Maryland Family Claims Religious Discrimination Prevents Daughter from Graduating Over LGBTQ Health Curriculum

A bright senior at a Maryland high school faces the possibility of not graduating next month, which her family attributes to what they describe as religious discrimination by the school district.

The student, referred to as “Jane” to protect her identity, attends Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). She is not only an academic achiever with a 4.76 weighted GPA but also an active participant in various extracurricular activities. Jane scored 1450 on her SAT, placing her in the 96th percentile.

Despite her impressive credentials, Jane’s path to graduation is obstructed by a compulsory health course. Her parents object to parts of the course that include, in their view, “LGBTQ+ affirming” and “religiously discriminatory” content, which contradicts their deeply held Christian beliefs.

The family has been advocating for more than two years for an exemption from this course or the option to enroll in an alternative class through a private institution or independent study, but these appeals have not been successful.

As her senior year draws to a close, Jane’s father expressed her disappointment: “She’s quite upset about missing graduation with her friends and losing the opportunity to partake in this significant milestone.”

To escalate their plea, Jane’s family has filed a petition with the Maryland Supreme Court. They are seeking a review of their concerns against the Montgomery County Board of Education (MCBE).

Parents Respond to Curriculum Changes

In August 2022, the family discovered that Jane had been enrolled in a health class for her sophomore year that would be required for graduation. The parents learned that LGBTQ content would permeate the entire year-long course, deviating from past practices where it was confined to a specific unit on Family Life and Human Sexuality.

According to screenshots of alleged teacher training materials shared by the family, educators are urged to incorporate LGBTQ+ resources and more inclusive language throughout the course.

One guide purportedly instructed teachers to categorize groups into “privileged” and “oppressed,” labeling Christians as privileged and Non-Abrahamic Religions and Spiritualities as oppressed. Another lesson encourages students to recognize health inequities affecting groups such as “trans or gender-expansive” individuals and those identifying with non-Christian faiths.

The Challenge to School Policies

In response to the mandatory curriculum, the family withdrew Jane from the class while requesting more details about the course contents. They claim MCPS has denied access to the lesson plans and the option for opting Jane out of the class.

Furthermore, the parents proposed that Jane could take the health class at an accredited Catholic high school or through supervised independent study with a former MCPS educator. However, MCPS rejected these alternatives, mandating that Jane must attend classes with an active MCPS teacher or complete a dual enrollment course at a community college. This last option complicates matters, as it conflicts with her high school schedule and lacks the necessary protections for minors concerning the objectionable curriculum.

Legal Proceedings and Appeals

After the school board denied their initial request, the parents took their appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County in August 2024. The court upheld the board’s decision in December, and an appeal was filed in January to the Appellate Court.

Given the urgent nature of their situation, they have sought a writ of certiorari to the Maryland Supreme Court while the case remains pending. The family contends that MCPS improperly incorporated LGBTQ+ affirming content throughout the health course, contravening laws that stipulate such instruction is limited to the Family Life and Human Sexuality unit, which allows parents the option to withdraw their child.

A Fight for Educational Rights

The parents clarified their intentions in a letter to the Maryland State Board of Education. They are not attempting to halt LGBTQ+ education altogether but wish to restrict its instruction to designated units where they can exercise their right to opt-out. They argue that if LGBTQ+ discussions permeate the entire health curriculum, then the option to withdraw their daughter from the entire class should be granted.

In their legal stance, the family emphasizes that they are fighting for the rights of all religious students similarly compelled to take this class to graduate, particularly those whose families cannot afford alternatives or private education. They aim to advocate for religious freedoms within the educational environment.

In a related legal action, they filed a separate complaint against the school in March, accusing the school board and MCPS of deliberately obstructing access to public course information as mandated by the Maryland Public Information Act.

Ongoing Legal Battles in Montgomery County

Montgomery County Public Schools is currently entangled in another significant religious liberty dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court, which involves challenges to the removal of the opt-out provision regarding LGBTQ storybooks in classrooms.

A coalition of parents from diverse religious backgrounds—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim—has initiated a lawsuit against the school board. They argue that the board’s actions infringe upon their First Amendment rights by mandating participation in educational content contrary to their religious beliefs.

During a recent Supreme Court session, justices heard arguments that could potentially set a crucial legal precedent for parental rights in educational settings across the United States. Observers noted that the conservative majority on the court displayed strong support for the parents in this pivotal case.

Persisting Through Adversity

This Maryland family remains resolute in their commitment to advocating for their daughter’s rights and those of others facing similar challenges. They have chosen not to transfer Jane to another district, believing their fight represents a larger struggle for religious freedoms in educational contexts. Their ongoing legal battle reflects a growing tension between educational policy and the right to religious expression.