California has issued new guidance explaining how AB 715 affects curriculum, instructional materials, professional development, discrimination complaints, and state oversight of public schools.

Editorial Note

This article explains California Assembly Bill 715 and recently issued California Department of Education guidance concerning discrimination, instructional materials, curriculum, professional development, and school accountability. It is intended for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

AB 715 operates alongside existing California civil-rights and education laws. Whether particular classroom content, professional development, or district conduct violates state law depends on the facts and context. Political disagreement, controversial instruction, or criticism of a government or ideology should not automatically be equated with unlawful discrimination against students based on protected characteristics.

California Is Giving Schools New Guidance on AB 715

California school districts, charter schools, county offices of education, teachers, and administrators are receiving clearer direction about a major new state civil-rights framework governing classroom materials, professional development, and discriminatory conduct.

On July 17, the California Department of Education issued a management bulletin explaining requirements connected to Assembly Bill 715, legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2025 as part of a broader effort to address antisemitism, discrimination, and bias in K–12 schools.

The law does more than create another statement against discrimination.

It strengthens the responsibilities of local education agencies when instructional materials or school actions may subject students to unlawful discrimination, creates new state-level oversight mechanisms, and gives California additional tools for requiring corrective action when districts do not address violations.

The policy arrives during a period of intense disagreement over classroom instruction, political expression, religion, race, antisemitism, gender, LGBTQ issues, and the boundaries between controversial academic discussion and discriminatory treatment.

For school leaders, the practical challenge is significant. Districts must continue allowing legitimate academic discussion while also ensuring that curriculum, classroom activities, and professional development do not cross into unlawful discrimination.

What AB 715 Actually Changes

AB 715 strengthens several parts of California education law rather than creating one simple prohibition.

Under Education Code Section 244, school districts, county boards of education, and charter schools may not adopt or approve textbooks, instructional materials, supplemental instructional materials, professional-development materials, or classroom curriculum when their use would subject a student to unlawful discrimination under California law.

That requirement reaches beyond the formal textbook selected by a school board.

Supplemental instructional resources and professional-development materials can also fall within the framework.

The law additionally requires local education agencies to respond when governing boards know or have reason to know that discriminatory materials were used or discriminatory actions occurred.

That response includes investigating and remediating the problem.

The important shift is therefore not simply about what materials a district initially approves. It is also about what the district does after a potential violation comes to its attention.

California Already Prohibited Discriminatory Instruction

Some of the principles highlighted in the new CDE guidance existed before AB 715.

California Education Code Section 51500 prohibits teachers from providing instruction—and school districts from sponsoring activities—that promote discriminatory bias.

Education Code Section 51501 similarly prohibits governing boards from adopting textbooks or instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of protected characteristics.

California also maintains broader nondiscrimination protections under Education Code Section 220.

Those protections cover characteristics including disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, immigration status, and other characteristics incorporated through California hate-crime law.

AB 715 therefore should not be understood as California suddenly deciding in 2026 that discriminatory instruction is prohibited.

What has changed is the accountability structure surrounding those protections.

Districts May Have to Investigate What Happens Inside Classrooms

One of the most consequential provisions involves what school governing bodies must do when they learn about a possible violation.

Under the law, if a school district, county office, or charter governing body knows or has reason to know that classroom materials were used or an action occurred that violated California's nondiscrimination protections, the agency must investigate and remediate the situation.

That language matters because it creates responsibilities after notice.

A district cannot necessarily avoid the issue simply because a teacher independently selected a supplemental resource that was never formally approved by the board.

Once officials become aware of potentially discriminatory classroom material or conduct, the question becomes whether they appropriately investigate and respond.

Remediation can take different forms depending on what occurred.

The statute specifically allows corrective approaches that may include restorative-justice practices, but districts may need other responses depending on the seriousness of the violation.

Professional Development Is Covered Too

AB 715 also applies to professional development.

School boards and other local governing bodies may not approve professional-development materials or services that promote or support classroom practices or materials that would subject students to unlawful discrimination.

This could become particularly important because professional development often influences instruction long before materials appear in front of students.

District workshops may address culturally responsive teaching, history instruction, gender and identity, religion, equity, antisemitism, racism, classroom discussion, conflict in the Middle East, or other controversial subjects.

The new framework does not mean districts must avoid those subjects.

Instead, districts need to evaluate whether the training they approve encourages practices consistent with California's nondiscrimination requirements.

That creates an additional layer of responsibility for superintendents, curriculum directors, professional-development coordinators, and school boards.

AB 715 Creates a New California Office of Civil Rights

One of the law's largest structural changes is the creation of a new Office of Civil Rights under California's Government Operations Agency.

