AB 329 California Healthy Youth Act (Sex Education) For DUMMY's Part 3
Author Dawn Urbanek | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | If you find this research valuable, please consider a donation to The Equity Project
Timeline for Implementation of California Healthy Youth Act AB 329
AB 329 Pupil Instruction: Sexual Health aka California Healthy Youth Act aka "CHYA"
THE CALIFORNIA WAY
Under Governor Brown, the State of California began modeling its public education system after Michael Fullan's Canadian model of education. State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson developed "The California Way" beginning with "A Blueprint for Great Schools".
Behind closed doors, this back channel bureaucracy began working with political advocacy organizations to draft AB 329 Comprehensive Sexual Health Education building on the California Healthy Kids Survey.
"The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) is an anonymous, confidential survey of school climate and safety, student wellness, and youth resiliency. It is administered to students at grades five, seven, nine, and eleven. It enables schools and communities to collect and analyze data regarding local youth health risks and behaviors, school connectedness, school climate, protective factors, and school violence. The CHKS is part of a comprehensive data-driven decision-making process on improving school climate and student learning environment for overall school improvements."
"Query CHKS is a collaborative project between the California Department of Education (CDE), WestEd, and the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health and its kidsdata.org Web site. Query CHKS allows users to generate tables, maps, graphs, and charts comparing key CHKS data among district, county, and with the state".
CUSDWatch Comment
State Superintendent Tom Torlakson's A Blueprint for Great Schools, The Education Coalition and the people and entities behind the CDE Foundation drive education policy in the State of California. They do so through a back channel that provides almost no opportunity for public input.
That is how bad laws and politically motivated curriculum are implemented with no oversight.
The laws are passed before the public can see what these laws actually do.
AB 329 was signed into law effective date January 1, 2016. The debate over curriculum content is just starting today in 2019 (three years after the law went into effect).
The CDE approved the California Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks on May 8, 2019, 3 1/2 years after the schools began teaching curriculums written by political activists in 2014-15 and 2016.
Political activists should not be dicting education policy, or writing California state laws.
Political activists should not be writing education curriculums behind closed doors.
"Just like the passage of Obama Care, you have to pass the bill so that you can find what is in it"
THE BACK CHANNEL
THE EDUCATION COALITION
Funded by Union Dues, Association Fees and Education Spending on Professional Development (Your child's classroom dollars).
Why does the California Department of Education need a foundation?
Once these programs have been implemented they are turned over to the California Department of Education.
A BLUEPRINT FOR GREAT SCHOOLS
Superintendent Tom Torlakson
"Recognizing that California must plan for the future, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson brought together 59 leaders from across California—teachers, parents, community, labor and business leaders—to share their thinking about education in the state. The resulting report, A Blueprint for Great Schools (PDF; Modified 14-Aug-2011) provides vision and direction for our education system, including a focus on 21st Century learning, meeting the needs of the whole child, and rebuilding the ranks of California's teachers with resources and respect."
All of these organizations are political advocacy organizations. These organizations use our public education system to promote political agendas that may not be in the best interest of educating children, and may actually cause harm to children.
It should be noted that while Comprehensive Sexual Health Education is a "national curriculum", California was the only state that mandated no student could OPT OUT of:
"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 reproductive organs." Ed Code 51932(b)
The People and Entities Behind AB 329 Comprehensive Sexual Health Education
AB 329 California Healthy Youth Act was authored in 2015, and passed into law effective January 1, 2016
CUSDWatch Comment
Why; 3 years after implementation, is the Public just learning about Comprehensive Sexual Health Education?
Shirley Weber (D) San Diego
Shirly Weber has written and supported many pieces of legislation that work to take power away from the police, seeks to expand voter registration by allowing same day registration of voters, and with AB 329 (which she authored), seeks to promote a politial agenda that normalizes pedophilia and decriminalizes the sexual exploitation of children.
There was no real opportunity for the Public to become informed about what was actually going to be taught because there were no content standards and curriculum frameworks for AB 329 curriculum that were available during the legislative process for the public to review. The curriculums were being written by activist organizations behind closed doors. When the curriculums were finally made public beginning in 2016, it became obvious that this was not about bullying and teaching tolerance and inclusion of the LGTBQ community. The curriculums were designed to promote a progressive political agenda- gender confusion under the goal of teaching tolerance and acceptance of pedofiles with the ultimate goal to be the decriminialization of the sexual exploitation of children using the LGTBQ community.
