Komrosky was elected as part of a three-member conservative majority in November 2022. Upon taking office near the end of that year, the bloc immediately thrust the Riverside County school system of 28,000 students to the forefront of the nation’s culture wars.
Over the next year, under Komrosky’s leadership, the Temecula Valley Unified School District restricted the teaching of critical race theory, limited which flags could be flown and approved a policy that involved notifying parents of student gender identification.
The activism resulted in ongoing litigation, as well as state intervention that prompted the school system to back down substantially from efforts to restrict the subject matter on state-mandated educational topics.
If Komrosky were to be recalled, it would end a 2-2 stalemate that has existed since Komrosky ally Danny Gonzalez resigned in December after announcing he was moving out of state. The five-member school board will not be complete until after elections in November.
This week’s balloting affected only the District 4 seat, representing the eastern and central portion of the district.
The Temecula majority followed a policy playbook that has come to characterize that of religious conservatives elected to local offices that have enormous influence on what and how children are taught in public schools.
Komrosky made no attempt to hide his religious conviction — it’s right there in his bio on the social media platform X: “God fearing patriot who loves our country. Full time College Professor teaching logic and critical thinking, and servant of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.”
But his policies also were intended to and presumed to have broad appeal.
“Parent’s rights have been revoked and ignored,” he wrote on his website opposing the recall. “I will advocate strongly for family rights and our children’s rights regarding their safety and education. I will stand against unnecessary school mandates that harm families.”
For him, this included a parental-notification policy intended to alert parents when their children exhibited any sign of identifying with a gender other than the one on their birth certificate.
Komrosky and his allies believe parents have a fundamental right to be involved in all aspects of their children’s lives, especially on matters as consequential as gender identification.
Opponents contend that blanket parent-notification policies violate student privacy and civil rights in state law and the education code — and that the near-universal outing of transgender students to parents would put some children at serious risk.
The legality of parent-notification policies remains in play. The Chino Valley and Temecula school boards approved an essentially identical policy — and each district was sued. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued the Chino Valley Unified School District, and a coalition of parents, students, individual teachers and the teachers union sued Temecula Valley.
The judge in the Chino Valley case found the policy to be substantially illegal in a preliminary ruling. And Chino Valley subsequently approved a revised policy, which it hopes will accomplish the same purpose while passing legal muster.
A different judge upheld Temecula’s policy, a ruling that is being appealed.
That lawsuit also alleges the board majority is hostile toward LGBTQ+ topics and students — citing the board’s refusal to adopt a state-approved curriculum for elementary schools that includes a brief, optional passage in fourth-grade material about late San Francisco County Supervisor Harvey Milk, the state’s first out gay elected official, who was assassinated in 1978.
A threatened fine by Gov. Gavin Newsom prompted the board to approve the curriculum, which had been recommended by teachers and administrators and was in line with state learning standards.
The issue is not over. The board voted to move this fourth-grade lesson on California civil rights movements to the end of the year, to give time to find an “age-appropriate curriculum” that could be substituted in place of “sexualized topics of instruction.”
The lesson in question includes paragraphs noting that LGBTQ+ individuals and groups fought for civil rights, including the right to marry, but has no discussion of sex.
That Temecula teacher-led suit also seeks to overturn the district policy to restrict the teaching of critical race theory, an academic legal framework — taught almost exclusively at the university level — that examines how racial inequality and racism have been systemically embedded in American institutions.
Critical race theory has been another culture-war tinderbox across the nation. The Temecula list of banned concepts embodies common conservative assertions, including that teachers use critical race theory to make white students feel guilty about being white. Many education experts consider this characterization of how teachers have been dealing with the topic of race to be inaccurate and incomplete.
Temecula is apparently the only California district facing litigation over its policy on critical race theory.
But culture-war issues are playing out in other Southern California school districts including Orange Unified and Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified in Orange County and Murrieta Valley Unified in Riverside County. Similar ideological struggles have unfolded in Rocklin Unified and the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, both north of Sacramento, and the Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County.
Times staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.