The K-5 Social Studies Curriculum War of 2023
How Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez delayed adopting essential curriculum till the 11th hour, and why they finally approved it
Summary: Teachers followed the established process to evaluate, pilot, gain parent feedback, and recommend new K-5 social studies curriculum for TVUSD students. But the Board majority repeatedly refused to adopt the curriculum, delaying until California’s governor threatened to fine the district $1.5 million. Fallout from the delay caused many problems, and some board member comments raised eyebrows.
In this article:
Board comments: “E-brakes” and “Sovereign citizen”
Background
In 2022, the Temecula Valley School District was overdue adopting new history-social studies curriculum for Kindergarten through fifth grade. The old curriculum was from before 2006 and didn’t meet updated state standards (for example, see History-Social Science Framework), and the publisher had stopped printing textbooks.
A California state law (referred to as the Williams Act) requires that public school districts have sufficient learning materials for all students for the full school year by the eighth week of classes. So adopting new curriculum was a necessity to avoid violating the law.
The curriculum process
Following Board Policy for adopting curriculum, 47 of our elementary school teachers evaluated all the state-approved materials.
The teachers chose two of these that best fit our community and our schools:
Social Studies Alive ©2018, published by Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI)
California Studies Weekly ©2021, published by Studies Weekly
Between September 2022 and February 2023, these 47 teachers piloted both choices in Temecula classrooms and evaluated them. Almost 1300 students from all 18 elementary school sites were in the pilot program.
Parents of students in the pilot program were asked directly for their feedback on the curriculum; 45 of them responded. Of these 45, one parent had a negative response, about 25% were neutral, and about 75% responded positively.
Between March and May 2023, all parents and the general public were encouraged to review the curriculum, which was available at every elementary school site and at the District Office. Requests for parent feedback were posted online on the TVUSD website and school websites, and in the Community Connection Newsletter, which goes to all parents and interested community members. Nearly 400 reviews were obtained, virtually all positive.
Based on our teachers’ experience in the pilot programs and the parents’ input, the District recommended adopting Studies Weekly for Kindergarten and TCI for grades 1-5.
Board action
District teachers presented their process and reasons for recommending this curriculum to the TVUSD School Board at the May 16, 2023, Board meeting.
In discussion, Mr. Gonzalez objected to the curriculum for two reasons: he felt there was not enough parent input, and the curriculum included information about Harvey Milk.
Mrs. Barclay noted that at least 1300 parents had the curriculum in their households during the pilot and would have objected if they had seen any problems.
Interim Superintendent Dr. Velez clarified that the mention of Milk is not in the textbook but in optional supplemental resources, and that it’s a short biography that describes his place in the history of gay rights in California.
To the surprise of teachers and parents, the Board voted 3-2 NOT to approve the curriculum, with Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez voting against it.
The state gets involved
On July 13 California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, stated in a news release that if the Temecula School Board did not adopt curriculum with sufficient textbooks, the state would deliver the textbooks and fine the District for violating the Williams Act. President Komrosky responded that if that happened, he would send the books back.
On July 18 the Board held a curriculum workshop and a regular meeting. The meeting was contentious; many people spoke in public comments, both for and against the curriculum. Some heatedly opposed the governor’s involvement. The Board voted 5-0 to adopt the Studies Weekly curriculum for Kindergarten, but they again voted 3-2 not to adopt TCI for grades 1-5.
Governor Newsom responded that the state would deliver necessary textbooks, charge the bill to the district, and in addition levy a fine of $1.5 million.
In response to that threat, Board President Komrosky called a Special Board meeting for Friday, July 21. Mr. Gonzalez was absent and Mrs. Wiersma attended over Zoom. Two choices were on the agenda:
Keep the old curriculum, purchasing additional 2006 textbooks (the publisher agreed to reprint them) and a 2019 online curriculum piece that Mrs. Wiersma advocated for, which would comply with current requirements (cost for one year: $274,000; cost would rise in future years)
Purchase the TCI curriculum in its entirety, but don’t use its online component yet, and reassess the fourth grade unit to remove “sexualized topics of instruction” (cost: $1,600,000 for 8 years, or $200,000 per year)
Many people spoke in favor of approving TCI. In Board discussion, Mrs. Barclay pointed out that the online piece for the old curriculum had never been vetted or piloted by our teachers, nor reviewed by parents. She also described some online sections that she thought Mrs. Wiersma would find more offensive than what was in TCI.
An attorney for the District, attending over Zoom, stated when asked that adopting the old curriculum’s online component would not comply with California law (Ed Code 60002) or TVUSD’s Board Policy 6141, because there had been no teacher or parent input.
