Cajon Valley School District Sued by State Over Sexual Health Curriculum

The California Department of Education has filed a petition asking a judge to force the Cajon Valley Union Elementary School District to comply with state law regarding LGBTQ+ inclusion in its sexual health curriculum. 

This is the latest skirmish in a simmering culture war that’s hit the district. The department of education’s lawsuit comes after state investigators issued a report in July notifying the district that its sexual health curriculum was out of compliance with various elements of state law.  

Specifically, state officials found the curriculum did not acknowledge that people with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality exist and did not include information about same-sex relationships, gender expression and identity or the impacts of negative gender stereotypes. State officials gave the district until January to adopt a new sexual health curriculum that did comply with state law. 

In September, the district submitted an updated version of the curriculum. State officials determined the new curriculum did comply with state law, but the district’s board never officially approved the updated curriculum. Last month, the state notified the district that  in order for the district to be in compliance, the curriculum must be “operative.” In other words, the board had to approve it. 

Despite the warning, at a board meeting later that month, district trustees voted down the new curriculum.

The 3 to 1 vote against adoption elicited cheers from the crowd, who during public comments almost universally urged trustees to reject the “gender ideology,” filled curriculum. Many in the public peppered their comments with mentions of President Donald Trump’s pledge to deny federal funding to schools that taught what he called “radical gender ideology.” 

“Over the last 12 years, we’ve bult a balanced budget, a healthy reserve and a strong healthy culture. This sort of action puts all of that at risk, including our finances. We need to get this right as soon as possible and follow California law,” Superintendent David Miyashiro said.  

The district had already invested hundreds of thousands in the curriculum when it was designed last year, Miyashiro said. In its original form, it was compliant with state law. But according to a consultant who helped craft it, last-minute revisions from board member Anthony Carnevale led to the removal of the language. 

“The curriculum was modified to exclude content and student exercises related to gender identity and expression. As a result, the revised curriculum retained only limited definitions of gender, gender identity, and gender expression,” the consultant wrote in an email to district officials. 

Now, the district’s board had rejected the curriculum again – setting up another showdown with the state, 

Particularly frustrating to Miyashiro was his sense that many in the audience didn’t understand that parents could opt their children out of the sexual health curriculum altogether if they felt it was inappropriate. He said he agrees that parents should have the option of being the ones to deliver sexual education to their children, but that state law is state law. 

“I’m confident the board will do the right thing, I just hope the CDE gives us the opportunity and doesn’t punish the district for a failure at the board level to comply,” Miyashiro said. “If we have to spend taxpayer dollars on this fight, it will be our students and staff who lose.”