The office is designed to work directly with local education agencies to prevent and address discrimination and bias under California Education Code Section 220.

Its director is appointed by the governor and subject to Senate confirmation.

This expands the state-level infrastructure available for responding to discrimination in K–12 education.

The office is not simply intended to punish districts after violations occur. Its responsibilities also include working with schools on prevention and providing guidance and support.

AB 715 and companion legislation also created specialized discrimination-prevention roles, including an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator.

That structure reflects California's attempt to create more centralized expertise rather than leaving every district to independently interpret complicated discrimination disputes.

Antisemitism Was a Major Reason for the Law

AB 715 emerged largely from growing concern about antisemitism in California schools.

Gov. Newsom said when signing the legislation that California needed stronger mechanisms for confronting antisemitism and other forms of hate and discrimination.

Supporters argued that Jewish students and families had experienced harassment, biased classroom materials, and school responses they considered inadequate.

The law therefore specifically establishes an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator within California's expanded civil-rights structure.

At the same time, AB 715 is not limited to Jewish students.

The statutory nondiscrimination protections incorporated into the law apply broadly across protected characteristics.

That distinction is important.

A law motivated partly by concerns over antisemitism now creates procedures that may also affect complaints involving race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, nationality, immigration status, and other protected categories.

The Law Has Also Generated Concern Among Educators

AB 715 did not move through the Legislature without controversy.

Newsom acknowledged in his signing message that teachers, administrators, school boards, school employees, students, and civil-rights organizations raised significant concerns about potential unintended consequences.

Those concerns matter because anti-discrimination rules can become difficult to apply in subjects where students and educators discuss conflict, history, identity, politics, or religion.

A history teacher may discuss Zionism.

Students may debate Israeli government policy.

A class may examine Palestinian history.

Teachers may discuss terrorism, colonialism, nationalism, war, racism, religious prejudice, or competing historical claims.

Those topics can generate strong disagreement.

The legal challenge is distinguishing disagreement about ideas from discriminatory treatment of people.

A student criticizing Israel is not automatically expressing antisemitism.

A student criticizing Hamas is not automatically expressing hostility toward Palestinians or Muslims.

A lesson examining religion is not automatically discriminatory because someone finds it offensive.

Context matters.

Political Criticism and Discrimination Are Not the Same Thing

This distinction may become one of the most important issues in implementing AB 715.

Civil-rights protections safeguard people.

They should not automatically protect governments, political movements, organizations, or ideologies from criticism.

Schools must therefore avoid an overly simplistic approach in which uncomfortable political speech becomes a civil-rights violation merely because it relates to a protected group.

At the same time, political language can sometimes become a vehicle for attacking students based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, or another protected characteristic.

That means administrators will sometimes have to examine not merely the words used but also the educational context, audience, conduct, and effect.

A classroom discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, may involve sharp disagreement without discriminating against Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian students.

But a classroom environment in which students belonging to one of those groups are stereotyped, blamed collectively, excluded, threatened, or subjected to hostile treatment may raise a different legal question.

That line will not always be easy to draw.

Teachers Still Need Room to Teach Difficult Subjects

California's public schools teach subjects that cannot realistically be separated from controversy.

History includes genocide, slavery, colonialism, war, religious conflict, segregation, terrorism, political extremism, and civil-rights struggles.

Government classes examine policy disputes.

Literature often confronts racism, sexuality, faith, identity, and violence.

A meaningful education requires students to engage with difficult ideas.

The goal of nondiscrimination law should not be to produce classrooms in which educators are afraid to discuss controversial topics.

It should be to ensure that students can participate in those discussions without being treated unfairly because of who they are.

District implementation of AB 715 will therefore matter greatly.

Policies written too broadly could chill legitimate teaching.

Policies written too narrowly could leave discriminatory conduct unaddressed.

School leaders need to preserve both academic rigor and student civil rights.

Factual Accuracy Still Matters

California's curriculum framework already expects instructional materials to accurately and equitably portray the state's cultural and racial diversity.

The state also maintains social-content standards for reviewing instructional materials.

That background is important because curriculum disputes frequently involve more than offensive language.

They can involve whether students are being given reliable information.

Schools should distinguish between presenting contested historical interpretations and presenting unsupported claims as established fact.

Teachers do not have to pretend every historical issue has two equally credible positions.

But where meaningful scholarly disagreement exists, students benefit from understanding the evidence and competing interpretations rather than receiving ideological conclusions without context.

That approach may also reduce discrimination disputes.

Strong academic instruction asks students to examine evidence.

It does not require students to adopt a political identity.

Parents May Have Greater Reason to Review Materials

AB 715 could also increase parental attention to curriculum and supplemental materials.

