The options available to state education agencies (SEA's) facing decisions concerning the regulation of controversial course content are discussed in this paper, which uses the issue of whether or not to mandate the teaching of creationism as an example. The author first clarifies the issues in the debate over teaching creationism, touching on the relevance to the debate of First Amendment regulations, child-benefit concepts developed from constitutional law, notions of religious freedom, public financing of religion, the sincerity of the issue's proponents, and the proponents' rights to expression of their opinions in the schools. Options open to SEA's prior to adopting regulations mandating inclusion of creationism in the curriculum include treating the matter as any other proposed curriculum change, seeking the state attorney general's opinion, or opposing or accepting the proposal outright. Once the change is mandated, the SEAs' options include having the subject treated as any other controversial subject, seeking procedural advice from the attorney general, or taking no action at all. (Author/PGD)