Then, look at the introduced bill. Subsection c was added but the entire subsection should have been in blue. The lack of highlighting in makes appear that on the terms “by the minor’s attorney” were added. Mistake or purposeful? Knowing Zbur, I vote purposeful.

^[1] The technical term for this is “putting a bill on the consent calendar.”

The  biggest challenge in mounting such a case? Finding parents willing to attach their name to the case and stand as litigants. Parents in deep blue Santa Clara county are understandably reluctant to subject their family to possible retaliation directed at them from those on the extreme left.

CAL has decided to reach out to certain California chapters of Moms for Liberty to see if

any parents of students in the public school system have encountered these "health services" and would like to fight for their removal.

(Note that Moms for Liberty Santa Clara County is looking into becoming a plaintiff in this lawsuit as a means of representing the interests of our parent members who wish to remain anonymous...).

Anyone interested in learning more about the case is invited to contact Courtney directly, either by phone (703.636.9959) or email (CCorbello@libertycenter.org).

The Children Wellbeing and Schools Act forms part of a consistent pattern of expanding state authority over children, families and the transmission of ideas.

The Act contains numerous provisions that give the Secretary of State and local authorities broad delegated powers, particularly around:

• The detailed operation of the Children Not in School registers (what information must be provided, update deadlines, data sharing rules).

• How “suitable education” and “unsuitable home environment” will be assessed in practice.

• The exact processes for consent to home educate in restricted cases.

• The level of support offered to home educating families.

• Implementation timelines and transitional arrangements.

The Act is a classic “Christmas Tree Bill” containing significant Henry VIII clauses.

These are parliamentary terms for legislation that is loaded with multiple measures and grants ministers wide-ranging powers to fill in the details later through secondary legislation (statutory instruments).

Henry VIII clauses specifically allow the government to amend or repeal parts of primary legislation via these secondary instruments, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny.

What starts as seemingly reasonable registration can be made more burdensome through future statutory instruments, with limited opportunity for parliamentary pushback.

The dangers of this mission creep are as yet unknown, so where it will go we cannot tell.

Posited, as are all things at the moment “For the sake of the children”, one must remain vigilant against that visceral emotional blackmail and consider the 2nd and maybe even 3rd order effects of such state over reach.

Over reach which it grants itself powers to amend legislation at will without full Parliamentary oversight.

The Overarching Environs

Consider the following:

• The proposed under-16 social media ban, which seeks to restrict access and parental authority while handing control to government-approved gatekeepers.

• The Online Safety Act and regulator powers that expand oversight of online content in the name of child protection, with risks of overreach into legitimate debate.

• Conversion therapy proposals that risk criminalising parents who affirm biological reality or resist immediate transgender affirmation.

• Vague and expansive definitions of “Islamophobia” or “anti-Muslimness” that could be applied on a whim to silence criticism.

• Non-crime hate incidents used to monitor speech, including parental objections to school policies.

• RSHE and PSHE frameworks that embed contested ideologies, combined with limited parental opt-out rights and Ofsted enforcement.

• Increasing data sharing and surveillance through registers and multi-agency working that reduce family privacy.

All of these will be factors in home educating, and you could be forgiven for being sceptical, but home educators may think they are exempt from the surrounding policy environment or the cultural or political milieu, but they are not.

In many ways the new register and monitoring powers bring them directly into the state’s orbit and the grasp of its machinations ,like never before.

Here is how the key examples above connect to home educators activities:

RSHE / PSHE Frameworks and Ideological Content

Local authorities assess “suitable education.”

That idea is somewhat chilling, how will they define suitable?

During visits or evidence requests, officers may probe coverage of relationships, gender, Trans, and equity topics and in practice this can include whether your provision aligns with the spirit of national RSHE guidance as it stands, or in the future, whatever ideological enforcement the state decides you should do.

Families that deliberately avoid or present alternative views on these subjects risk being deemed unsuitable unless they steelman their approach, and that is not an easy task, and also a monumentally time consuming.

Non-crime Hate Incidents and Speech Monitoring.

If your teaching materials, discussions with children, or reported statements are flagged (by a neighbour, ex-partner or even a tutor), they can be recorded as NCHIs. This creates a record that could influence future safeguarding or suitability judgments by the local authority.

Couple that with Prevent and the culture of snitching the state is developing and people will fall foul of this system.

Conversion Therapy/Gender Affirmation Pressures

Parents who do not affirm a child’s self-identified gender or who take a cautious will face challenges under safeguarding or suitability assessments, especially if the child expresses distress or if third parties raise concerns. The Act’s intervention powers make escalation easier for the state.

Vague “Islamophobia” or Extremism Definitions

Teaching traditional religious views, criticism of certain cultural practices, or materials that challenge multiculturalism narratives could be scrutinised as potentially “extremist” or divisive during home visits or education reviews.

You can almost sense the Prevent referral being contemplated by a bad actor.

Data Sharing and Surveillance

The new Children Not in School register does not operate in isolation. It feeds into multi-agency systems, allowing information about your family, education provision, tutors, networks and home environment to be shared more easily with children’s social services, police, health agencies and other bodies.

What is presented as better join-up for safeguarding creates a comprehensive surveillance infrastructure that brings home educating families firmly into the gaze of the wider state apparatus, which is currently infused with EDI/DEI and other equity driven mandates.

Online Safety Act and Content Restrictions

If you use online resources, tutors or platforms for education, these fall under greater regulatory scrutiny. Your own online activity as a parent could also be monitored and used in assessments.

If full monitoring is implemented in the future, your own activities could be weaponised against you and your family.

What Does Compliance Entail.

Here is what parents must do once the relevant sections of the Act commence.

