Know Your Rights: Legal Protections in K-12
Key Principles
Teachers may not promote personal viewpoints in the classroom.
Students have a right to a safe, inclusive classroom environment .
The following laws and policies support the above principles. While the state-specific laws apply to California, all states have similar guidelines and support the same principles.
1. Teachers may not advocate for personal viewpoints in the classroom.
In the classroom, teachers act as the government’s representatives and may not advocate for their personal opinions, whether through instruction, assignments, or resources.
California AB 715: “Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum … rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.”
Federal district court decisions confirm:
“[A teacher] speaks not as an individual, but as a public employee, and the school district is free to “take legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that its message is neither garbled nor distorted.” [US Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.][1]
“We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes…[2]
-
More Case Law (US Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court has long held that Districts have a responsibility to regulate classroom speech and instruction. The State and districts have an obligation to ensure that instruction serves the educational and social interests of students.
“There is a compelling state interest in the choice and adherence to a suitable curriculum for the benefit of our young citizens and society. It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please.” Palmer v. Board of Educ.444 U.S. 1026 as cited in Webster, 917 F2d 1004
“[S]peech by teachers around students in school-related settings necessarily constitutes government speech…”Johnson v. Poway 658 F.3d 954. The majority opinion wrote, “When Bradley Johnson … performs the duties he is paid to perform, he speaks not as an individual, but as a public employee…”
“… [S]econdary school teachers occupy a unique position for influencing secondary school students, thus creating a concomitant power in school authorities to choose the teachers and regulate their pedagogical methods. Id. "The State exerts great authority and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements, and because of the students' emulation of teachers as role models and the children's susceptibility to peer pressure." [3]
California confirms these restrictions further in Education Codes and Board Policies:
Education Code § 60045: “(a) All instructional materials adopted by any governing board for use in the schools shall be, to the satisfaction of the governing board, accurate, objective, and current and suited to the needs and comprehension of pupils at their respective grade levels.”
Education Code § 49091.12 (a) students “may not becompelled to affirm or disavow any particular personally or privately held world view, religious doctrine, or political opinion.”
Almost all California districts have adopted controversial issues Board Policy (BP) 6144:
“In the classroom, teachers act on behalf of the district and are expected to follow the adopted curriculum. In leading or guiding class discussions about issues that may be controversial, a teacher may not advocate his/her personal opinion or viewpoint.”
“Instruction shall be presented in a balanced manner, addressing all sides of the issue without bias or prejudice and without promoting any particular point of view….”
“Adequate factual information shall be provided to help students objectively analyze and evaluate the issue and draw their own conclusions.”
Though almost all school districts follow the above policy, the wording can differ slightly and is available on the district website.
[1] Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995)
[2]Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006)
[3]Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 584 as cited in Webster, 917 F.2d 1004
2. Students have a right to a safe, inclusive classroom environment.
Classroom signage, flags (when not directly related to curriculum), and teacher apparel can all be examples of advocacy and are part of the school environment. These elements are all subject to the below laws, which require the districts to provide the students’ rights to a hostile-free environment.
The California Department of Education (CDE) relied on Educational Codes, noted below, when responding to a 2025 case of a teacher promoting anti-Israel viewpoints in the classroom, wearing “Free Palestine” clothing, and hanging associated signs in the classroom. The CDE assessed that such forms of personal advocacy were unacceptable.
Education Code § 201 requires schools to provide an educational environment “free from discrimination and harassment.”
Education Code § 51101: (7) provides that parents “have a school environment for their child that is safe and supportive of learning.”
AB 715 affirms that classroom materials can be, in and of themselves, discriminatory. Representatives of the targeted group do NOT need to be present in the class nor do they need to show personal harm. "Discriminatory bias…. does not require a showing of direct harm.... Members of a protected group do not need to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias.”
Any individual who witnesses discriminatory bias can file a complaint, anonymously if desired.
-
AB 715 provides that these provisions apply to “any textbook, instructional material, supplemental instructional material, professional development materials, or curriculum for classroom instruction.”
Education Code § 220 prohibits any discrimination in schools “on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion ….” (Also Education Codes §§ 51500, 51501 for textbooks)
Education Code § 51500 “A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”
3. Parents (and community members) have the right to view the full curriculum for any course, including all assigned materials.