California families already have rights relating to instructional transparency and school complaint procedures.

As districts respond to the new law, parents may increasingly ask what materials teachers are using, how those resources were selected, and what process exists when a family believes instructional content violates state law.

That does not mean a parent's objection automatically requires a district to remove material.

Schools must consider curriculum standards, academic freedom, statutory requirements, constitutional principles, and student civil rights.

But administrators should have a process for receiving and reviewing concerns.

Dismissing complaints solely because the subject is controversial can create as much risk as automatically agreeing with every objection.

Districts Could Face State Corrective Action

The strongest part of AB 715 may ultimately be its enforcement mechanism.

California Education Code provisions connected to the new framework authorize the state to require corrective action when local education agencies violate Section 244.

The CDE can notify an agency that corrective action is required.

If the district does not take the required action within 60 days, the department may use additional legal means to obtain compliance.

Corrective measures can include technical assistance and other specified actions authorized under state law.

That means AB 715 is not simply advisory guidance.

California now has a more structured state process for intervening when local agencies fail to resolve certain discrimination violations.

For school boards accustomed to substantial local control over curriculum, that represents an important accountability change.

School Boards Should Review More Than Textbooks

AB 715 also reinforces why school boards should think more broadly about instructional oversight.

Formal textbook adoption receives significant attention because it occurs publicly.

But modern classrooms use much more than textbooks.

Teachers use websites, videos, slide decks, primary-source documents, online platforms, worksheets, guest speakers, nonprofit resources, museum materials, social-media examples, and teacher-created lessons.

Professional development may introduce additional materials that later influence classroom instruction.

District compliance systems therefore cannot focus exclusively on board-adopted textbooks.

Schools need reasonable procedures for supplemental materials without creating a bureaucracy that requires central-office approval for every article or video a teacher uses.

Finding that balance will be one of the practical challenges of AB 715.

New To Education Analysis: California Should Avoid Turning Civil Rights Into Curriculum Censorship

The purpose of anti-discrimination law is important.

Students should not enter a classroom and be treated as representatives of a race, religion, nationality, gender, or political conflict they did not create.

Jewish students should not be blamed for the actions of the Israeli government.

Muslim or Palestinian students should not be treated as responsible for terrorism.

Students of any race should not be stereotyped because of historical or contemporary events.

Protecting students from that treatment is a legitimate educational responsibility.

But California must be equally careful not to turn civil-rights enforcement into a system that discourages legitimate academic debate.

A lesson can make a student uncomfortable without being discriminatory.

Historical facts can be disturbing.

Political criticism can be sharp.

Students can disagree with one another.

Teachers can present arguments that families strongly oppose.

The legal and educational question should be whether students are being subjected to unlawful discrimination—not whether everyone agrees with the lesson.

That distinction should remain central as AB 715 moves from legislation to everyday implementation.

Teachers Need Clear Rules, Not Vague Warnings

Frontline educators may face the greatest practical uncertainty.

A state law can use phrases such as “discriminatory bias,” while teachers still have to decide what that means during a seventh-period history class on a controversial Wednesday afternoon.

Districts therefore need practical guidance.

Teachers should know what conduct clearly violates policy, what classroom practices are protected, how controversial issues can be discussed, when administrators should be notified, and how a teacher should respond when a student claims a lesson is discriminatory.

Fear-based compliance is unlikely to produce strong teaching.

Clear standards are more effective.

Teachers should not have to choose between avoiding difficult subjects entirely and risking discipline for conducting a legitimate academic discussion.

Administrators Need to Document Their Response

The new requirement to investigate and remediate known or suspected violations makes administrative documentation especially important.

When a complaint arrives, districts should document what was alleged, who reviewed it, what materials were examined, what interviews occurred, what legal standards were applied, and what outcome followed.

That protects students.

It also protects educators and districts.

A poorly documented investigation can make it difficult to determine whether administrators genuinely evaluated a complaint or simply reacted to political pressure.

Schools should also distinguish between different outcomes.

A complaint might be substantiated.

It might be partially substantiated.

It might reveal poor instructional judgment without unlawful discrimination.

Or it may involve protected academic discussion that does not violate policy at all.

Those distinctions should appear in the record.

Districts Should Review Professional Development Now

One practical step California districts can take immediately is reviewing professional-development programs scheduled for the 2026–27 school year.

Districts should know who created the materials, what claims are presented as fact, whether the program appropriately addresses protected groups, and whether staff are being encouraged to use practices consistent with state law.

Outside consultants deserve the same scrutiny as district-created materials.

Purchasing a training program from a well-known organization does not transfer legal responsibility away from the school district.

Administrators should also make sure educators understand the difference between professional recommendations and mandatory legal requirements.