• Obtain local authority consent in specific cases before de-registering from school. This applies to children subject to child protection investigations, those with recent child protection plans (within five years), or those attending special schools. Home education may be refused if not considered in the child’s best interests.

• Satisfy suitability assessments. Local authorities can intervene if they deem the education or home environment unsuitable.Parents may need to provide evidence of suitable education, which could include written plans, examples of work, or discussions during visits.

• Register the child on the local authority Children Not in School register. Provide required information about the child and update it promptly, including changes such as new tutors or providers (often within 15 days). Failure to register can lead to fines or school attendance orders.

• Consider requests for home visits. Within 15 days of registration, the local authority must consider the child’s living situation and may request a visit inside the home to assess the environment and education.Refusing the visit must be treated as a relevant factor when deciding whether to issue a preliminary notice toward a school attendance order.

Why This Feels Particularly Worrying

• It turns home education from a private parental responsibility into a state-monitored arrangement, requiring regular updates on personal networks, tutors, and even informal arrangements.

• It raises risks around data security, potential targeting of certain tutors or approaches (for example those resisting specific PSHE content), and administrative burden on families already managing health or other challenges.

• Combined with home visit powers and suitability assessments, it creates a pipeline where local authorities could scrutinise values, content, or methods used by parents and external providers, pushing indirect enforcement of government-preferred messages.

• Families using specialist tutors for subjects like religious education, classical approaches, or gender critical perspectives may face extra layers of oversight or pressure to justify choices.

One particularly concerning aspect of the new regime is the duty to report details of other people and organisations involved in the child’s education.

Parents must supply names, roles, and contact details of tutors, providers, co-ops, online services, or anyone else making a significant contribution to teaching.

Changes must be notified within short deadlines, often around 15 days.

This requirement does not extend to every indirect influence.

This creates grey areas open to interpretation. Local authorities exercising discretion during suitability assessments or visits may push for broader disclosure.

What one officer views as a “significant contribution” another might treat more leniently.

The administrative burden of monitoring and reporting changes, combined with the risk that certain tutors or approaches (especially those resisting prevailing PSHE or RSHE messages) could attract extra scrutiny, adds real pressure.

Families relying on specialist external input for subjects such as classical education, religious formation, or evidence-based resistance to gender ideology, queer theory, critical race theory or equity now face greater visibility and potential justification demands.

This tilts the balance further toward state oversight of educational networks and content. It risks chilling the use of diverse providers and reinforcing conformity to government-preferred approaches under the guise of suitability checks.

Many authorities already align with national guidance that embeds contested social and ideological content within PSHE frameworks. A family declining certain topics on safeguarding, philosophical or religious grounds could find their provision labelled unsuitable during assessments.

Believe me when I say that this risk is not theoretical.

Future Threats

The social media ban for under sixteens by default mandates Digital ID. We are then on the road to client side scanning and the full panopticon

.

What starts as a register for wellbeing risks becoming a mechanism to monitor and enforce state-approved messages through curricula and PSHE, while eroding parental autonomy in education. Home educators who opt out to avoid ideological capture now face greater scrutiny.

Recognizing the pattern I describe is essential. Defending home education is part of a wider defense of parental rights and intellectual freedom against official narratives.

You are I am afraid in it, whether you choose to be or not.

Home education often serves as a deliberate alternative to school environments where parents perceive ideological capture by the state, and the state knows this.

The new regime treats home educators with presumptive oversight, demanding data and access while leaving “suitability” open to interpretation by officials immersed in prevailing policy orthodoxies.

Refusal of visits can itself trigger escalation. Over time, this shifts power from parents to the state in determining what constitutes acceptable transmission of cultural and moral values.

Critics rightly note that most home educated children are not at elevated risk and often benefit from personalised, high quality learning.

Parents who home educate do so to prioritise their child’s best interests as they judge them, free from one size fits all school curricula.

The Act’s registration and intervention powers, while framed around wellbeing and other therapeutics driven propaganda, erode that autonomy and heighten the danger of enforcing the government message through the back door of PSHE style expectations.

Vigilance, clear documentation of provision, and defense of parental rights are now more essential than ever. The freedom to educate according to evidence, conscience and family values must be protected against incremental state expansion.

That is work, and I for one am up for the challenge, we cannot allow this level of state interference into our, or our children’s, private life.

Game on, as they say.

Join me.

In recent years, major teachers’ unions in the UK and US have extended their far left tentacles well beyond traditional concerns like wages, working conditions, and school funding.

They are actively using their influence through leadership overlaps, conference motions, training programmes, and classroom resources to advance specific ideological and political agendas in schools, compromising political neutrality and parental rights.

The NEU, Britain’s largest teachers’ union with hundreds of thousands of members, has gone further into partisan territory. At its 2025 annual conference in Harrogate, delegates passed a motion labelling Reform UK a “racist and far-right party” due to its immigration policies and campaigns.

The motion committed the union to using its political fund to campaign against Reform UK candidates and other “racist organisations,” while producing anti-racist teaching materials and promoting a “whole school approach” to challenging the far right.

Subsequent conferences, including in 2026, reaffirmed opposition to “divisive politics promoted by Reform UK” and called for the trade union movement to “throw its full weight” behind stopping a Reform government.

Resources like “Educators against the far-right” and anti-racist frameworks were developed for classroom use, all the while being fully aware that this breaks the law.

They don’t care, is the simple answer, but then they never have, same old same old from the creaking Marxist union machine.

Nigel Farage and others, including Suella Braverman, accused the union of encouraging indoctrination and violating rules on political impartiality in schools.

Union supporters defend the actions as essential anti-racism and safeguarding work. Well of course they would, even though “anti-racist work” is code for hard left, identity driven power and oppression obsessed totalitarian ideology.

Gosh, color me surprised.