The curriculums were not "state approved", they were not "medically accurate", not "age appropriate" and actually encouraged children of all ages to engage in risky behaviors that might actually harm them.
Approved Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Curriculums
These curriculums were written and ready to go by January 2016, without any input from the California Department of Education
In addition, all kinds of books pre-k through Grade 12 were being written and used throughout the state in classroomms prior to any conten standards and curriculum frameworks being approved. For 3 1/2 years this has been oging on with no oversight from the California Department of Education. Under "Local Control", districts could choose to use whatever materials they wanted in all grades pre-K - Grade 12.
Legislative History AB 329 California Healthy Youth Act
February 2015 AB 329 Introduced
September 2015 AB 329 Passes Assembly and Senate
October 2015 329 Signed into Law
January 1, 2016 AB 329 Effective Date
11 months
May 8, 2019 California Department of Education approves State Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks for Comprehensive Sexual Health Education
3 years 5 months after the law became effective.
CUSDWatch Comment
May 8, 2019 CDE approves the State Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks for Comprehensive Sexual Health Education, 3 1/2 years after the law went into effect. School districts across California have been teaching Comprehensive sexual health education/"gender spectrum" in all grades K-12 for years now without any guidance from the California Department of Education.
The California Department of Education had no involvement.
Where did "underfunded" school districts get the money to fund Comprehensive Sexual Health Education?
The following is the entire history of the Bill. I am still unable to link to the actual audio/video files for each of the hearings. They are very hard to find - especially from the Assembly.
02/13/15
Read first time. To print.
02/17/15
From printer. May be heard in Committee March 19, 2015
Action: The bill was passed and Re-referred to Committee on Appropriations
Written Opposition: California Right to Life Committe Inc. [Still looking for link]
CUSDWatch Comment:
This would have been the first opportunity for the Public to speak in opposition to AB 329. Any opposition would have been based solely on the April 20, 2015 Bill Analysis. No average member of the public would even know to watch this. From the 04/20/15 Bill Analysis it appears that the only Opposition was from California Right to Life Committee Inc.
04/29/15
California Assembly Committee On Education
AB 329 Weber - As Amended April 13, 2015 Pupil Instruction: sexual health education
Ayes: Bates, Beall, Hill, Lara, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
Noes: 0
NVR: 0
The Assembly Appropriations Committee reviews all bills with any fiscal impact after passage by a policy committee. The committee hears more bills than any committee in the Legislature. In the 2009-10 and 2011-12 sessions combined, the committee heard about 4,600 bills. For contrast, the Business, Professions and Consumer Protection and Public Safety Committees each referred about 400 bills over the course of these two sessions.
The goal of the committee is sound, responsible, affordable fiscal policy.
For more than 25 years the committee has met every Wednesday morning in Room 4202 during legislative session. Because of the massive workload that crosses all jurisdictional lines, Appropriations operates differently than policy committees. Testimony tends to be more succinct and centers on fiscal implications. The Department of Finance sits at the witness table during hearings to provide the Administration’s official fiscal estimate.
The Appropriations Committee’s Consent Calendar helps the committee expedite passage of noncontroversial bills with minor fiscal impact that receive no dissenting votes in the preceding policy committee, as agreed upon by the Chair and Vice Chair. Another unique feature of the Appropriations Committee is the Suspense File, to which the committee sends any bill with an annual cost of more than $150,000 (any fund).Suspense File bills are then considered at one hearing after the state budget has been prepared and the committee has a better sense of available revenue. No testimony is presented – author or witness – at the Suspense File hearing.
08/27/15
Third Vote on AB 329
PASS
Senate Appropriations Committee
California Senate Appropriations
AB 329 Weber - As Amended April 13, 2015 Pupil Instruction: sexual health education
SUMMARY: Makes instruction in sexual health education mandatory, revises human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education content, expands topics covered in sexual health education, requires this instruction to be inclusive of different sexual orientations, and clarifies parental consent policy.
The Senate amendments:
1) Delete a requirement to provide in-service training on comprehensive sexual health education in addition to HIV prevention education, and state instead that a school district may expand HIV in-service training to cover the topic of comprehensive sexual health education in order for school district personnel who provide this instruction to learn new developments in the scientific understanding of sexual health.
2) State that the requirements of the California Healthy Youth Act do not apply to descriptions or illustrations of human reproductive organs in textbooks if the textbooks do not include other elements of comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education. This would replace a requirement in current law that applies only to textbooks in specific disciplines (physiology, biology, zoology, general science, personal hygiene, and health).
