Curriculum Tyranny: California’s War on School Districts
California Sues Cajon Valley School District
In February of this year, the California Department of Education filed what’s called a writ of mandate against the Cajon Valley School District alleging that the district’s curriculum, "did not contain information recognizing that people have different sexual orientations, information regarding same-sex relationships, or information about gender, gender expression, and gender identity, including the harm of negative gender stereotypes, as required by California law."[1] This comes nearly a year after the district was investigated by the California Department of Education for its compliance with state law.
The law in question is the California Healthy Youth Act, which was passed back in 2016 – so it has been in place for nearly a decade at this point. This act requires that sexual health education in public schools be comprehensive and inclusive of LGBTQ+ students. Specifically, the law mandates that instruction must:
Affirmatively recognize that people have different sexual orientations,
Be inclusive of same-sex relationships when discussing relationships and couples,
Teach about gender, gender expression, gender identity, and the harm of negative gender stereotypes, and
Prohibit any curriculum that promotes bias based on gender or sexual orientation.[2]
Previous to 2023, Cajon Valley had these provisions in place in their sex-ed curriculum. But in 2023, this changed when the district school board moved to create its own sex education curriculum, removing all references to LGBTQ+ topics. This change was justified by board president Jim Miller as making the curriculum “more palatable and proper for our community.”[3] The new curriculum, approved in March 2024, consisted of PowerPoint presentations for 7th and 8th graders, but omitted any mention of LGBTQ+ people, relationships, or issues. District officials argued for the change on the basis that their curriculum reflects the values and preferences of their local community. They suggested that the omission of LGBTQ+ topics aligns with local expectations, which aligns with what school boards across the state and even country are hearing from parents in their meetings. Specifically in Cajon Valley’s district, groups such as East County Parent Alliance, Santee Parents4Choice, PUSD Community Watch and Protect Kids California have formed in recent years to oppose much of the state required curriculum on gender ideology.[4]
The main arguments from parents and district officials for revising the curriculum center, once again, around the idea of parental rights. They say they don’t want their kids learning about alternative gender and sexual identity. Many parents have expressed that they don’t want topics of sexuality discussed with younger children, regardless of LGBTQ issues. Many others argue that they think focusing on LGBTQ topics distracts students from learning. Jennifer Thorpe, co-founder of East County Parent Alliance, put it this way, “We want to make sure kids are learning basic stuff. Leave all the social stuff out, and parents can teach what they want socially.” [5] District leaders further argue their position by emphasizing that young students are not mature enough to make decisions about gender identity and sexuality, and that such topics should be introduced with caution and parental guidance. Overall, the Cajon Valley School District contends that its new curriculum is tailored to its students and their parents, while still meeting educational standards.
But, of course, California public education officials do not take these views, and so the state maintains that omitting LGBTQ content from the curriculum, as Cajon Valley has done, is discriminatory and fails to prepare students for life in a diverse society. Inclusive education is seen as essential for the well-being and acceptance of all students. Therefore, California insists that comprehensive sex education, including detailed LGBTQ topics, is necessary to meet state standards and provide accurate, complete information to students. This brings us to where we are at today in the battle, with the California Department of Education asking a judge to force the Elementary School District to comply with state law regarding LGBTQ inclusion in its sexual health curriculum.[6]
Other Education Battles Across California
I wish I could say the lawsuit against Cajon Valley is a one-off, isolated incident, but I wouldn’t be writing about this if it was, so unfortunately there are many other battles just like this one taking place across our state.
One particularly disturbing incident is what took place in 2023 in the Temecula Valley Unified School District. In July of 2023, the district school board voted two times to reject the state curriculum for social studies. This curriculum was specifically for elementary school students –1st through 5th grade, so children somewhere between 6 to 10 years old. The reason the board voted to reject the curriculum was because it included teaching about Harvey Milk.