Bring on the Gender Bandwagon and Indoctrinating Children

Again the National Education Union (NEU) has prioritised resources, guidance and conference activity on gender identity, LGBTQ+ affirmation and related equality issues.

The union maintains an LGBT+ charter and produces materials for schools on LGBT+ inclusion, including support for trans and non-binary pupils and staff. NEU conference motions have addressed trans and non-binary rights, with commitments to challenge restrictions and promote self-identification.

The union has also produced guidance encouraging schools to support gender identity affirmation and has been active in opposing elements of the Cass Review approach in some statements and resources.

Just why are the leftists so intent on damaging children?

Broader Patterns and Implications

These examples illustrate a pattern: unions leveraging official structures, conferences, political funds, professional development, and partnerships, to embed contested viewpoints on geopolitics, race, immigration, and gender into educational environments.

Proponents see this as advancing equity, inclusion, and student wellbeing (dear god help me!). It isn’t of course, because this would put the turgid beliefs of the left on a par with the Western Canon and all it has brought us.

Plainly it breaches neutrality requirements (for example, UK guidance on impartiality in schools), undermines trust, and prioritises activism over core academics, especially amid documented rises in related classroom incidents and parental complaints about the whole nonsense of EDI/DEI and intersectionality nonsense.

Teachers’ unions have long been powerful political players, with significant spending and lobbying influence. While advocacy for members is standard, the obsession with shaping curriculum content and school culture on divisive issues has intensified debates over who controls education: unions, governments, parents, or teachers themselves.

As public scrutiny grows, questions remain about accountability, transparency, and whether schools should serve as battlegrounds for adult political priorities. Further examination of union documents, conference records, and on-the-ground impacts will be key to understanding the full scope.

The Unions must be neutered, the sooner the better, for they are purveyors of child harm.

Join me.

California teachers and administrators for whom the PRISM LGBTQ training runs counter to their religious and moral values are asked to contact The National Center for Law and Policy, who can provide guidance with filing an appropriate religious exemption.

Following law school graduation, while starting his civil litigation practice, he was invited to become an affiliate attorney of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), from which Dean has received extensive training in pro-family, pro-life and pro-religious liberty matters at ADF’s outstanding National Litigation Academies (NLA). Because of Dean’s pro-bono work, he was invited to receive special training at ADF’s advanced NLA. Dean is proud to be an ADF affiliate attorney and member of ADF’s honor guard.

The Best Place for True Learning

And by the way, I think an excellent goal for fathers is to pursue income opportunities that allow him to be home-based too (at least some of the time, at minimum). Your children thrive best with abundant time with both of you...

Sunnyvale Claims Supreme Court Rulings Don't Apply

California parents are suing a school district, alleging officials refused to let them opt their young children out of LGBT-related classroom instruction despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming religious parents' rights.

Justin and Rose Taylor filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Sunnyvale School District, arguing that the district continues to require elementary school students to participate in LGBT-themed lessons without providing parents notice or an opportunity to opt out.

The curriculum "is clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected,” said the Taylors, who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, and have four children, including a son in third grade and a daughter in first grade at Cumberland Elementary School.

“Our children are the most cherished part of our lives,” the parents said in a statement provided to The Christian Post. “We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender.”

“Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized that right for religious parents nationwide,” they continued. “We hope that Sunnyvale can choose to acknowledge and respect our role as parents to direct the moral upbringing of our children.”

The parents’ email highlighted the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud, Tamer, et al. v. Taylor, Thomas W., et al, ruling that Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland cannot force children to be exposed to LGBT-themed books in the curriculum.

“Yet after months of cordial conversation, Sunnyvale abruptly reversed course and denied the Taylors’ request for notice and opt-outs, stating in a letter that [LGBT] instruction ‘is not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions,’” the lawsuit stated. 

The Sunnyvale School District argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor addressed a specific set of facts in another state,” did not create a “general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum,” and “does not override California’s statutory requirements governing instructional content.”

In their suit, the Taylors ask a federal court to stop the California school district from defying the Supreme Court's ruling. 

The parents’ complaint highlights the LGBT-themed books that their children’s elementary school lists as instructional materials, including the picture book Pride Puppy. 

The book invites students as young as 3 or 4 years old to locate objects they might find at a pride parade, such as a “[drag] king” and “[drag] queen,” “leather,” “underwear,” and an image of Marsha P. Johnson, an LGBT activist and sex worker.

​The Taylors contend the materials are "age-inappropriate and inconsistent with their religious beliefs, practices and child-raising philosophies," arguing that requiring their children to participate undermines their efforts to raise them according to their faith.

Michael O’Brien, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Taylors, stated that the Constitution “doesn’t come with a California carveout.” 

“Yet Sunnyvale is acting as if it does — attempting to sidestep Mahmoud and override the Taylors’ clearly protected parental rights while paying lip service to the very diversity the Taylors represent,” O’Brien said in a statement provided to CP. “We’re confident the federal courts will reject that approach.”

Supreme Court Rules States May Protect Girls' Sports

​West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act prevailed in district court but lost before the Fourth Circuit. Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act lost in district court and again before the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reversed both circuit courts.

The court addressed Title IX and Equal Protection in separate sections. Both laws were challenged on Equal Protection grounds, but only West Virginia’s law was challenged on Title IX grounds.

“The question is whether Title IX permits schools to maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. The answer is yes,” the court stated. “The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.”

“In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes — namely, the inherent physical differences between biological women and biological men,” the court added. “Allowing a biological male athlete to compete on a girls’ team necessarily displaces or disadvantages a female athlete — replacing her on the roster, knocking her out of the starting lineup, reducing her playing time, depriving her of a medal, and the like.”