3) Add chaptering out provisions.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Permits school districts to provide comprehensive sexual health education, and places a number of requirements on districts choosing to provide that instruction. Among, these requirements, instruction must be age appropriate, medically accurate and objective, teach respect for committed relationships and marriage, encourage students to speak with their parents or guardians about human sexuality, be appropriate and accessible for use with students with disabilities, and be appropriate for students of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
2) Requires school districts to provide HIV/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) prevention education, and specifies what is to be included in that instruction. Requires inservice training of instructors providing HIV/AIDS prevention education.
3) Permits instruction to be provided by outside consultants and guest speakers at assemblies and requires that this instruction conform to the requirements for school district instruction.
CUSDWatch Comment
Instructors from Groups like Planned Parenthood were coming into schools to teach Comprehensive Sexual Health Education without parental notification.
4) States that a parent or guardian of a student has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and related assessments, and requires that parents be notified of this right.
CUSDWatch Comment
The State of California is the only State that changed it's parental consent law so that parents cannot opt their children out of Comprehensive Sexual Health Education. This is a "national" curriculum, but California was the only State to completely deny a parents right to opt their children out of:
"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 reproductive organs." Ed Code 51932(b)
CDE's new policy:
"CDE is changing its interpretation of parental consent law. Contrary to significant Legislative history on this issue, the CDE has advised school districts that the law permits them to adopt an "opt in" policy regarding comprehensive sexual health instruction (but not HIV/AIDS prevention education). The CDE has recently informed staff that it is in the process of changing this interpretation, and will be advising that "opt in" policies are prohibited."
AB 329 Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, but costs likely at least in the low millions (Proposition 98 of 1988) to expand the existing mandate. Costs are minor and absorbable to the California Department of Education. This bill expands what school districts are able to claim as a reimbursable state mandate under the existing mandate, regardless of whether this instruction is already being provided. It also requires school districts to incorporate new components in their comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education programs, or create a comprehensive sexual health program if they do not offer one already. Costs would vary by school district.
CUSDWatch Comment
The Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) is preceived to be a "wealthy" suburban school district. The District has a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch and/or are in Foster Care.
CUSD chose not to purchase new math books [Algebra II Trig- small number of students]; books that were so old they were out of print. CUSD cited a lack of funds. The discussion was fascinating:
Cost: $8,000 for two schools ($4,000 per school X 6 High Schools = $24,000)
Moved by Trustee Jones
2nd by Trustee Holloway
Motion to adopt new Algebra II/Trig textbooks for Aliso Niguel High School and Dana Hills High School and NOT the other four high schools passed 7-0
CUSDWatch Comments:
The Williams Act requires Equity in Public Education - all high schools should receive the new text books- not just two.
Interesting Comments by Trustees Gila Jones and Martha McNicholas - "Math has not changed since 2005 so there is no need to buy everyone a new book".
Common Core Math was implemented in 2012-13. This is going from the 7th edition to the 10th edition... nothing has changed?
Maybe CUSD should stop using text book money for raises so that all students can have the same text book. CUSD has given employees five consecutive years of across the board compensation increases totaling over $150 million dollars.
A Williams Complaint should be filed.
How is CUSD going to fund an entirly new Comprehensive sexual health curriculum for all students in every grade? Are they receiving Grant money for organizations like Planned Parenthood? Foundations like the CDE Foundation?
No money for math- but lots of money for Sex Education?
COMMENTS:
Purposes of this bill. The author explains that this bill is intended to address five topics by:
1) Updating the HIV and AIDS prevention education to reflect today's understanding of HIV and AIDS.
2) Ensuring that students are receiving comprehensive and accurate prevention information for HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, and unintended pregnancy, as well as information about local health resources.
3) Clarifying and bolstering existing requirements that instruction and materials be appropriate for students of all sexual orientations and genders.
4) Clarifying the existing passive consent policy for parental consent.
5) Including new language relating to adolescent relationship abuse and sex trafficking, and reinforcing a focus on healthy attitudes, healthy behaviors, and healthy relationships.
Making comprehensive sexual health education mandatory. Current law does not mandate sexual health education, but places requirements on instruction that is voluntarily provided to students. While this instruction is voluntary, research has shown that nearly all (96%) school districts offer a program of sexual health education. In contrast, HIV/AIDS prevention education has been mandated since 1992. This bill proposes to combine sexual health education and the HIV/AIDS prevention education statutes into a single, mandatory program of instruction. Proponents of this bill argue that this bill reflects the way that sexual health and HIV prevention education is actually provided in schools – as an integrated program of instruction. Research has found that 93% of schools teach the two topics as one class.
