On August 20th, the California-based non-profit legal advocacy organization, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), held an online seminar titled “Defending Parental Rights” to discuss how parents can understand the school environment, communicate directly with teachers, participate in school board meetings, and use legal means to protect their children.
PJI founder and president Brad Dacus invited Eric Buehrer, founder and president of the non-profit organization Gateways to Better Education, and Brenda Lebsack, a board member of the Santa Ana Unified School District and founder of the “Brenda4Kids” website, to join the discussion.
Both Buehrer and Lebsack have been public school teachers. Gateways to Better Education focuses on assisting public school educators, parents, and school leaders in creating inclusive faith-based campus environments; while Brenda4Kids aims to help teachers and parents understand changes in public school curriculum, laws, policies, and situations where parental rights are at risk.
Lebsack pointed out that the California Department of Education intends to normalize the concept that “gender is a choice” and that “there are multiple genders to choose from.” This phenomenon starts as early as kindergarten and is widespread in many children’s books and kindergarten “book corners.”
Dacus mentioned that this trend is not limited to predominantly Democratic “blue states” but has also been observed in Republican “red states” like Texas, often without parents’ knowledge.
Lebsack further discussed that in California’s 2019 Health Education Framework, illustrated children’s books state that there are multiple gender choices, including “I am a boy,” “I am a girl,” “both,” “neither,” or “just me,” targeting children aged 2 to 8 in preschool and elementary school.
Dacus expressed concern that children are being introduced to confusion and doubt about their gender identity from a young age, which goes against the natural understanding that most boys have about their gender.
Lebsack highlighted the representation of the letter “Q” in LGBTQ, emphasizing not only “queer” but also “questioning” regarding gender. She cautioned that children reading such books and starting to question could be classified under the “Q” category and led into a system of psychological counseling or gender services, exposing them to multiple gender spectrum classifications.
Nowadays, identifying as transgender or with different sexual orientations in schools is starting at younger ages. California even mandates that male restrooms from the third grade onwards must provide free female hygiene products; otherwise, schools will face fines. This normalization of biologically improbable situations is achieved through social engineering, including changing terms like “mom” to “birthing persons.”
Dacus emphasized that the purpose of such changes is to create chaos and that even far-left radicals understand it not as a biological fact but as a psychological issue. He mentioned that the vast majority of children facing gender confusion, without excessive intervention, often naturally resolve their confusion by high school graduation.
Lebsack revealed that there are many awards within the teachers’ union that encourage teachers to engage in certain activities. When she suggested providing Spanish explanations during the development of the Health Education curriculum guidelines in California, she found that the union only rewarded those who conformed and supported their agenda while promoting gender confusion concepts.
Parents should be aware of how to assess teachers’ attitudes. Firstly, by looking at how teachers sign their emails, indicating their preferred pronouns like she/her or he/him, as it usually shows their active support for gender-affirming concepts. Secondly, parents can observe the books displayed in the classroom “book corners” during school visits to get insights.
Buehrer advised that parents should approach schools not as critical customers questioning what teachers are teaching their children but rather ask how they can assist. He suggested that since parents have the opportunity to connect with these teachers, they should consider how to have a positive influence. Many teachers do not necessarily agree with extreme ideas, and parents can help them resist inappropriate practices.
If parents feel concerned, it is recommended to have direct discussions with teachers and clearly inquire whether such materials will be used. Some teachers vehemently oppose the use of such materials, some express a desire to create an inclusive environment, while others may verbally commit not to use them but still do so later on.
Parents need to understand their rights. In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor that public schools cannot force students to engage with content relating to transgender issues that contradict parental religious beliefs. Schools must notify parents in advance and provide an “opt-out” mechanism.
During the trial, a senior judge questioned the frequency and scale at which parents’ rights were violated, leading to a situation where their rights were not being respected at all. The case originated from Muslim parents opposing the school district allowing children to read books supporting transgender issues. The ruling stressed that the “opt-out” right also applies to literary works, films, lectures, or school-wide gatherings in various forms. This constitutional-level precedent implies a significant turnaround, requiring California, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois state laws and school district policies to be revised accordingly.
Monthly School Site Council meetings are excellent opportunities to advocate the lessons learned from the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, where parents can speak out or distribute information. The School Site Council manages fund allocations and specific school arrangements.
As a member of the school board, Lebsack shared that they received official guidance from California stating that the case only applied to elementary schools, but in reality, the “opt-out” also applies to middle and high schools. However, children are less likely to inform their schools about incidents once they are in middle school. Hence, parents should educate children about what “opt-out” means, actively review their children’s materials, and inquire about teachers’ teaching plans. Nowadays, most materials are digital (using Chromebooks), and parents often do not have login passwords.
Buehrer suggested that parents come equipped with information about the Mahmoud v. Taylor case when the school year starts to share with teachers and other parents, spreading the truth and fostering connections.