“Notably, B. P. J. does not seriously contest that the term ‘sex’ in Title IX … means biological sex,” the court observed. He only argued that “schools must make an exception to that general rule for biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones.”

The court also rejected the argument that the 2020 Bostock decision, which redefined Title VII employment discrimination on the basis of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity, required them to redefine “sex” in Title IX as well.

“Title VII concerns employment, whereas Title IX as relevant here focuses on sports. The two factual contexts are vastly different. And the two statutes are also ‘vastly different,’” the court contended. “In the workplace, Title VII generally requires that men and women be treated without regard to their sex. In the sports context, by contrast, Title IX authorizes separate men’s and women’s sports teams. … Stated simply, Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.”

The court then turned to the Equal Protection argument. “The equal protection questions become: What are the States’ interests in maintaining separate teams for males and females, and in limiting female teams to biological females? And is the States’ sex-based classification — that is, the limitation of women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females — substantially related to those interests?”

“The States start with the undisputed proposition that biological males generally possess inherent physical advantages in sports — in height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, jumping ability, and the like,” the court recited. “Therefore, the States say, limiting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females (i) helps prevent serious physical injuries to female athletes and (ii) preserves opportunities for female athletes to fairly compete and succeed.”

“Based on all of the above, the States argue — and we agree — that the interests in safety and competitive fairness are important for purposes of equal protection analysis. And the States’ sex-based classification — limiting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females — is substantially related to those interests,” the court concluded.

As with the Title IX challenge, the trans-identifying athletes did not challenge this ironclad analysis so much as ask for a special exemption. “They contend that safety and competitive fairness, while sufficient reasons to exclude most biological males, do not justify excluding a relatively small subclass of biological males — namely, those biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones.”

The court rejected this argument as well. “Not every biological male athlete is bigger, stronger, faster, or otherwise more athletically able than every biological female athlete,” the court stated. “Some percentage of biological males who identify as male possess physical and athletic capabilities that fall within (or below) the range of typical female physical and athletic capabilities. But the plaintiffs acknowledge that States may still exclude those biological males from women’s and girls’ sports, given the general physical differences between males and females.”

Furthermore, “the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the States from applying that same principle to all biological males, including those who identify as female,” the court said. “In short, States are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”

“If a school had a co-ed sports team but prohibited all transgender individuals from participating on the team, that would be a distinct transgender classification,” contrasted the court. But such a case “would presumably not be analyzed and justified as a classification based on biological sex,” as the laws of West Virginia and Idaho were. “That said, even if the laws made a transgender or gender-identity classification, this Court ‘has not previously held’ that intermediate or other heightened scrutiny applies to a transgender or gender-identity classification.”

The case generated four additional opinions. Justice Thomas wrote separately to make the point that “transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened equal-protection scrutiny,” and the point that “men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic. … To use language to obscure reality — to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’ — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s].’”

​Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to emphasize that “Title IX was enacted as an exercise of Congress’ powers under the Spending Clause,” and thus “does not allow Congress to regulate conduct,” only spending. If there are any regulatory strings attached, “Congress must ‘clearly and unambiguously’ specify” them, so that funding recipients can “‘voluntarily and knowingly’ assent.” Gorsuch also reaffirmed his own idiosyncratic view of his Bostock opinion, which he argues “supports, not undermines, the Court’s conclusion” in B.P.J.

Justice Sotomayor wrote for the three liberal justices in what was essentially a dissent (although technically, the opinion was “concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part”). As Sotomayor summarized her position, “I agree that B.P.J.’s Title IX claim fails, although on a narrower basis than that on which the majority relies. As for B.P.J.’s equal protection claim, however, the majority, at this stage of the litigation, gets the answer wrong.”

Justices Kagan and Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion, but Justice Jackson wrote separately to claim that the court “should not have” held “that Title IX protects against discrimination solely on the basis of ‘biological sex.’ … Instead, the Court should have assumed as much while leaving open the possibility that Title IX’s definition of ‘sex’ is more capacious.”

To these critiques, the majority responded, “The Court’s holding today is straightforward. The Equal Protection Clause allows schools to maintain separate teams for female and male athletes. Schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ teams based on biological sex. That policy is constitutionally justified by the vitally important interests in safety and competitive fairness so as to provide equal opportunities for women and girls to participate in sports.”

Significantly, the Supreme Court made explicit what everyone already knew about the differences between males and females, but which many feared to say aloud, lest they be called “hateful.”

“As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” the court explained. “The differences include, among other things, height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, and jumping ability. … For those reasons, 27 States — as well as the International Olympic Committee, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and the NCAA — have banned all biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.”

A law passed 50 years ago and a constitutional amendment from the 19th century do not force states into a different position.

How Can Anyone Defend Transgender Sports After This?!

Allowing boys to compete in girls sports isn’t just wrong—a new lawsuit reveals that it can make girls vulnerable to sexual assault, even alleged vaginal penetration.

Yes, according to a verified complaint filed in a federal court Tuesday, a young man who claimed to identify as female not only competed against a teenage girl in girls’ wrestling, but also digitally penetrated her vagina, causing lasting pain.

How can anyone defend transgender sports policies after this?

Kylie Welker of the Iowa Hawkeyes, top, wrestles Destiny Rodriguez of the McKendree Bearcats on March 7 in Coralville, Iowa.

(Justin Tafoya/NCAA Photos/Getty Images)

More Pushback

The University of Minnesota forces students to adopt transgender ideology in the name of preventing “sexual harassment,” and students are suing, saying the policies violate their free speech rights under the First Amendment and prevent them from inviting speakers such as the detransitioner Chloe Cole.