Compliance problems. A 2011 report from the University of California, San Francisco, titled Uneven Progress: Sex Education in California Schools, found that since the last major reform in this area there have been improvements in instruction, but that there remain problems regarding school district compliance with current law. Among the findings:
1) Twenty-five percent of districts discussed the required topic of emergency contraception.
2) Fifty-eight percent of districts included required information about contraception in middle and high school.
3) Twenty-five percent of districts omitted required HIV prevention topics.
AB 329 Page 3
AB 329 Page 3
4) Sixteen percent of districts taught students that condoms are not an effective way to prevent pregnancy and transmission of STIs.
5) Nineteen percent of districts reported that birth control methods are mentioned but that most of the instructional time was spent on the benefits of abstinence.
6) Thirty percent of districts addressed sexual orientation.
7) Thirty-seven percent of districts did not provide required teacher training.
8) Thirty-nine percent of districts failed to provide required materials in languages other than English.
9) Twenty-seven percent of districts failed to provide required materials to make content accessible to students with disabilities.
CDE changing its interpretation of parental consent law. Contrary to significant Legislative history on this issue, the CDE has advised school districts that the law permits them to adopt an "opt in" policy regarding comprehensive sexual health instruction (but not HIV/AIDS prevention education). The CDE has recently informed staff that it is in the process of changing this interpretation, and will be advising that "opt in" policies are prohibited.
AB 329 has Passed and is ready for the Governor to sign into law
09/23/15
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
10/01/15
Approved by Governor
10/01/15
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 398, Statutes of 2015.
Enacted January 1, 2016, this law integrates the instruction of comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education. The bill renamed the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act to the California Healthy Youth Act. The bill requires school districts to ensure that all pupils in grades seven to twelve, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Now CDE begins to work on Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks
Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks were adopted May 8, 2019 (three and one half years AFTER the law went into effect).
CUSDWatch Comment
Comprehensive Sexual Health education has been working its way through schools since 2016 using curriculums written by political activists. That is how parents found out about what was being taught.
It should also be noted that the ACLU threatens to sue any district that fails to comply with AB 329 (the bill they co-sponsored).
The State Board of Education begins the work of up-dating the Health Education Framework per EdCode 60005(a)
This background is per a contract with Al Mujares, Superintendent of the Orange County Department of Education executed on
March 2017
Health Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Cimmittee (HCFCC) is established per California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 9511 to provide the current revision in March 2017.
page 2
November 2017
HCFCC first meeting
May 2019
Adoption of final version
THE BACK CHANNEL
CDE FOUNDATION
THE EDUCATION COALITION
CA Department of Education
CDE Board of Trustees
Appointed
SUPERINTENDENT CDE
OC Department of Education
OCDE Board of Trustees
Elected by the People
But the people have no real representation because the Superintendent can act independently of the Board. The Superintendent acts alone all of the time to push the hidden agenda of the "Collaborative".
OCDE Superintendent
Elected by the People
Because the Orange County Department of Education elects both the Board of Trustees and their Superintendent, the Superintendent does not have to be on the same page as the Board of Trustees. The "back channel" is created when Public/Private Coolaborative instructs the Superintendent to implement the back channel agenda by going directly to the individual school districts (not through the OCDE Board of Trustees). The Superintendent instructs the individual districts to write resolutions in support of specified bills or policies. The Superintendent instructs individual school districts to implement policies, programs and even pilots that the back channel public/private Collaborative support. When that same policy or program is brought to the OCDE Board they often vote in opposition to a law that the Superintendent and the individual districts support.
CUSDWatch Comment
We need to change the OCDE Superintendent position from an "elected" position to an "appointed" position so that all poicy will flow from the "elected" Board of Trustees to the "appointed" superintendent.
"The county superintendent and the county board of education have separate duties and responsibilities. This is true whether the superintendent is separately elected, as in most counties, or appointed by the board, as in a few counties.
County superintendents of schools are established pursuant to Section 3, Article IX of the California Constitution and are considered county officers (similar to a sheriff, district attorney, or clerk). (Gov. Code § 24000.) County boards of education are established by Education Code section 1000. The interaction between the county board and superintendent is entirely distinct from the relationship of a school district governing board and its employed superintendent.
The county superintendent works directly with the school districts in the county to provide support and guidance for their operations. Policy determinations regarding school districts are made by the superintendent and the local school boards. The county board of education does not have a role in determining the policies of local school districts.