In case you have never heard of Harvey Milk, he was the first openly gay elected official in California, and that has made him very famous in liberal circles, where he is often put on a pedestal for his identity and societal advancement. In 2018, San Francisco announced it would be naming one of the terminals at its International Airport after Milk, stating, “In order to honor one of the nation’s great gay leaders, raise awareness of the history of the LGBT movement, and give hope to young LGBT people in cities everywhere, the Board of Supervisors finds it fitting that a terminal at the San Francisco International Airport be named in honor of Harvey Milk.”[7]
So, why would the Temecula School District have a problem teaching their students about such a well-respected public figure that a prominent city in our own state has named an airport terminal after? Well, those who idolize Milk fail to mention that he was exposed for pedophilia, having had a relationship with a 16-year-old boy when he himself was 33 years old. Milk convinced the boy to run away from home, and the boy later ended up committing suicide. As if that wasn’t bad enough, then we also have to note that this wasn’t the only time that Milk engaged in this type of pedophilic behavior. Another victim of his schemes, Gerald Dols, has spoken out about the way Milk attempted to groom him as a teenager, sending him a letter instructing him how to escape with him and instructing him not to tell his parents. Luckily for Dols, his parents intercepted the letter and prevented him from going with Milk.[8]
I wonder why parents and school officials might object to their SIX- to TEN-year-olds being taught about this man from a perspective of praising him and promoting his lifestyle as normal, healthy, and desirable?
Nonetheless, in his usual fashion, Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the Temecula Valley Unified School District’s decision by imposing a $1.5 million fine on the district for “willful violation of state law” and arranged for the state to provide the required textbooks – which included the curriculum referencing Harvey Milk – directly to students, billing the district for the cost.[9] What an absolutely authoritarian, overreaching, disgusting move by our state governor.
Of course, after the threat of this insanely massive fine and the public pressure it generated from liberals across the state, the board ultimately voted to adopt the curriculum.[10] And can you really blame them, when it’s clear this fight is stacked against them and no matter their efforts they will inevitably lose?
The State’s Role in Education
Cases like Temecula and Cajon Valley raise some very important questions: what is the state’s role in education, how much curriculum should they be able to dictate, and when should officials like Governor Newsom step in to battles like these?
Let’s start with the California government’s role in mandating curriculum across the state. The California State Board of Education adopts content standards for each subject area, such as English, math, science, social studies. These standards define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.[11] They then develop curriculum frameworks, which provide detailed guidance for implementing the content standards. These frameworks are created with input from educators and content experts and must be followed when designing instructional materials.[12] The California Department of Education (CDE) reviews and approves instructional materials submitted by publishers to ensure alignment with state standards and frameworks. Local school districts must select materials from this approved list or demonstrate that their chosen materials meet the same criteria.
Where controversial topics like gender ideology come in are within specific bills or statutes passed to require those topics in California schools. Lawmakers, rather than state education officials, can mandate certain education requirements for students. “Laws governing specific areas of instruction in K-12 curricula vary by state.”[13] The state then monitors compliance with these specific laws to ensure districts are meeting statutory requirements – and that is precisely what leads to battles like the ones fought in the districts I’ve mentioned today.
So, then the question becomes, what SHOULD the state be mandating in terms of education? Clearly the process is such that the state CAN mandate certain topics to be included, and by nature of monitoring for compliance with these laws they can sue local districts, but SHOULD they, and if so, which topics should be written into state law?
Your answer to that question is going to vary depending on your view of the government’s role in society, education, and in local districts. But, if we are going to go off a small government model, then we should argue that local school boards and communities should have primary authority over what is taught, reflecting local values and parental preferences in the communities they serve rather than top-down mandates on the statewide level. This goes back to the basic idea of states’ rights – there are certain issues that California can vary from Texas or Florida on by nature of the fact that the federal government doesn’t get to impose on states’ rights. The same argument is then followed through for local governments. Local governments should have the ability and freedom to govern the people they represent in a way that reflects their communities’ values and interests. Why? Because America was founded on the idea that ultimate power lies in the hands of the people – not in a big government. The people have the right to govern themselves. So, it makes sense that if members of a community want to vote on what is taught to their kids in school, they should be able to do so without the state government’s intervention – because ultimately, it’s their right to have their values and voices represented.