“We live in fear of being disciplined and having our future ruined if we even accidentally use a pronoun someone doesn’t like,” Jackson Barrick, a University of Minnesota student entering his senior year, told the Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday. Young America’s Foundation, a conservative youth organization, represents Barrick and fellow students in the lawsuit, with lawyers from the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

“In the last two years, there have been nearly 20 complaints filed with the university that students violated these policies,” Barrick added. “These policies are there to silence students who believe that sex cannot be changed.”

“This isn’t hypothetical,” the student added. “It has become our reality, and the reality of students all across Minnesota.”

The University of Minnesota declined to comment on pending litigation.

The University’s Policies

The lawsuit, filed June 18, challenges four university policies: two on sexual harassment, one on gender identity and pronouns, and one on discrimination.

OP-ED: Growth Scores: The Latest Education Shell Game

Across America, school districts are celebrating a new education buzzword:

Growth Scores.

School board members hear it.

Parents hear it.

Taxpayers hear it.

“Our students showed tremendous growth.”

“Growth scores are improving.”

“The district exceeded growth targets.”

The message is clear:

Things are getting better.

But are they?

What many parents don’t realize is that growth scores can create the appearance of academic success even when large numbers of students cannot read, write, or do math at grade level.

In some cases, growth scores have become the latest education shell game—allowing school districts to highlight improvement while avoiding the more important question:

Can students actually perform at grade level?

That question is measured by academic proficiency.

Growth scores measure something entirely different.

A student who begins the year reading two years below grade level and ends the year reading one year below grade level may show impressive growth. The student improved. The growth score rises.

But the student is still behind.

Yet many school districts emphasize growth while saying little about proficiency.

Why?

Because growth scores often produce better headlines.

A district where only 35 percent of students are proficient in math may still boast strong growth numbers. A district where most students are not proficient readers may still celebrate “academic gains.”

Parents hear the word growth and assume students are succeeding.

Many never discover that proficiency remains alarmingly low.

A Convenient Shift in the Conversation

For years, taxpayers have been told that schools need more money.

If students remain below grade level:

      Focus on improvement rather than achievement.

If parents ask difficult questions:

      Present complicated dashboards and statistical models few citizens understand.

Then return to taxpayers and ask for more funding.

Parents should recognize what is happening.

This is not simply an education debate.

It is a transparency and accountability issue.

Imagine a business that continually lowered performance expectations while asking investors for more money. Imagine a company that celebrated incremental improvement while refusing to disclose whether it met its actual goals.

Shareholders would demand answers.

Taxpayers should do the same.

Growth Is Not the Goal

To be clear, growth scores are not inherently bad.

Students who make meaningful progress deserve recognition.

Teachers helping struggling students catch up deserve credit.

But growth should never become a substitute for proficiency.

The purpose of public education is not simply to help students improve from one level of underperformance to another.

The goal is grade-level competency.

If a sixth-grade student reads at a fourth-grade level, that student remains behind regardless of how impressive the growth score appears on a district dashboard.

Growth measures movement.

Proficiency measures achievement.

They are not the same thing.

The danger is that growth scores can mask systemic academic decline.

The public hears about progress while many students continue to struggle with grade-level reading and math.

The result is a system where success can be declared almost regardless of outcomes.

• Students improve slightly? Success.

• Students remain below grade level? Success.

• Budgets increase? Success.

• More funding requested? Absolutely
   

The Numbers That Matter

Students do not graduate on growth scores.

Employers do not hire based on growth scores.

Colleges do not award degrees based on growth scores.

Students ultimately succeed or fail based on what they know and can do.

That is why parents should demand transparency.

Ask your school board: 

• What percentage of students are proficient in reading?

• What percentage are proficient in math?

• How many students remain below grade level?

• Are proficiency rates improving or declining?

Do not accept vague answers.

Do not accept carefully crafted narratives.

Demand the real numbers.

Demand transparency.

Demand accountability.

Before voters approve another school bond, levy, or tax increase, they should insist that school districts publicly report proficiency rates alongside growth scores.

If schools want more taxpayer money, taxpayers deserve the truth.

Parents fund the system.

Taxpayers fund the system.

Students depend on the system.

And citizens have every right to know whether public schools are delivering results.

Demand proficiency.

Demand accountability.

Demand results.

Because public schools do not need better messaging.

They need better outcomes.

^​Christian Teachers Must Remain Strong!

Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior...  Psalm 25:5

is no mere professional development. It is an ideological loyalty test demanding that educators affirm beliefs about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical truth.

Yet there is good news: Christian teachers do not have to surrender their faith to keep their jobs. Under both the First Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws, they have the right to request a religious exemption from trainings that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

That’s why the National Center for Law and Policy, led by constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, is stepping forward to defend teachers of faith who refuse to compromise their convictions. “Teachers’ civil rights do not evaporate when they enter our public schools,” Broyles said. “California’s coercive mandatory PRISM LGBTQ identity cultural competency training directly conflicts with and seeks to actively undermine the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of California families, students, and public-school teachers.”

What the Law Demands — and Why It Is Unconstitutional

Under AB 5, public school teachers in grades 7-12 must complete the PRISM Training, or a closely aligned alternative, which instructs participants to affirm concepts like gender fluidity and to use students’ self-selected pronouns, even when doing so violates their conscience. The program also directs teachers to withhold information from parents about a child’s gender identity if the child has not given permission, falsely claiming that minors have a “right to privacy” from their own parents.

The training explicitly labels traditional Christian beliefs as harmful “heteronormativity,” “homophobic,” and “transphobic,” and equates adherence to biblical truth with discrimination. In essence, teachers are told they must deny their faith or face discipline.

A recent federal court ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson reaffirmed that public school districts cannot compel teachers to lie to parents or affirm gender ideology in violation of their faith. The court condemned such policies as a “trifecta of harm” to teachers, students, and parents. That decision opened the door for teachers statewide to challenge similar unconstitutional policies.