The following laws ensure that the public has the right to view all parts of a school curriculum on any subject. This applies to presentation slides, assignments, resource links, and any other materials. Education Code § 51101 grants parents the right to “examine curriculum materials used in their child's classes” and further allows parents to “observe classrooms…,” enabling parents to visit student classes in real time.
AB 715 further enumerates that districts will provide “materials in a reasonable amount of time…
-
Education Code § 60010 (h) defines “instructional materials” as “all materials that are designed for use by pupils and their teachers as a learning resource and help pupils to acquire facts, skills, or opinions or to develop cognitive processes. Instructional materials may be printed or non-printed, and may include textbooks, technology-based materials, other educational materials, and tests." Parents, and the public at large, have the right to review and request any classroom related materials, including classroom slides, handouts, resources, and textbooks.
California Public Records Act(CPRA, often referred to as “PRA”) enumerates the public's rights to obtain and review writings and records maintained by California agencies, including school districts. This includes classroom materials, teacher training materials, school-distributed materials and school board meeting agendas and minutes. All states and the federal government have similar transparency laws.
In an effort to amplify transparency, the California Constitution notes that such laws shall be “broadly construed if [they] further the people’s right of access.” (Cal. Const, art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2).)
The Brown Act requires that school boards conduct public discussions about curriculum adoption, textbook approvals, and instructional policies. In order to thoughtfully engage in this process, parents must be able to review the curriculum or textbooks in question.
Related California Department of Education (CDE) Decisions on Antisemitism
-
In a 2025 case from Campbell, the CDE’s Direct Investigations Office referred to Education Code § 51500, “A teacher shall not give instruction … that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity …” and found that unlawful discrimination, harassment, and intimidation occur when classroom lessons are biased and could contribute to a hostile environment.
CDE concluded that “[b]y … only presenting instruction and instructional materials that offered a viewpoint of settler colonialism and anti-Zionism, EC § 51500 was violated” and of necessity too, Education Code § 200. [4/20/25, Case Matter No: 2025-0008]
-
In a prominent in the San Francisco Unified School District, the CDE explained that political classroom signs, teacher apparel, and teacher “side comments” can all be forms of advocacy and constitute inappropriate, one-sided discriminatory bias.
“Teacher identified in the complaint promoted a discriminatory bias in his instruction, when, without any demonstrable efforts to present disparate or opposing views, he:
- wore political attire and accessories at school, such as wearing a keffiyeh and symbols of Palestine in the classroom as a political statement;
- made statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to students and in the hearing of students, such as ‘Join the resistance, bro,’ ‘I support Palestinian resistance,’ and ‘Free Palestine’; and
- displayed political items in [redacted] classrooms, including a sticker on his personal laptop, a statement written on his white board, multiple Palestinian flags, and a poster stating ‘Until Liberation & Return’. [San Francisco Unified School District, 6/5/25, 2025-0059; click here for the rest of the quote.]
The CDE determined that biased, one-sided classroom discussions on anti-Zionism violated California state law in a Tamalpais School District. The CDE determined that unlawful discrimination took place when a classroom teacher’s anti-Zionist statements “induce[d] discomfort and offense.” [5/8/25, Case Matter No: 2025-0040]
-
“District’s repeated publication of a map that excluded Israel, and which instead labeled the area as ‘Palestine,’ coupled with the continued use of content from an organization they suspected to reflect antisemitic sentiments, is in violation of board policies …, the educators’ code of ethics, and the presentation of controversial issues.” and “constituted discrimination towards Jewish persons.” [10/20/25, CDE Case Matter No: 2025-0152]
-
The Educational Code specifically prohibits teachers from engaging in political activism at school. California Education Code: §§ 7050-7057 confirms that, “[t]he Legislature finds that political activities of school employees are of significant statewide concern” (§ 7050).
Section 7055: “The governing body of each local agency may establish rules and regulations on the following:
(a) Officers and employees engaging in political activity during working hours [and]
(b) Political activities on the premises of the local agency.”
California Education Code § 51530: “No teacher giving instruction in any school, or on any property belonging to any agencies included in the public school system, shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism.”