What is going on?

My son was KICKED OUT of Armada High School on November 1, 2024. He started classes in August. But by November, he was removed from school solely because we will not willingly hand our private health information to a government agency we do not trust. Our sons and other students are BEING TARGETED. This issue is complex, please read through these details, form an opinion, and have a conversation with someone about this. All of our children DESERVE it. I believe this is a canary in a coal mine moment when it comes to our children's right to an education. The following list gives the short summary of the situation. For a deeper dive, keep scrolling for links and more commentary.

​

1. The 1978 law is plain and well-established. It is described in more detail below. We followed this law and submitted our written statement in August 2024.
    

2. In 2015, MDHHS issued rules that voided the law. In doing so, they took authority they do not possess, but nobody has called them on it. The rules are poorly written and contradictory. Find more discussion with links below.
    

3. Dr. Remington Nevin is the Medical Director of the St Clair County Health Department. Note he is helping to lead the same local health department that the Armada School District Superintendent claims ordered my son's removal last year.
   
   Dr. Nevin confirmed in his April 2025 memo that the 2015 MDHHS rules contradict state statute MCL § 333.9215 and warned that the rules do not authorize schools to deny enrollment for lack of a certified waiver. Here are some key quotes from his memo that stand out:
   
   (Page 2): “Both the Public Health Code and the Revised School Code therefore establish that a parent secures an absolute and permanent exemption of their child from the requirements of mandatory immunization through the sole act of presenting an appropriate written statement to their child’s school.”
   
   (Page 3-4): "The 2014 amendment to the Michigan Administrative Code, R 325.176(12), while introducing a requirement for local health departments to certify that education was provided to parents, did not alter this fundamental process. The rule imposed an additional obligation solely on the health department to ensure education is provided to parents, without mandating their active participation in this process. In this context, the submission of the “waiver form prescribed by the department”, referenced in the 2014 amendment, was understood to represent a purely internal activity to be completed solely by local health departments. 
   
   However, since its promulgation in 2014, the amendment to R 325.176(12) has been broadly misinterpreted and misconstrued by MDHHS and local health departments as placing additional requirements on the parent, including a requirement for attendance at a mandatory, in-person educational session prior to the exemption being recognized, and a requirement for the active completion or signing by the parent of this “waiver” form. This interpretation is not supported by the actual text of the amendment, nor is it consistent with the administrative rule-making history, which more accurately interprets the rule as placing a separate, subsequent requirement solely on the local health department to provide education to the parent, using a variety of passive methods based on local needs, and for the local health department to internally complete a waiver form as an administrative function, only after a statutory exemption has already been recognized, without the further active participation of the parent." 
   
   (Page 6): “In summary, Michigan state law establishes that a parent secures an absolute and permanent exemption of their child from the requirements of mandatory immunization through the sole act of presenting an appropriate written statement to their child’s school, and that no further active participation of the parent is required to perfect this exemption.”
    

4. My 2 oldest sons are Armada Tigers this school year. They were accepted into enrollment, but we've been informed that the school will remove them by November 1st, 2025 unless we cave and go against our convictions. At this year's August School Board meeting, we provided copies of Dr. Nevin's memo and an attorney's legal analysis which explains how enforcing these rules to remove students breaks the law. In his email response to me, Superintendent Musary said, "The state law on immunization requirements have not changed since last school year." He linked this memo from MDHHS and called it "Current Michigan Law" and did not discuss whether he even reviewed the new resources or passed them along to his attorney. He also said, "I do not have the power to deviate from what the law requires." Yet I believe that is exactly what Mr. Musary is doing. All of my email correspondence with him is linked into 1 file for download here (with a few appropriate redactions). For the benefit of all students in the district and across the state, please review and decide if Mr. Musary is doing the right thing.
   
   Also review Dr. Nevin's memo and consider my claims and weigh in - what do you think? Should a school district "follow the rules" even if rules are unlawful and controversial in order to stay out of trouble with MDHHS, who only has reporting authority? Or should a district FIND A WAY to protect their students' rights without demanding families compromise their convictions?
    

5. More background: To fully understand this issue, it's best to know exactly where the 2015 rules came from and why. I have 2 resources that give context. The first is called Immunization Waiver Education: Two Local Health Departments' Perspectives. It shows that the purpose of the 2015 requirements was to intentionally increase the burden on parents when exempting their children in order to increase vaccination rates (slide 5). Also, nearly 90% of parents going through the sessions at Oakland County did not change their views (slide 17). But actually the mandatory waiver sessions served mostly to burden agency personnel and anger parents while taking away their lawful options. This has decreased trust in health authorities more and more over the last 10 years.
   
   The 2nd resource that gives history is called "What's the point of Michigan's vaccine waiver education requirement." This is a rich hour-long video recorded in 2018. It discusses why and how these controversial rules came about. One main point is that the rules were born from "the state in using coercion or manipulation" to increase the burden (remove parent rights) when exempting children from vaccines. Dr. Navin in the presentation also says about 5:00 in:
   
   If you want to talk about the politics and legislative maneuvering, it's sort of an interesting question about why they didn't try and get a new law passed, right, but worked through the rules committee, that required that from then going forward, beginning in 2015, parents who wanted nonmedical exemptions would have to submit an official state form. Prior to that time they could write on a piece of paper they objected and turn it in at the school. So an official state form, signed by a representative from the local public health department that that local public health department official had provided education about the benefits of vaccination and the risks of vaccine preventable diseases. And so it institutionalized at the local health departments this new requirement. Now what sort of motivated that? If you ask people like Bob Swanson and others in public health who were pushing this rules change, it's that they knew that there's a strong association between the burdensomeness of nonmedical exemptions applications processes and nonmedical exemptions rates. You make them harder to get, fewer people get them, right, and so one thing that this new rules change was primarily accomplishing was making the process more burdensome.
    