One Teacher’s Example of Courage

One Southern California teacher, represented by Broyles, has formally requested a religious accommodation from his district. In Broyles’s letter to school officials, he explains that the teacher’s faith requires him to speak truthfully, honor parents’ rights, and affirm that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). Participating in PRISM training would force him to endorse falsehoods about human sexuality and violate his conscience before God.

“The government has no legitimate place marginalizing, shaming, and demonizing the sincere religious beliefs of its good citizens,” Broyles wrote. “State and local LGBTQ+ laws or policies do not supersede well-established federal constitutional rights or a teacher’s right to be free from religious discrimination.”

Broyles also warned that districts cannot retaliate against teachers who request religious accommodation, and that his office will be monitoring any cases of harassment or discrimination.

A Call for Courage

Many Christian teachers are afraid. They worry that refusing the training might cost them their jobs or reputations. Others are tempted to simply “click through” the training and answer as the state demands, just to keep the peace. But as followers of Christ, we are called to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and to stand firm in truth even when pressured to conform.

CFC’s Call to Action

California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt is urging both teachers and school board members to take a public stand for truth.

“Christian teachers should not quietly comply with a state mandate that calls evil good and good evil,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council. “By standing up for their own rights, teachers are also defending the civil rights of parents and students, protecting every family’s freedom to live and speak according to biblical truth. We need courageous believers in every classroom and on every school board willing to draw a line and say, ‘We will not bow.’ Our children need to see adults who are unashamed to stand for God’s truth about life, family, and gender, no matter the cost.”

Take Action

If you are a Christian teacher being forced to take this training, you have legal options. Contact the National Center for Law and Policy for assistance in drafting a religious accommodation request. You can also reach out to California Family Council for resources and support.

Now is not the time for silent compliance. The next generation of students is watching. When faithful teachers stand firm, they bear witness to the truth that God, not the government, defines human identity, morality, and truth.

Just as Daniel, Esther, and the three Hebrew men stood unashamed before kings and rulers, California’s Christian teachers must now stand before their school boards and declare:

“We will not bow.”

PERKINS: 11 Years Later, the Receipts for

Same-Sex Marriage Are In

Pride Month 2026 began with some bracing news for the LGBTQIA+ movement. According to Gallup’s latest annual survey, public support for same-sex marriage, the morality of homosexual conduct, and transgenderism has declined significantly.

Support for same-sex marriage has fallen six percentage points from its high point in 2022 and 2023. The percentage of Americans who believe same-sex sexual behavior is morally acceptable has dropped to 62%, its lowest level since 2016, the year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges forced states to recognize same-sex marriages. The most dramatic shift, however, has come on transgenderism. The percentage of Americans who view attempting to change one’s sex as morally acceptable has declined eight percentage points since 2021 and now stands at just 38%.

Why is this happening? After all, major social changes have historically become more accepted over time, not less. Americans are increasingly reconsidering what they were told because they have now lived with the results. The experiment is no longer theoretical. It has become personal.

Take interracial marriage. In 1965, 48% of Americans favored state laws banning interracial marriage. Two years later, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional because they amounted to “invidious racial discrimination.” While controversial in its day, that decision did not redefine the God-given meaning of marriage. Rather, it affirmed the complementarian nature of marriage. As Americans witnessed the results, public acceptance steadily grew. Today, according to Gallup, support for interracial marriage has reached a record high of 94%.

Clearly, that is not what has happened with same-sex marriage and the broader sexual ideology promoted during Pride Month.

​

Those of us who fought to preserve the natural and biblical understanding of marriage were often dismissed when we warned that redefining marriage would have consequences reaching far beyond marriage licenses. I remember having a discussion over lunch with the staff of a CNN primetime program, when one of the producers, who was in a same-sex relationship, asked me, “How does my relationship affect your marriage?”

​

“It doesn’t affect my marriage,” I replied. “But it will affect our culture. It will affect what my children are taught in school. It will normalize something that God’s word teaches is contrary to His design.”

​

That was always the point. The debate was never about its impact on my marriage. It was about the impact it would have in our schools, our laws, our institutions, and ultimately in the lives of the next generation.

​

Time could have proved those concerns unfounded. The promise of “marriage equality” was that it was simply about allowing committed same-sex couples to formalize their relationships. Americans were assured that nothing else would change.

​

But that is not what happened.

​

More than a decade after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell, Americans are no longer evaluating promises, they are evaluating results. They are changing their minds not because someone crafted a better political argument, but because they have witnessed consequences many were assured would never come.

​

They have seen:

• Pride parades in major cities where public nudity and sexually explicit displays are celebrated in full view of families and children;

• Major corporations, universities, and professional sports organizations pressuring employees and athletes to affirm an ever-expanding list of sexual identities;

• Schools and entertainment normalizing gender ideology for children while Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans identifying as LGBTQ has more than doubled since 2012;

• A growing commercial surrogacy industry that intentionally deprives children of either their mother, their father, or both;

• Marriage continuing its long decline while birth rates fall to historic lows.

Perhaps nowhere have those consequences become more visible than in the rise of transgender ideology.

​

The “T” in the LGBTQ acronym has been used to justify policies that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. Young children are told they can decide whether they are boys or girls because sex is merely “assigned at birth.” Teenagers are given puberty blockers that interrupt normal development. Radical surgeries with lifelong consequences are carried out on minors and young adults. Schools across the country facilitate gender transitions while keeping parents in the dark.

​

These are not isolated incidents. Americans have also watched biological males enter girls’ locker rooms, compete in girls’ sports, and gain access to spaces long reserved for women. Millions of Americans are now connecting the dots. They are seeing the fruit of abandoning God’s design for marriage, family, and the two sexes. Once marriage is detached from the complementary union of man and woman, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why mothers and fathers matter, why men and women are different, or why children have a right to both.