Lebsack pointed out that issues can arise unexpectedly, such as a situation where fifth-grade students during a field trip without parental supervision declared themselves as “gender fluid” to use the boys’ restroom. This was influenced by a teacher who had taught that gender could be altered. The teacher then announced on the bus that those female students could use the boys’ restroom that day. Parents were shocked and unprepared, finding these actions a clear violation of the aforementioned legal precedent.
The PJI website offers a free “opt-out” application form. Dacus stressed the importance of utilizing this provision to protect children, and they are available to assist families encountering situations where the “opt-out” request was not respected, or males were entering female changing rooms or participating in girls’ sports events. They are currently handling hundreds of related cases and have the capacity to help more families.
Lebsack shared her experience as a sixth-grade teacher, mentioning the curriculum requirements for teaching various religions. According to California academic standards, sixth-grade students should understand the content of the Gospels and learn about the origin of Christianity from Judaism, including prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus’s life, and teachings. If schools organize field trips to mosques, parents can request visits to temples, synagogues, churches, or Christian churches on a similar basis.
Dacus emphasized that parents have the right to opt-out, including refusing to participate in such visits. Sometimes schools may claim that not participating requires students to read particular content, which he deemed an unreasonable substitute and a form of punishment.
Buehrer recommended directly communicating with teachers using a strategy of “help me understand” to clarify the teacher’s intentions, as children’s retelling may not be accurate. Parents can also point out if a teacher’s remarks belittle or disregard their beliefs. If communication is ineffective, it should be escalated to the next level.
Lebsack noted that parents can file a Uniform Complaint to report discrimination or harassment against religious believers by teachers, as religious beliefs are strictly protected by law.
Buehrer emphasized that students should not blindly absorb teachers’ opinions like sponges; instead, children should be taught to think critically and make judgments. For instance, if a parent is concerned about excessive abortion support during sexual education classes, they can discuss this with their child after class. Children naturally learn to identify the content being taught by their teachers.
If a teacher declares in class, “I don’t want to hear anyone opposing homosexuality,” parents can respond by highlighting that teachers hold an authoritative position in children’s minds and should not deprive the classroom of space for discussion of divergent views. This exchange can help children realize that they do not have to accept the teacher’s personal opinions unquestionably.
Dacus emphasized the importance of effective communication between parents and children, suggesting watching videos such as Dennis Prager’s during dinner to spark deep dialogues. Reward systems can also be used to encourage children to read quality books.
Buehrer discussed the misconception of equating “tolerance” with simple acceptance, which leads to apathy among some students due to the lack of standards. He suggested considering the concept of “standard deviation” in mathematics, setting a standard and allowing for deviations within a range. But exceeding this range should be considered “intolerable.”
At school, setting a “standard” for student behavior as actively engaging in listening, communicating, discussing, and questioning, with the flexibility to remain quiet, but “not tolerating” sleeping, was cited as an example. Similarly, relationships between male and female students on campus should uphold standards of kindness, humor, attractiveness, and mutual respect, with the flexibility of light-hearted jokes but “not tolerating” sexual harassment or bullying.
Many parents fear that lodging complaints against schools could lead to retaliation against their children. Dacus shared a successful case where parents complained in a public meeting that a school district director had tampered with student grades, including altering the top student’s grades. The jury awarded a $7.5 million compensation, with the majority being the director’s personal responsibility, not the district’s responsibility.
Dacus highlighted that in states like California and New York, students are compelled to receive vaccines without religious exemption. They represented Amish individuals applying for vaccine exemptions for religious reasons. Though the federal district court and the Second Circuit Court ruled against them, the Supreme Court rejected the original judgment, requiring a rehearing based on the Mahmoud v. Taylor case. They anticipate a favorable ruling where parents have the right to religious vaccine exemptions for their children unless there is a compelling state interest.
In California and some states, using incorrect gender pronouns is legally classified as “sexual harassment.” With 37 offices nationwide, the Pacific Justice Institute sends a clear message to school districts that any form of retaliation against children will not be tolerated. Having recently won a case in Michigan, their success rate over the past two years has reached its highest level since their establishment in 1997.
Parents are encouraged to reach out to the Pacific Justice Institute if they encounter instances where their “opt-out” requests were disregarded, males accessing female changing rooms, or participating in female sports. They are handling numerous relevant cases and have the capacity to assist more families.
Lebsack suggested that parents should fill out a Uniform Complaint form to report discrimination or harassment by teachers against religious believers, as religious beliefs are strictly protected by law.
Buehrer advised that parents should speak directly with teachers and use a dialogue strategy of “help me understand” to clarify the teacher’s intentions. If communication is ineffective, they should escalate the issue to higher authorities.
Lastly, Buehrer and Dacus touched upon the importance of parental involvement, communication, staying informed, understanding their rights, and advocating for their children’s well-being within the educational system, emphasizing the need for parents to be proactive in protecting their children’s values and beliefs.