6. Documents that do not carry the force of law are being cited as if they are law in order to deny students access to school. Elizabeth Hertel is the director of MDHHS. She is not a legislator, judge, or an attorney. She is not even a doctor, yet her position has given her authority to make health policy that affects everyone in Michigan.
   
   In her June 2024 memo, she states, "When a parent or legal guardian holds a religious or other objection that prevents a student from receiving vaccines, a 2024 Nonmedical Immunization Waiver is required to be completed, signed, and certified at the local health department (LHD)." Hertel's memo does not mention what to do with students that are out of compliance with this requirement. Nor does the memo prescribe any procedure for denial of or removal from enrollment.
   
   Yet Michigan schools, including Armada, are using this memo as the sole resource to make policy and deny students their right to an education. Armada Superintendent Mike Musary linked this Hertel memo to me in email calling it "Current Michigan Law." When I asked Mr. Musary to explain his claim, he referred me to his law firm and informed me that my sons will be removed after October 31, 2025.   This directly contradicts experts, including the State Superintendent.
    

7. Consider this: Dr. Michael F. Rice is the Superintendent for the Michigan Department of Education. He issued a memo on January 16 directing that schools recognize the right to an education for illegal immigrants and another on January 23 encouraging schools to contact their attorneys if asked to cooperate with ICE agents to remove illegal immigrants. Dr. Rice says,
   
   "Public education is a public service, and school-age children—all school-age children—have the right to this service." So students have a right to an education even without documentation proving citizenship? So why should a citizen's child be removed from school solely because they lack the correct form? Aren't these children "undocumented" in a different sense?
   
   In the 2nd memo, Dr. Rice directed schools to protect student privacy:
   
   "To avoid a violation of FERPA, Plyler, or some other law, you should consult with your legal counsel soon to be prepared for circumstances where a member of ICE or another law enforcement official approaches you for access to students or student records."
   
   He is saying because of FERPA, schools need to protect the privacy of illegal immigrants against federal agents. Yet when we tried to protect our privacy against the same organization that extended mandatory Michigan lockdowns during COVID, our children are to be removed from school unless we divulge our information to the health department in order to get a certified waiver? 
    

8. If you're now feeling like you're red-pilled on this issue, what can you do? Please speak-up. Comment here and on social media, talk with your neighbors, attend your local school board meeting, call your school board members, call your representative and senator. Sign a petition. Awareness of this and similar issues is our children's ally. 

​

Here are additional details, expanding what is above:

1. The law is plain. MCL § 333.9215(2) states:
   A parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis applying to have a child registered in school shall present to the administrator a certificate of immunization or a written statement signed by the parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis to the effect that the child has not been immunized because of religious convictions or other objection to immunization.​
   
   That’s it. A "written statement" to the school. No other conditions. I submitted our written statement in with other enrollment paperwork and my son started school last August.​
   
   MCL § 333.9215 has been the law since 1978. But in 2015, MDHHS rewrote the rules with the stroke of a pen, voiding a part of the law and creating new unauthorized requirements.
    

2. The key change was in Mich. Admin. Code R 325.176(12): (found on page 10-11)
   When presented with a medical exemption, religious or other exemption, the administrator of a child's school or operator of a child's group program shall recognize the exemption status of the child. Each nonmedical exemption filed at the child’s school or group program of a child entering a program after December 31, 2014 shall be certified by the local health department that the individual received education on the risks of not receiving the vaccines being waived and the benefits of vaccination to the individual and the community.
   
   This rule eliminated the lawful parental exemption option by forcing parents to register their private health decision with the health department to obtain a “certified waiver” instead of submitting a simple “written statement.” It directly contradicts the statute, compromises federally protected privacy, and even conflicts with other rules in the same code, specifically (1)(d) found on page 6.
   
   Notice that Rule (1)(d) defines "religious or other exemption" as a "written statement" not a "certified waiver". It also says that statement is self-certifying. Check it out: ​
   
   Mich. Admin. Code R 325.176(1)(d) (page 6):
   "Religious or other exemption" means a written statement which is signed by the parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis of a child, which certifies that immunization is in conflict with religious or other convictions of the signer, and which includes the name and date of birth of the child.
   
   Given this context, now re-read this portion of rule 12 with my notes added: 
   
   When presented with a medical exemption, religious or other exemption [defined as a self-certifying written statement from rule (1)(d)], the administrator of a child's school or operator of a child's group program shall recognize [with no additional conditions] the exemption status of the child.
   
   The sole reason for removing my son is that our written statement was not on an official certified waiver form. Our 2 sons are at risk of being removed by November 1st 2025, and other families across the state are being bullied in the same way. This is why this page exists. ​
   
   R 325.176(12) was designed intentionally to be a barrier to school enrollment to motivate parents to give up their right to privacy. Local health departments then pressure schools to enforce the rule because they lack authority to do that themselves. This fall, enforcement has only tightened and parents across Michigan now report being bullied over this.
   
   Why were these changes made? I believe the reasons are:
   – To discourage parents from using exemptions.
   – To track private medical decisions without consent, a FERPA violation.
   – To build a list of families to target first in case of an outbreak—even if there is no evidence of infection.
    

​Let’s be clear: Schools are not legally required to enforce this overreach and in fact go against student rights and law when they do. But school officials are not brave enough to test this. Let's give them the motivation to stand up for our children! Contact your local school board members and request they dig into this issue. We need public schools to try harder to defend student rights.