​

As we mark the 11th anniversary of Obergefell, Americans are no longer arguing over predictions; they are judging outcomes. They have watched the promises of marriage redefinition play out in their schools, businesses, athletic competitions, churches, and families.

​

Increasingly, the American people are rendering their own verdict. The great experiment of redefining marriage and reinventing the family has produced its results. Americans are no longer judging promises — they are judging outcomes. The debate over the Sexual Revolution is no longer about its promises. It is about its consequences.

Gender Secrecy: California AB 1955

Federal appeals court reverses course after Supreme Court’s Mirabelli ruling, holding that AB 1955 forbids the very parental notification policies the Constitution requires

A federal appeals court has handed parents a major victory. On June 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of key provisions of AB 1955, California’s law barring school districts from requiring parents to be told when their child adopts a different gender identity at school. The court ruled that the Constitution protects a parent’s right to know, and that California’s law forbids what the Constitution demands.

The case is City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom. A three-judge panel granted a preliminary injunction protecting seven parent-plaintiffs from enforcement of Sections 5 and 6 of AB 1955. The same panel had twice denied this relief before. What changed was the United States Supreme Court.

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court held that California’s school gender secrecy policies likely violate parents’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit applied that ruling here. As the panel put it, “In light of Mirabelli, AB 1955 thus forbids the mandatory policies that the Constitution requires.”

The court grounded its decision on a principle older than the disputed policies themselves. Quoting the Supreme Court, the panel wrote that “parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children.” That authority, the court explained, includes “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.” When a child shows signs of gender distress at school, parents have a constitutional right to be told.

The panel also rejected California’s central argument. The State claimed the parents lacked standing because they could not prove their own children would identify as transgender, ask the school for secrecy, and have that request honored. The court was not persuaded. Parents who object to the secrecy policies, the panel held, “very likely have standing because they are objects of the challenged exclusion policies,” with no need for “any individualized showing as to whether a particular parent’s child was likely to exhibit gender dysphoria.”

On the harm to families, the court was direct. “The deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm.” And on where the public interest lies, the panel adopted the Supreme Court’s words: an injunction here “promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives.”

​

Years in the Making

This ruling did not come from nowhere. The California Family Council has fought for parental notification for years, against fierce opposition. Working with a coalition of parental rights groups, CFC helped draft a model policy to notify parents when their child is recognized at school under a different gender, with a new name and new pronouns. Ten school districts passed versions of that policy. Sacramento responded with AB 1955, a law designed to shut down those policies.

Chino Valley Unified School District, led by board president Sonja Shaw, was the first school board to introduce a policy against the secret gender transition of students. She was ecstatic about this week’s ruling. 

“Parents have a constitutional and God-given right to the upbringing of their children. When CVUSD passed a parental notification policy, the state came after us hard. … We didn’t back down,” said Shaw, who is currently running for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction against an opponent who testified for the state in the Mirabelli case. “[This] ruling is a major win for parents everywhere who believe schools should not operate behind closed doors. This is about accountability, transparency, and restoring parental authority.”

The legal fight ran a long road. Parents and teachers challenged the secrecy regime in federal court in Escondido in Mirabelli v. Olson, and won. The Ninth Circuit stayed that win. Then the Supreme Court stepped in, vacated the stay, and held that California’s policies likely violate the Constitution. That decision in Mirabelli is now the foundation under this latest ruling against AB 1955.

Thomas More Society represents the parents and teachers in Mirabelli, the civil rights class action that reached the Supreme Court. The firm welcomed the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

“Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit enjoined AB 1955, California’s ban on school districts passing policies to advise parents about their child’s gender presentation at school, holding that, ‘In light of Mirabelli, AB 1955… forbids the mandatory policies that the Constitution requires,'” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel for Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “This decision is a direct result of the courage of our clients who challenged California’s gender secrecy regime back in 2023.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision in Mirabelli makes clear that parents cannot be kept in the dark about their own children’s ‘gender identity’ at school,” Jonna added. “Every state law that interferes with parental rights in this way violates Mirabelli—and we are very pleased that the Ninth Circuit got this right by declaring AB 1955 unconstitutional.”

The City of Huntington Beach and the plaintiff parents were represented by America First Legal with co-counsel Schaerr Jaffe. Nick Barry, Senior Counsel at AFL, called the ruling a vindication.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a powerful vindication of parental rights,” Barry said. “California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents. California’s law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful. The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.”

What This Means for California Families

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, said the ruling confirms what CFC has argued all along.

“For years, Sacramento told parents they had no right to know when their own child was living as a different sex at school. We said that was wrong and that it violated the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit now agrees,” Burt said. “AB 1955 was built to keep moms and dads in the dark. This ruling pulls back the curtain. No parent should have to learn from a stranger what the school already knew about their child.”

“This fight is not over,” Burt added. “The State has fought parents at every turn, and the injunction so far protects only the families who sued. But the direction is clear. Parents have a constitutional right to raise their own children, and that right does not stop at the schoolhouse door.”

The fight is indeed far from finished. The injunction is preliminary, and it shields only the seven plaintiff parents while their appeal proceeds. Attorney General Rob Bonta is still appealing the underlying Mirabelli judgment in the Ninth Circuit, and his office has repeatedly said it expects to prevail, calling an earlier stay a measure that “protects vulnerable students and avoids confusion for teachers and schools while we appeal.” Bonta has long maintained that parental notification policies violate students’ privacy and civil rights. After years of being told they had no voice, California parents have now heard a federal court say otherwise, but the State has given no sign it intends to back down.

Randi Whinegarten

In other words, teachers paid for nearly everything. Weingarten may not have contributed a single dollar to the enterprise.