Specifically on the topic of education, parents are the ones who should have the final say in their children’s education, particularly on sensitive topics like sexuality, gender identity, and race. In spaces of public education, we can protect parental rights through opt-out provisions or parental notification for controversial subjects, but parents should also be represented in the conversation and should have a say – without having their child’s academic schedule dictated to them by our state, who doesn’t know, love, or care about their child in the way they do.
What the state should be doing is ensuring that traditional academic subjects, like reading, math, science, civics, are taught adequately to inform and equip students, and minimize inclusion of politicized or ideological content, such as critical race theory or LGBTQ+ topics. There is absolutely no reason that elementary school students need to be taught about homosexual relationships from their teachers and not their parents.
And honestly, I would argue that teaching them about LGBTQ topics is directly contradictory to the very argument they make against Christianity being taught in school! If a school can’t read passages from the Bible in class because that’s pushing an “agenda” or “ideology” that not every family will agree with, then why is it okay to turn around and teach them about controversial lifestyle choices that directly oppose the values of conservative Christian families? If schools are going to take the stance that they are neutral on religion, then they need to be neutral and silent on these social issues – which at their root are spiritual, ideological, and theological issues.
At the end of the day, the state is not your child’s parent, which means there must be transparency in curriculum adoption, and instructional materials must be readily available for you to review – because YOU are your child’s parent, and YOU should be directing their education!
Why Does This Matter for You?
Why should you care about these lawsuits against local school districts? You need to be informed about them because they are a warning sign – a red flag for you to pay attention to now. They expose exactly how far our state is willing to go to override the authority of parents and local communities. And if you're a parent – or if hope to be one or to fight for other parents – this matters deeply. This is about your children, your values, and your right to raise them according to your conscience.
I want to pause for a second and say something drastic. If it’s within your ability, I urge you—pull your children out of the public school system. Now, I know not every family has the resources, time, or flexibility to make that change right now. But if you can – even if it means sacrifice, reworking your schedule, or leaning on community resources – do it. The stakes are simply too high. The worldview being pushed in many California classrooms is not neutral. It is not passive. It is active, ideological, and in many cases, fundamentally opposed to biblical truth, parental authority, and traditional values. You wouldn't hand your child over to someone who openly rejected your faith and morals to raise them, why would you entrust their education to a system doing exactly that?
And if you can’t make the shift today, don’t give up. Start planning. Start networking. Look into homeschooling communities, hybrid co-ops, charter options, private scholarships—anything that gives you greater control and clarity over what your children are being taught. Because even if your family isn't ready to exit the system yet, just recognizing that you should matters. That realization can change how you parent, how you advocate, and how you invest in your child's future. Public schools are not the only way. And increasingly, they may be the wrong way for families trying to raise their children in truth.
I say that because we must be clear that above all, YOU are responsible for your child’s education. Not the state. Not the federal government. You. And in a time when state officials are suing school boards for resisting controversial curriculum mandates, your vigilance isn’t optional. It’s essential.
So, what are our action items from all of this?
First, to my readers who are not parents yet, this still matters. Because what’s being normalized today in the classroom will be shaping the society you live in tomorrow. The state is not just teaching math and reading – it’s pushing a worldview. And the question is: whose worldview will win out? Will it be the one rooted in truth and moral clarity, or one engineered by bureaucrats and bound to political ideology?
This is why advocating for school choice is not just a policy issue – it’s a spiritual and cultural imperative. We need more than one path. We need more than the state-run system. Because that system is being weaponized against families who hold traditional, faith-rooted, and conservative values. Families who believe children are not the property of the state, but the responsibility of parents. We must advocate fiercely and unapologetically for options that empower families—options that recognize and protect a parent's right to direct their child’s education and moral formation.
