Lansing — The Michigan House Committee on Oversight on Friday heard extended testimony and debate over proposed 2025 comprehensive health education standards drafted by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), then voted to report House Resolution 195 urging rejection or revision of the framework, the committee clerk announced after a roll‑call vote that produced a 10–7 recommendation.

The state’s interim superintendent, Sue Carnell, told lawmakers the department used the national health education framework developed by the Society for Health and Physical Education (SHAPE), compared it with the state’s 2007 standards and other states’ guidance (including Massachusetts), ran multiple expert reviews and opened a 30‑day public comment period. Carnell said MDE plans changes focused on clarifying opt‑out language and that "parents have the right to review sex‑education curriculum prior to instruction and can opt out their child from any or some of the sex‑education and HIV/AIDS instruction." She added that the department aims to follow state law and to preserve local control where statutes require it.

Why it matters: Lawmakers and many witnesses said the draft blurs the legal distinction between sex education and required health instruction, risks embedding content related to gender identity and sexual orientation into non‑health classes, and lacks clear, implementable notice and opt‑out mechanics for parents. Several legal and education witnesses warned of potential constitutional and administrative liabilities if the language remains vague.

Key points from testimony

• Department defense: Carnell repeatedly invoked state statutes and presented three areas of common ground: follow the law, protect parents’ rights, and preserve academic focus. She said the draft standards are a framework (not a prescriptive curriculum), that HIV/AIDS and communicable‑disease instruction remains required and must be medically accurate, and that local school boards retain authority to approve curriculum and provide parent opt‑out under existing statutes. "We believe in the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine the direct care, teaching and education of their children," Carnell said.

• Parental‑rights and process concerns: Multiple lawmakers and witnesses — including state board member Nikki Snyder (the committee played a prerecorded statement), Senator Lana Theis, Representative Gina Johnson, and attorney David Coleman — argued the draft fails to make opt‑out procedures practicable, appears to fold sex‑education topics into a statewide health standard rather than keep them locally controlled, and contains vague terms ("trusted adult," "advocacy") that raise legal risk. Coleman told the committee: "First, there is no clear opt‑out provision in the standards regarding health… If that's true, why are these in the health standards? They should be in the sex‑education standards."

• School operations and teachers: Witnesses and lawmakers described implementation burdens for local school boards and teachers, including frequent notification demands if the standards are interpreted to require parental notice every time a topic touching gender or sexuality could arise. Several speakers said teachers and districts already face contested curriculum disputes at the local level and warned the draft would amplify those conflicts.

• Student safety, research and counterarguments: Carnell and allied witnesses cited research and national guidance indicating that inclusive, medically accurate instruction and school climates that reduce harassment help students' academic engagement. Opponents said social‑emotional learning (SEL) and activism language in the draft distract from core academic priorities and can create harms if applied indiscriminately.

Vote and next steps

Representative Jamie Green moved to report House Resolution 195 with recommendation. The clerk recorded a roll‑call vote and announced HR195 "is reported with recommendation." The clerk’s tally was 10 yes, 7 no; the clerk listed members' recorded votes during the roll call.

What the resolution does: HR195 urges the State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education to reject or substantially revise the proposed health education standards so they comply with current statutory limits, preserve parental notice and local control for sex‑education content, and remove or clarify language opponents said is vague or advocacy oriented.

Voices quoted

• Sue Carnell, interim state superintendent: "We believe in the natural fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine the direct care, teaching and education of their children."

• David Coleman, attorney: "There is no clear opt‑out provision in the standards regarding health… If that's true, why are these in the health standards? They should be in the sex‑education standards."

• Nikki Snyder (video), State Board member: "Sex education is sex education. Health education is health education." (video statement presented to the committee)

Context and background

MDE said the draft is based on national standards (SHAPE), adapted and reviewed against Michigan’s 2007 health standards and other states' approaches. The department posted the draft for a public comment period and signaled it will propose edits focused on clarity and opt‑out mechanics before returning a revised draft to the State Board of Education for consideration. Statutes repeatedly cited in the hearing include MCL 380.1278 (standards development and core academic curriculum), MCL 380.1169 (instruction on communicable diseases, including HIV/AIDS), and MCL 380.1507 (local control and advisory boards for sex education); witnesses disagreed about how those statutes apply to the current draft.

What to watch

• Whether MDE issues a revised draft that narrows or clarifies where sex‑education content appears, and how it will operationalize parent notification and local review.

• Any follow‑up legislation or formal legal challenges aimed at defining the boundary between statewide health standards and locally controlled sex‑education instruction.

Provenance

Topic intro evidence: Sue Carnell introduced the standards, process and legal citations (testimony beginning with "I'm the interim state superintendent... you requested my attendance today to address your concerns" and detailed statutory references).

Topic finish evidence: Committee recorded roll call and reported HR195 with recommendation (final clerk announcement: "HR195 is reported with recommendation").