TEMECULA, Calif. — Katrina Miles has been teaching over 30 years, and she has always looked for books that reflect her sixth grade reading class. 

This year, though, she said it’s a little different given the policies adopted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. 

“Since the things that have happened and the lawsuit, people are a little bit weary. I’ve heard conversations not just at my school, but the conversation outside of school, of new people coming in [saying] ‘What should I?’ So people are playing it very safe,” said the middle school teacher at the Temecula Valley Unified School District.

In December 2022, the newly appointed Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees adopted Resolution 21, which prohibits the teaching of any critical race theory elements in schools across the district. 

According to the Legal Defense Fund, critical race theory or CRT is an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society. 

Critical race theory has never have been taught at schools in the district, and Miles, who is the only African American teacher at her school and an adviser to the Black Student Union, said it left some teachers, like her, confused. 

“It’s so ambiguous to make this blanket policy without any guidance and so I don’t want to be in that position,” Miles said. 

She said she likes to have her class read history based books, and she hasn’t changed any of the books she teaches. 

“I try to be mindful. I think I do step a little more lightly. But I tell the parents this is a book that we’ll be reading and I hope that you’ll come in alongside and read with us and have conversations with your child,” she said.

In August, she joined the lawsuit filed by Public Counsel, a pro-bono law-firm, against the school board trustees and the school district because she was especially concerned over Resolution 21 around CRT elements. The lawsuit claims the board’s actions violate California constitutional and statutory provisions securing the right to education and to receive information, the right to due process, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation.  

In a statement, a TVUSD board member, Jennifer Wiersma, responded to the lawsuit. 

“As the clerk of the TVUSD school board, I believe students should NOT be judged by the color of their skin or ethnicity, but by the content of their character. I also believe teaching history in its entirety. The board majority voted to ban utilizing the lens of Critical Race Theory to prevent separating individuals into divisive, collective categories of ‘the oppressed’ or ‘the oppressor.’ Designed to protect ALL students, this resolution also provides guidance for a constructive vs. liberated viewpoint for future state required ethnic studies classes. I’m hopeful the hearing lends itself to the truth of our intentions, NOT the faulty narrative promoted by the union or certain members of the community.”

Many parents, such as Daniel Molina, who has three kids in the district, agree with the board on the ban against CRT. 

“[The resolution] really focuses in on the idea that today racism is not something that’s impacting these children to the point where there’s an oppressor class in an oppressed class strictly rooted in color,” Molina said.

Molina argues he doesn’t think the policy interferes with history being taught at school. 

“I’m all about pulling back the veil. I think you have to know your history so that you don’t make the same mistakes. So I don’t think that we should whitewash history. And I also feel like that’s not what this resolution is doing,” Molina said. 

But other parents, like Josh Schierling, disagree and want to see the CRT ban removed. 

“Trying to fix the problem starts with acknowledging the problem. CRT is not trying to make white people feel guilty. Today’s white people, we didn’t build it. We didn’t make this system this way. We sure as heck benefit from it, but we need to understand the biases that are there. And CRT is the start to riding that ship,” Schierling said. 

Arguing that the ban limits the way history it taught at school. 

“We need to be teaching what actually happened, not to make anybody feel guilty, but because it’s reality. And we can make the world better by understanding where we actually came from. Denying our past, whitewashing it doesn’t fix any of these inequity problems,” Schierling said. 

The lawsuit, which amended the original complaint to include the parental notification policy the board implemented in August 2023, argues the policy is an attack on LGBTQ children. 

The policy requires teachers to notify parents if their student is asking to use a different name or pronouns other than the ones that match their gender assigned at birth. 

That policy is how Schierling became involved with the issues surrounding the school board. 

“I have a child that’s now in that category,” Schierling said. 

His daughter uses they/them pronouns and although he has been supportive, he said that is not the case for everyone. 

“The policy is trying to take away maybe their only lifeline to an adult who cares about them. That can be a sounding board. I wish every parent was safe. I wish every parent could be as empathetic and kind when their children tell them they’re not hetero, that the parents would not really change the dynamics of the relations. They would just love them for who they are, not what the parents expect them to be,” Schierling said. 

On the other hand, Molina said he has his reasons to agree with the parental notification. 

“There are states that are making it illegal for any sort of gender affirming care for children here in Temecula. We’re just saying if that’s a route that our child might go, we want to be involved from the beginning,” Molina said.   

It is also something that Miles is split on, saying that as a parent, she would want to know, but that as a teacher, it is yet another responsibility on teachers. 

“I think it’s why should we be the ones put in that position?” Miles said. 

In December 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a brief supporting a motion by Temecula students, parents and educators to halt the enforcement of these policies. 

Riverside Court was set on Wednesday to hear the motion for a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the Board from enforcing the policies while the case proceeds. That has now been pushed to Feb. 1.