2 Important Issues: Bond and Comprehensive Health Regulation

A number of important issues were discussed at last night’s Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified school board meeting. This newsletter will focus on Item J(1) (the bond) and Item J(6) (the Comprehensive Health Regulation).

The Bond (J(1))

Last night, the Board voted to place a bond measure on the November 2024 ballot. My comments regarding the bond measure are here (beginning at 5:38:37).

I cannot campaign for or against the measure now that it has been approved for the ballot, and will accordingly keep my comments on the subject brief. I am happy to take your questions and provide factual information in response.

The Comprehensive Health Regulation (J(6))

Following three months of policy meetings and discussions, District staff and lawyers proposed revised language for AR 6142.8 - Comprehensive Health Education. The original version of the AR was proposed by the California School Boards Association (CSBA), which drafts essentially all of our district’s policies. CSBA’s policy language misstates California law, claiming that Education Code section 51932 prohibits parents from opting a student out of certain topics. That is legally incorrect.

The Board voted 3-2 last night against the recommendation from staff and the district’s attorneys. Deen, Gandhi and Kurt voted against, Hamill and Reid voted for. The discussion is here (beginning at 5:02:02). The Board will revisit the policy at an upcoming meeting.

Here is my assessment:

EDUCATION CODE 51932 DOES NOT PROHIBIT OPT OUTS

Education Code section 51932 provides, in its entirety:

“(a) This chapter does not apply to description or illustration of human reproductive organs that may appear in a textbook, adopted pursuant to law, if the textbook does not include other elements of comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education as defined in Section 51931.

(b) This chapter does not apply to instruction, materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.” (emphasis added).

“This chapter” refers to Chapter 5.6 of Part 28, Division 4, Title 2 of the Education Code, which encompasses the entirety of the California Healthy Youth Act, codified at Education Code sections 51930 – 51939 (“CHYA”).

Contrary to CSBA’s interpretation, Section 51932(b) does not say parents cannot opt out of instruction, materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family that do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions. Nor does Section 51932(b) prohibit districts from notifying parents when such instruction, materials, presentations or programming is occurring.

CHYA requires districts to notify and respect parental opt out for certain instruction in health, and does not require districts to notify and respect parental opt out for the topics outlined in Section 51932(b). However, this cannot be construed to mean a district is prohibited from notifying parents and allowing an opt out of such topics.

Accordingly, school districts may notify parents of such instruction, and may allow opt out and replacement with an educational activity.

TEACHING ABOUT GENDER DIVERSE PEOPLE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. DOGMATIC INSTRUCTION OF GENDER IDEOLOGY IS CONTROVERSIAL AND MANY FAMILIES FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE.

Teaching about the existence of gender diverse people and encouraging tolerance is not controversial. However, some teaching crosses the line into dogmatic instruction that children can be “born in the wrong body,” can “transition” into the opposite sex, and that once a person “transitions” they become the opposite sex and must be identified as such. This instruction is followed by encouragement in schools, without parental knowledge or consent, of children to adopt new identities and alter their bodies with hormonal treatments, physical devices like binders and packers, and ultimately surgical intervention.

Teaching gender ideology as fact is controversial and carries risk of significant harm, including sterility, necrosis, and death, as evidenced in recent research including the Cass Review (available at https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/) and the WPATH files (available at https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files ).

Today, our Legislature passed AB 1955, which reinforces the school secrecy policies recommended by the California Department of Education. To witness how out of control our legislature has gotten, please watch this clip from today’s hearing. For a thorough analysis of these issues and current litigation, please see here.

FAMILIES HAVE A RIGHT TO OPT THEIR CHILD OUT OF INSTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED

A family’s right to opt their child out of instruction to which they are conscientiously opposed, from religious convictions or otherwise, has been recognized by the California Supreme Court. See Hardwick v. Board of School Trustees of Fruitridge School Dist., Sacramento County (1921) 54 Cal.App. 696, 704. In that case, parents objected to their children’s participation in the public school’s mandatory dance classes because it violated their religious beliefs. The parents proposed alternative ways to satisfy the state’s physical-exercise requirements, which the principal refused to consider. The children were expelled from the school for their absence from the class, and their parents sued. In the 1921 decision, the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of the parents, stating that as long as the parents’ requests “relate to matters in rearing and education of their children,” are “not offensive to the moral well-being of the children,” and are not “inconsistent with the best interests of society,” the public school must accommodate.

To rule otherwise, the Supreme Court of California asserted, would be to subvert “the home life so essential to the safety and security of society and the government which regulates it—the very opposite effect of what the public school system is designed to accomplish.”

The District must respect that children who attend our schools are not our children—they are their parents’ children. It is not the District’s job to instill in children any particular ideology or worldview (in fact, that is prohibited by law), and parents’ opt out requests relating to matters in rearing and education that are not offensive to the moral well-being of the children must be accommodated by a public school.

Under Hardwick, children of persons conscientiously opposed to certain instruction, from religious convictions or otherwise, cannot be compelled, on pain of expulsion from school and of the denial of the right to attend any public school of the county, to participate in such instruction.

Removing CSBA’s legally incorrect language does not mandate any particular kind of opt out. It simply leaves the door open for parents who are conscientiously opposed to any particular subject matter to notify the school and opt their child out from that particular instruction.

If a Board majority wishes to restrict parental opt out rights by adding an opt out prohibition to the policy, they may do so, but they run the risk of litigation from parents who object on moral, religious, or other grounds. As I stated last night, prohibiting opt outs when not required to do so under California law means the Board would be going above and beyond the law to limit parental rights and choice in our district, and impinging on religious liberty. The Board will be voting on this issue at an upcoming meeting.

As always, this is just one woman’s opinion. I don’t speak for the Board and no one else speaks for me.