Parents to Fight Rainbow Curriculum in Elk Grove School District

Recently, the Elk Grove Tea Party promoted a public meeting to fight the introduction of a new textbook series that is being considered for use by the Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD). The controversy surrounds the incorporation of a 2011 mandate to the California Education Code requiring the teaching of the positive value of homosexuality and transgenderism to elementary school children. The district had set three days for public input and viewing of the curriculum at their headquarters.  Friday December 14, 2018 is the last such date.

The Tea Party promoted meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Impact Church, just north of the Elk Grove city limits but was inexplicably moved at the 11th hour to the Elk Grove Library. The meeting was held on Monday, December 10th for the purpose of encouraging parents to voice their concern by the Friday deadline. My son and I attended the meeting.

Most of it was dedicated to SB 48 which I will explain before commenting further.

A controversial state law approved in July amid heated debate isn’t likely to affect California classrooms anytime soon.

The Fair Education Act adds lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities, to existing state law that requires the contributions of women and minority groups be taught in California social-science classes. It also prohibits materials that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender, or other characteristics.

The law officially took effect Jan.1 (2012)

Calif. Districts Unclear on Gay-History Content

Aside from making California the only state to mandate LGBT-inclusive teaching, it lends—at least theoretically—legal cover for teachers.

And yet in other ways, the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act is typical of education mandates in the Golden State. It did not, as even proponents point out, provide any funding for implementation. Some districts have dawdled in training teachers. And aligned curricula are only now being rolled out.

LGBT Lessons Spread Slowly, Despite Mandate

Per the California Department of Education

The bill added language to Education Code Section 51204.5, which prescribes the inclusion of the contributions of various groups in the history of California and the United States. This section already included men and women and numerous ethnic groups; the expanded language now includes (additions bolded):“…a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

Frequently Asked Questions: Senate Bill 48

Per other California laws on this topic, parents are not required to be notified prior to this material being taught in class and there are no opt-out rights for parents. Since the legislation’s passage, homosexuality is considered by California’s Department of Education as a normal part of the curriculum.

The meeting was sponsored by a profamily group based out of the Fresno area. The California Family Council and Pacific Justice Institute.

Karen England’s  group apparently is no more, and CFC has stepped up to fill the gap as best they can.

CFC presented first, going over the worst of the two choices of textbook series being considered by EGUSD and why. Parents were encouraged to support the lesser of the two evils being offered. From their perspective, the worst of the two began indoctrination in first grade while the other waited until fourth grade to begin inculcation.

The first-grade part of the topic discussed is linked here:

Being the influential person that I am, here is my copy of the most blatant of the third-grade lessons on the topic.

Sadly, Pacific Justice Institute made the main part of their presentation a PDF file that once was freely available on their website. Now however their website requires you to register before being allowed to view it. Whether that’s to block Facebook from banning PJI due to content or to boost their email newsletter blasts is not known.

At this point in the meeting I left, partly because I had already read the PDF file and because it was clear that nothing was being done to stop this Ed Code addition to the curriculum. The subject of teachers being offered protection by PJI if they refused to teach this crap was not part of the discussion.

I got the feeling that there is no legal strategy to protect public school children (or their teachers) from this stuff. This mandate is clearly a conflict with the First Amendment beliefs of both parents and teachers; especially since no opposing view is allowed in the language ofSB-48.

This is on the same webpage from the California Department of Education quoted above:

Education Code Section 51501 outlines prohibitions on material included in textbooks or other instructional materials. This section already included prohibitions on matter “reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry”; this bill added “sexual orientation” to the list.

Thus, you are in violation of the law if you disagree with the public pronouncements on sexual orientation. This is a conflict between religion and protection of sexual orientation. And in this State, religion will lose. Laws like this are on the books to use against us later; especially, if groups like Pacific Justice don’t have the resources to litigate this issue and win. If you want to know where we are heading, as I have said before, look at Canada. In the Great White North, to speak against homosexuality is to risk jail; yes, even from the pulpit.

This is yet another front of the war on Western Culture and our side is enjoying the warm water too much to hop out of the pot.