A wide variety of practices and policies have developed in the different counties to enable the county board and county superintendent to work cooperatively. In those counties where both offices are duly elected, each is directly accountable to the electorate. Open communication and mutual sharing of information facilitate the respective functions of the county superintendent and the board."
Capistrano Unified School DIstrict
CUSD Board of Trustees
Elected by the People
But the people have no real representation because the Board seats are bought by the CTA and Staff runs the district through this back channel and does not consult the Board.
CUSD Superintendent
Appointed by Trustees
The Capistrano Unified School district Superintendent and Staff run the district, with Trustees working on inaccurate or incomplete information. The CUSD Board has no power and is basically their to rubber stamp what ever comes before them.
Example of How the Back Channel Works
At the April 25, 2019 CUSD BOT meeting during Trustee comments, Trustee Amy Hanacek asked CUSD Staff to place a Resolution in Support of AB 1505 Charter schools: petitions on the next board meeting agenda.
AB 1505 (as Amended April 24, 2019) would:
Eliminate state approved charter schools:
The bill would repeal those provisions authorizing the state board to approve a petition to establish a charter school.
The bill would provide that charter schools operating under a charter approved by the state board may continue to operate under those charters only until the date on which the charter is up for renewal.
Would limit county boards authority to approve charter schools:
The bill would specify that a petition to establish a charter school may be submitted only to the school district or county office of education the boundaries within which the charter school would be located, and would provide that, commencing January 1, 2020, a county board of education could approve a petition for a countywide charter only under specified conditions and pursuant to a specified procedure, including requiring the petitioner to obtain the approval from each of the school districts where the charter school petitioner proposes to operate a facility.
The bill would authorize a county board of education to deny a petition for the establishment of a new charter school if it makes a written factual finding that the charter school would have a negative financial, academic, or facilities impact on neighborhood public schools, a school district, or the county office of education.
Would effectively place all approval authority over charter schools with the local school district board.
OCDE Superintendent Al Mijares e-mails OC Districts and asks them to approve a Resolution in SUPPORT OF AB 1505 prior to OCDE BOT taking any action to support or oppose AB 1505
April 10, 2019
OCDE Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Item #2 Trustees vote to approve Resolution #08-19 in OPPOSITION to AB 1505 The Board agenda did not contain the actual language of AB 1505
Why was Superintendent Al Mijares asking for letters in SUPPORT of AB 1505 prior to the OCDE Board took a position on this? Laguna Beach approved Legislation with April 11, 2019 Amendments- not April 25, 2019 amendments
Orange County Department of Education Board of Supervisors
Board Audio a 1:11:14 Vote Motion to Approve Resolution 08-19 In OPPOSITION to Assembly Bill 1505 passes 3-2
Voted to Oppose AB 1505: Ken Williams - John Bedell - Lisa Sparks
Voted to Support AB 1505: Rebecca Gomez - Mari Barke
The Orange County Department of Education Board of Trustees voted to OPPOSE Assembly Bill 1505.
OCDE Superintendent Al Mijares acted without OCDE Board Approval in requesting that OC school districts sign resolutions in SUPPORT of AB 1505.
Conclusion:
This "instruction" has been going on in our public schools for 3 1/2 years.
That is how parents became "informed" about AB 329 Comprehensive Sexual Health Education.
A recent UCLA study revealed that more than 1/4 of California students between the ages of 12 - 17 now identify themselves as "gender non-conforming".
20.8% identify themselves as Androgynous.
6.2% identify as Highly Gender Nonconforming
UCLA Study Age of Individuals who identify as Transgender in the United States
The number of adults that identify as transgender (gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth) has doubled in the last 10 years from 0.3% to 0.6%.
CUSDWatch Comment
It appears that less than 1% of the population is "born" transgender. In a flawed attempt to teach tolerance for a very small minority of the population, California has succeeded in confusing 26% of children 12-17 years of age who now identify themselves as gender non-conforming.
Research has shown that transgender and gender non-conforming teens have more physical health issues, engage in more risky behaviors and have greater long-term mental health issues.
So why does California want to encourage gender confusion?
Shouldn't parents have the right to protect children from instruction that could increase the likelyhood that they will engage in risky behaviors which may result in physical and mental health issues?
This debate should have happened before AB 329 was ever passed into law.
These People Should Be Criminally Charged With Child Endagerment and Racketeering.
Part 4- Will Follow the Money Using The Capistrano Unified School District As an Example
Web site. 