Despite hearing the legal opinion, Mrs. Wiersma moved to approve the first option, but the motion died for lack of a second. Before voting on the second option, President Komrosky stated that the governor should not be involved in local School Board issues.
The Trustees finally voted 4-0 (Gonzalez absent) to adopt the TCI curriculum for grades 1-5 with the noted exceptions: no online component use and further review of the fourth grade unit.
Post-war fallout
The three Trustees’ delay in adopting the K-5 history-social studies curriculum caused stress and anger in our community. Their delay also:
Showed Komrosky’s, Wiersma’s, and Gonzalez’s fundamental misunderstanding of public school districts and their relationship to California laws
Highlighted the three Trustees’ distrust of our teachers’ motives, educational expertise, and knowledge of our community and its students
Opened the district to further lawsuits
Angered teachers, who felt that any objections to the established curriculum adoption process should have been brought up long before
Worried parents, who were afraid their children would not have proper instruction when school started
Put Temecula, once again, in a negative light on state and national news
Made it impossible to train all teachers in the new curriculum before school started
Forced school staff and volunteers to put in many extra hours delivering textbooks to school sites at the last minute
Obligated teachers and district staff to spend many more hours combing through individual parts of the curriculum in an attempt to satisfy the three Trustees
Showed that Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez are more interested in their own political and religious concerns than in meeting educational standards for our students.
All the stress was unnecessary. There was no reason to delay adopting the curriculum. Our experienced teachers understand our local community. They chose state-approved curriculum that would be acceptable to our parents and engaging to our students. Feedback from parents was overwhelmingly positive.
A few other skirmishes in this curriculum war deserve attention: the governor’s role, “E-brakes,” and the term “sovereign citizen.”
The governor’s role
At the July 21st meeting, President Komrosky called Governor Newsom a “tyrant” for interfering with local decisions. But the Temecula Valley School District is a California public school district. As a local governmental body, the TVUSD Board of Trustees is required to follow the laws of the State of California.
Why did the governor get involved? In the U.S. (as you’ll remember from Civics class), we have three branches of government:
The Legislative branch, which makes the laws
The Judicial branch, which interprets the laws
The Executive branch, which ensures that the laws are followed
The same three branches exist at the state level. The California State Legislature made the laws—including the laws that say public school curricula must follow the state’s standards (California Education Code) and all children must have proper learning materials by shortly after school starts (the Williams Act).
The job of the governor, who at the state level is the Executive branch, is to make sure the laws are followed. Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez were on a path to violate both California Ed Code and the Williams Act. It doesn’t matter what you (or we) think of Governor Newsom. His response to the board majority’s refusal to adopt approved K-5 Social Studies curriculum, while quite possibly politically motivated, was also what he’s supposed to do. It’s his JOB.
The claim that the governor should step out of the way and allow the local school board to do whatever it wants is completely off base.
“E-brakes”
In his comments just before the vote was taken on July 21 (about 2:25:48 in the Board Meeting video), President Komrosky said, “At any time, if TCI is adopted, we as a Board can pull the E-brake. If somebody says, this is concerning to me, I don’t want this in there, ok, … there’s been a complaint that there might be inappropriate content. All right, we’re going to take this to curriculum design team. We’re going to pull it; we can reevaluate it.”
An E-brake, or emergency brake, is a way to immediately stop a vehicle or machine in the event of an emergency. An E-brake doesn’t seem like a good analogy here. Do we really think one parent or group of parents should completely stop education for all students because they object to something in the curriculum? As a teacher commented in the May 16 meeting: “I don't think parental input should be confused with parental veto power.”
If a parent objects to material their child is learning, that parent has the right to go to the teacher (and the principal, if necessary) to request an alternative assignment for their child. But that parent does not have the right to stop instruction for the whole class, let alone the whole school or district. You can control what your child learns, but not what my child learns.
“Sovereign citizen”
In the July 21st meeting, Board President Komrosky addressed the governor directly (at 2:30:20 in the Board Meeting video): “Governor Newsom, I act independently and authoritatively from you. I am a sovereign citizen in the United States of America…. I make my decision completely independent of what you do.”
Komrosky’s use of the term “sovereign citizen” is probably innocuous but a bit disturbing, nonetheless. For more than a decade, the FBI has defined sovereign citizens as: “a loose network of individuals living in the United States who call themselves ‘sovereign citizens’ and believe that federal, state, and local governments operate illegally.” See https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement
A June 2023 report from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, “Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism,” states that sovereign citizen violent extremists constitute a domestic violence threat. See https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report-2023.pdf/view
We’ve certainly seen no evidence that Komrosky is a violent extremist, but we hope he will be more careful with what he says in the future.