meads only discovered it because one employee forgot to remove the masculine name and male pronouns from one section of G.M.’s records, after removing it from other sections of the same document, and inadvertently gave the Meads the document she had only partially altered.

These actions… violated the Meads’ long-settled constitutional rights. The First Amendment protects their right to exercise their religion by directing G.M.’s education and upbringing, including on fundamental questions of existence like how G.M. identifies herself. And the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees their fundamental right to make decisions about her upbringing, education, and healthcare.

By intentionally concealing from the Meads important information about their daughter’s education—on a subject as morally fraught as gender confusion—the district denied them these constitutional rights.”

In response, the RPS attorneys claimed the parents failed to show how the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. RPS is defending their actions to conceal information from the Meads by claiming they were following Michigan’s “State Board of Education’s Statement and Guidance on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Students.” The statement gives instruction on how to create a safe environment which includes addressing students by their preferred pronouns and name, as well as how to accommodate them in sports, locker rooms and restrooms, dress code, student records, and privacy and confidentiality disclosures.

The following directive appears under the statement sections on Student Identity and Privacy and Confidentiality:

Worth noting is that the opening paragraph of the statement has a disclaimer: “These guidelines are voluntary and should not be considered mandates or requirements.” The RPS website has a link to the Michigan Board of Education’s statement, though the website does not make it clear whether RPS has implemented the guidelines as a district policy. Apparently, it has.

At the same time the Meads were discovering what was happening at their daughter’s school, two members of the Michigan Board of Education, Tom McMillin and Nikki Snyder, were fighting for parents on this very issue. The two board members were attempting to pass a resolution entitled, “Government Deceiving Parents is Evil,” which was an effort to fire State Superintendent Michael Rice. McMillin said that Rice refused to “remove videos that specifically instruct teachers and other school personnel how to deceive parents about something as fundamental [as] what their child is being called, what bathrooms they’re using, whether they are being identified as a boy or a girl at school.” Snyder added that “a government deceiving parents about important matters involving their child is evil.” The other five board members, all Democrats, voted against the resolution and the motion failed, allowing the deception of parents to continue.

Have other Michigan schools adopted the Michigan Board of Education’s statement as policy?

Most Ottawa County public schools take their main policy direction from Neola, a policy service provider in Ohio, including Allendale, Coopersville, Grand Haven, Holland, Hudsonville, Spring Lake, and West Ottawa. The public schools under the direction of Miller Johnson, a policy service provider located in Michigan, are Jenison and Zeeland.

Like the majority of schools in Ottawa County, RPS, which is in Kent County, uses Neola policies. However, the policy RPS followed when choosing to hide the pronouns and name change, is the optional set of guidelines from the Department of Education.

While not currently addressing pronouns and gender identity, Neola does have Policy 5780: Student/Parent Rights, which states in part: “The Board of Education recognizes that students possess not only the right to an education but the rights of citizenship as well. In providing students the opportunity for an education to which they are entitled, the District shall attempt to offer nurture, counsel, and custodial care appropriate to their age and maturity. The District shall, at the same time, guarantee that no student is deprived of the basic right to equal treatment and equal access to the educational program, due process, a presumption of innocence, free expression and association, and the privacy of his/her own thoughts.”

Entitling the district to “offer nurture, counsel and custodial care appropriate to a student’s age” is vague. The meaning of these words could vary depending on situation, intent, and application.

Jenison and Zeeland, the districts using Miller Johnson policies, have Policy 8007: Discrimination and Harassment, which states in part: “There will be no tolerance for discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression), marital status, pregnancy status, genetic information, disability, age or any other basis prohibited by law. The Superintendent will develop administrative regulations to implement this policy.” Both Jenison and Zeeland have added a closing sentence listing the person the superintendent has assigned to “supervise the implementation of this policy and its implementing regulations.” It is unclear what is meant by “implementing regulations.”

Whether school districts in Ottawa County intend to adopt the optional statement and guidance from the Michigan Department of Education as RPS has, is difficult to predict.

Shifting back to the Fourteenth Amendment, as was said in the Mead lawsuit against RPS, that particular amendment guarantees parents the fundamental right to make decisions about their child’s upbringing, education, and healthcare.

If the purpose of schools is to teach our children subjects such as English, math, and reading, why is the state beginning to set up healthcare centers in schools?

• Less time away from work for parents

• Confidential and individualized therapy

• Opportunities for students to be assessed, tested, given therapy and have medication prescribed

The healthcare centers define their program as, “An outlet for your family and an additional resource to help your child work through difficult times.” It would seem they are inserting themselves into your family as a healthcare decision-maker.

After the mandates, shutdowns, and harmful misguidance surrounding Covid, do parents trust anyone outside of their family to make healthcare and therapy decisions for their child? What are the incentives dangled in front of schools that entice them to allow a healthcare center to set up residence? With the added liability, staff, and space requirements, what would make this attractive to school administrators?

The Constitution protects the rights of parents. To take advantage of those protections, parents need to know their rights and stay on top of the policies and programs schools are implementing. This can be done by visiting your school’s website and reading the policies. You can also attend school board meetings, connect with people in your community who want to protect students, and stay informed.

The next generation is depending on us.