And to my parents who do send your kids to public school – you must know exactly what they’re being taught. These lawsuits are not just legal battles, they’re moral ones. They show, in no uncertain terms, what our state wants your children to believe, and that it’s willing to punish school boards for resisting. This isn’t speculation. It’s happening. Right now. And if you just look away and hope for the best, you’re gambling with their minds and their souls.
We need to engage right where we are. You need to get involved in your local school board meetings. Show up. Speak up. Pay attention to what’s being presented and adopted. Don’t wait for a scandal like the ones discussed today to find out your children have been sitting under instruction that contradicts your faith and values. You can’t afford to assume someone else is watching – it has to be you.
Also, opt your children out of instruction when it violates your conscience! California law still provides opt-out provisions for certain kinds of sex ed and health instruction – but don’t just sign a form and walk away. Follow up. Make sure your child’s school is actually honoring your opt-out request. Know the process, document your communication, and be ready to advocate. Parental rights are meaningless if they aren’t enforced.
I’ll leave you with one final thought. Above all – stay on guard. These institutions do not love your children more than you do. They are not more qualified, more invested, or more accountable. They are not the ones who will answer to God for how your child was raised – you are. They may be in positions of authority, but they are not in positions of ultimate responsibility. You are. So don’t be passive. Don’t be intimidated. Don’t let convenience become complacency. Be informed. Be involved. And be unshakable in your conviction that no one – not the school board, not the superintendent, and certainly not the state – cares for your child’s soul more than you do.
References:
[1] Hargrove, Dorian. “California’s Education Dept. Seeks Court Order for LGBTQ+ Inclusion.” Cbs8.Com, February 27, 2025. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/california-sues-cajon-valley-for-failing-to-include-lgbtq-in-sex-education/509-0e6c445d-2cdd-42eb-9a1f-cfb8243e9538#.
[2] California Health Education. “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - (CA Health Ed Framework).” Orange County Department of Education, n.d. https://californiahealtheducation.org/Pages/admin-FAQs.aspx.
[3] Menezes, Shandel. “East County School District Illegally Removed Mentions of LGBTQ+ From Sex-ed Curriculum: State.” NBC 7 San Diego, July 16, 2024. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/cajon-valley-union-school-district-lgbtq-sex-ed-curriculum/3567327/.
[4] Taketa, Kristen. “Canceled Contracts, Classroom Poster Crackdowns: How San Diego School Districts Are Changing Practices Amid anti-LGBTQ+ Backlash.” San Diego Union-Tribune, October 5, 2023. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2023/10/05/canceled-contracts-classroom-poster-crackdowns-how-san-diego-school-districts-are-changing-practices-amid-anti-lgbtq-backlash/.
[5] Ibid.
[6] McWhinney, Jakob. “Cajon Valley School District Sued by State Over Sexual Health Curriculum.” Voice of San Diego, February 28, 2025. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/02/28/cajon-valley-school-district-sued-by-state-over-sexual-health-curriculum/.
[7] Bois, Paul. “SFO Airport Terminal Will Be Named After Sexual Predator Harvey Milk,” March 23, 2018. https://www.dailywire.com/news/sfo-airport-terminal-will-be-named-after-sexual-paul-bois.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Staff, KCAL News. “Gov. Newsom Fines Temecula Valley School Board $1.5 For Rejecting New Curriculum.” CBS News, July 21, 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/gov-newsom-fines-temecula-valley-school-board-1-5-for-rejecting-new-curriculum/.
[10] Staff, KCAL News. “Days After Being Threatened by $1.5 Million Fine, Temecula Valley School Board Adopts New Curriculum.” CBS News, July 23, 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/days-after-being-threatened-by-1-5-million-fine-temecula-valley-school-board-adopts-new-curriculum/.
[11] California Department of Education. “Content Standards - Waivers, Standards & Frameworks.” California State Board of Education, n.d. https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/.
[12] California Department of Education, “Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Materials - Curriculum and Instruction Resources (CA Dept of Education),” n.d., https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/.
[13] Ballotpedia. “K-12 Areas of Instruction Required by Statute in California - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/K-12_areas_of_instruction_required_by_statute_in_California.