Weingarten was also one of the more strident leaders in 2025’s anti-Trump “No Kings” movement. She wrote, “At every turn, this president has undermined the rule of law, weaponized the federal government against the people it should serve, and divide and silence us. And now, the same far-right groups that cheered his chaos are smearing those of us who are organizing peacefully for justice.”

The hypocrisy here is glaring. This is a woman who has served as AFT president since 2008 and, before that, led the UFT, AFT’s New York City branch, for 11 years. Additionally, teachers do not vote for her directly; only delegates do.

At the end of the day, Randi Weingarten is a dishonest, left-wing, hypocritical bloviator who always points the finger at others for various problems.

Other than offending the dishonorable queen, teachers have nothing to lose by saying goodbye to their union and can save a lot of cash in the process.

Support School Board Trustees

Who Protect Children and Promote Liberty

^​California Chapters of Moms for Liberty Endorse Sonja Shaw 

for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction

John Adams: Mindful of the Importance of the South

To transform the regional conflict into a unified continental war, Adams strategically nominated George Washington, a Virginian, to serve as commander-in-chief on June 15, 1775. By placing a Southerner at the head of a primarily Northern army, Adams ensured that Virginia—the largest and most influential colony—was politically and militarily bound to the revolutionary cause.

Adams bypassed popular local candidates like John Hancock, arguing that Washington possessed the necessary "skill and experience" and an "excellent universal character", with an innate ability to command respect across all the colonies. Adams understood that without Virginia's full commitment, the rebellion would likely fail. His successful persuasion of Congress to appoint Washington effectively cemented the union of the colonies, turning a local Massachusetts defense into a national struggle for independence. 

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara Works with 917 Society

Getting Constitutions into the hands of every 8^th grader

Midterms are Fast Approaching. Your Vote Is Vitally Important

America Celebrates Its 250^th Birthday

1776-2026

Rooting Out Pornographic Materials In School Libraries

Ongoing Education and Updates:

A regularly updated blog is maintained featuring the latest developments related to sexually explicit materials in schools. In addition, we offer training webinars to educate, empower, and connect individuals engaged in this important work.

At every level focus remains the same, namely to provide clear, practical tools that lead to meaningful results and protect the hearts and minds of our children.

Off The Press  @OffThePress1            

Children of married parents with high education levels are more likely to be healthy and succeed in school and life than their peers. Children from these families are also more likely to live above the poverty line and benefit from extracurricular activities such as music lessons, sports, and summer camp. These activities offer students prized background knowledge.

Students from families with lower education levels must rely more on schools to provide information. Poor reading and math scores nationwide do not give confidence that schools in low-income areas are bridging the gap. Many schools have reduced time spent on history, science, geography, literature, and civics in favor of generic reading strategies, so-called social-emotional learning, and “gender” studies. Schools often cut the very subjects that help students.

​Differences in background knowledge have enormous implications for teaching reading. Two students can read the same paragraph and perform differently on the test, not because one is more intelligent, but because he knows the topic better.

For decades, researcher and former professor E.D. Hirsch argued that literacy is connected to content and vocabulary. Hirsch has argued that “broad general knowledge” is essential for reading comprehension because students need prior knowledge to understand what they read. 

Likewise, professor of cognitive psychology Daniel T. Willingham, who researches reading comprehension, has also found that background information is important for students to understand text.

The evidence behind this approach is compelling. A 2024 report in Education Next observed long-term reading gains among students attending schools using knowledge-rich curricula. Researchers at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development similarly found that elementary students who learned under the Core Knowledge curriculum—which was developed by Hirsch—improved their reading abilities.

While much of the education establishment doubles down on skills and spends less time on content, some educators are bucking the trend by reemphasizing rigor and factual memorization.

Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, Colorado, has used the Core Knowledge curriculum since 1997. The curriculum gives students a foundation in a range of subjects, including history, geography, literature, science, music, and the arts. School officials report their 2025 graduating class had Colorado’s highest composite SAT score.

The Great Hearts network of schools also uses a classical liberal arts curriculum focusing on great books. The Great Hearts network started in Arizona, but parent demand helped expand the academies to Louisiana and Texas. Instead of narrowing instruction, these schools immerse students in primary sources and maintain high academic expectations.

Students cannot analyze history they do not know, evaluate scientific claims they do not understand, or engage in civic debate without any understanding of civilization. Knowledge is a prerequisite for any critical thinking. Yet state lawmakers in California, New Jersey and Vermont have ethnic studies standards or requirements that emphasize activism, identity politics, and “lived experiences” with no civics requirements.

Encouraging schools to adopt knowledge-rich curricula is a proven approach to closing the achievement gap. It is one of the few education reforms that should attract support across ideological lines.

America does not suffer from a shortage of taxpayer spending. It has a knowledge problem. Schools cannot continue stripping content out of classrooms while expecting literacy rates and civic understanding to improve.

If policymakers genuinely want to close the achievement gap, they should start by recognizing what that gap represents: unequal access to knowledge.

Become a Part of the Frontlines...

* The ability to act fearlessly as a joyful warrior, someone who is willing to stand on solid principles and fight for what is right, especially when faced with a hostile environment.

Interested in learning more? Please reach out to our chapter's membership coordinator Kingslee.

Want to See the Change? Be the Change...

Organizations whose efforts we support...

Think on this...

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara County operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.

The organization's primary mission is to organize, educate and empower parents
to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.

Visit us at https://momsforlibertysantaclara.com
Email us at MomsForLibertySCC@gmail.com

Want to read past newsletters? Click Here
Wish to unsubscribe from this newsletter? Click Here

Our physical mailing address: 1050 Kiely Blvd.  # 2453  Santa Clara, CA  95055