That distinction is often lost during training.

What Families Should Know

AB 715 does not give families an automatic veto over curriculum.

Parents who dislike a political position, historical interpretation, book, or classroom discussion do not necessarily have a discrimination claim.

At the same time, families who believe a child is being subjected to discriminatory treatment should document their concerns and use the district's complaint procedures.

Specificity helps.

Rather than saying a curriculum is simply “biased,” families can identify the particular material, lesson, statement, assignment, or conduct they believe created the problem.

That gives administrators something concrete to investigate.

Families should also distinguish between disagreement with an idea and treatment directed at their child because of a protected characteristic.

The legal standards are not identical.

What School Leaders Should Do Before Problems Escalate

Districts do not need to wait for a major civil-rights complaint before examining their procedures.

School leaders should review curriculum-adoption policies, supplemental-material guidance, professional-development approval systems, complaint procedures, documentation requirements, and staff training.

They should also identify who within the district is responsible for coordinating discrimination complaints.

Large districts may need specialized personnel.

Smaller districts may need access to county offices, legal counsel, or state technical assistance.

Most importantly, administrators should make sure educators understand that reporting a concern is not the same as concluding that discrimination occurred.

Investigations exist precisely because facts can be disputed.

AB 715 Is Part of a Larger California Shift

The new guidance fits within a broader transformation of California's education governance and civil-rights structure.

The state has recently strengthened oversight in areas involving instructional materials, book removals, discrimination complaints, student protections, and civil-rights enforcement.

That trend reflects a larger question about who should have the final word when local school decisions implicate statewide rights.

California has traditionally given local school districts significant authority.

AB 715 does not eliminate local control, but it reinforces that local discretion ends where state civil-rights protections begin.

That tension will likely remain important as districts implement the law.

Key Takeaways

California's July 17 management bulletin gives school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools new guidance for implementing AB 715 and related nondiscrimination laws.

The law prohibits local education agencies from approving curriculum, instructional materials, supplemental materials, or professional development that would subject students to unlawful discrimination.

When governing bodies know or have reason to know that discriminatory materials were used or prohibited conduct occurred, they must investigate and remediate the situation.

AB 715 also helps establish California's new Office of Civil Rights and expanded statewide infrastructure for addressing discrimination in K–12 schools.

The law does not mean controversial classroom discussions are automatically discriminatory. Schools will have to distinguish legitimate academic debate from unlawful treatment based on protected characteristics.

Districts that fail to correct qualifying violations can face additional state intervention.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does AB 715 ban teachers from discussing Israel and Palestine?

No. The law does not categorically prohibit instruction or discussion concerning Israel, Palestine, religion, war, or other controversial political subjects. The relevant legal question is whether instruction or school conduct subjects students to unlawful discrimination.

Does AB 715 apply only to antisemitism?

No. Antisemitism was an important motivation for the legislation, and the law creates an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, but California's underlying nondiscrimination protections cover numerous protected characteristics.

Can a school district still choose its own curriculum?

Generally, yes. California continues to provide local education agencies significant curriculum authority, subject to state academic, instructional, and civil-rights requirements.

Are professional-development materials covered?

Yes. AB 715 specifically addresses professional-development materials and services when they promote or support practices that would subject students to unlawful discrimination.

Can California force a district to correct a violation?

State law provides mechanisms for CDE to require corrective action when qualifying violations are identified. If an agency fails to correct the problem within the applicable period, additional enforcement mechanisms may be available.

Final Thoughts

AB 715 presents California schools with a challenge that is easy to describe but difficult to implement: protect students from discrimination without turning classrooms into places where teachers and students are afraid to discuss difficult ideas.

Those goals are not incompatible.

Students should be able to debate history, religion, politics, identity, and international conflict without being stereotyped because of who they are.

Teachers should be able to present difficult material without worrying that every disagreement will become a discrimination complaint.

Parents should have legitimate ways to raise concerns.

Administrators should investigate those concerns fairly rather than responding according to political pressure.

And the state should intervene when genuine discrimination is ignored without treating controversial instruction itself as proof of wrongdoing.

AB 715 gives California stronger enforcement tools.

How those tools are used will determine whether the law strengthens civil rights while preserving rigorous education—or creates new uncertainty over what teachers are allowed to teach.

For California schools, that implementation phase has now begun.

Support New To Education

New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, curriculum, civil rights, teacher responsibilities, student protections, and public education policy.

Visit NewToEducation.com to explore additional education reporting, tutoring and educational services, community resources, and ways to support our work.

LAUSD Lawsuit Tests Whether Schools Can Use Race When Distributing Educational Resources

California Student’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Tests School Duties During Political Conflict