Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay
Lessons in higher education: What California can learn
Keeping California public university options open
Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away
The debt to degree connection
College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life
I recently saw a sign that said: “Make school board meetings boring again!” It could have been a directive to two Southern California school districts, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, the only two school district board meetings that I’ve had the courage to attend in the past year.
First, in December when the new church-sponsored board majority was sworn in in Temecula, and this past Thursday night in Chino Valley, where the church-sponsored board majority there was considering a new policy initiative requiring all school personnel to share with parents within 72 hours (about three days) any confidential information that they might receive from a student.
I left the Temecula board meeting back in mid-December trying to figure out how is it in America today that some elements of organized religion feel threatened by what’s going on in the public schools, so much so that a pastor would call the public schools “the devil’s playground.”
I don’t know about you, but I sometimes turn to Hollywood — the real “devil’s playground” — for an answer. Sure enough, right there on Amazon Prime’s classic films webpage, I found Stanley Kramer’s 1960 Academy-Award nominated “Inherit the Wind,” a fictionalized version of the 1925 so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, which sent a high school biology teacher to jail for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Replete with Tennessee Ernie Ford’s rendition of “Give Me That Old-time Religion” playing in the background, the film captures a bunch of evangelical parents reacting to a major new perceived threat to the safety of their children posed by the public schools.
The threat is completely made up and phony, not unlike what we’re seeing in both the Temecula and Chino school systems recently — churchgoing parents believing that the public schools are rampant with so-called “groomers” determined to expose their young children to all manner of sexual deviance and debauchery. This fiction has had a degree of success in some recent school board elections, where the banner of “restoration of parental rights at the local level” has been the organizing principle for a new campaign of denying rights and returning to blatant bigotry in some parts of our progressive state.
Back in 2011, when I was appointed to the State Board of Education by Gov. Jerry Brown, I was one of the biggest supporters of his signature education policy initiative of returning to local control of public schools in California. I remember at the time that two veteran civil rights lawyers whom I deeply respect both cautioned me about my enthusiasm, reminding me that, in the long history of civil rights in America, appeals to local control had often been used to take away and deny rights rather than advance them. My reaction was: “Calm down, gentlemen, this is California, not the Deep South.” They know who they are, and I owe both an apology.
As someone who studied to be a priest before getting into public education, I’m struck by what I hear from sincere, churchgoing parents at these school board meetings like the one in Chino Valley this past Thursday night. The literal preaching and constant references to the Bible are remarkably similar in that they only embrace the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament, along with selected references to the New Testament almost exclusively drawn from passages focused on Judgment Day. What’s consistently missing are any references to the compassionate and courageous Jesus of the four gospels — a man who was looking out for the poor, the outcast, the stranger, those who were looked down upon in his time. That same Jesus of the gospels was also constantly pointing out the shortcomings of the religious establishment of his day. All of that is missing from the public testimony of evangelical parents at these two school board meetings that I’ve attended recently in Temecula and Chino.
Another dilemma that I faced following that initial visit to Temecula back in mid-December was how someone can stand up, raise their right hand and pledge to defend both the state and federal constitutions and laws, both of which provide protections for all youngsters, and then proceed to violate that public oath that they took by supporting policies that discriminate against some students. I was so exercised by this that I actually went to Sacramento and started knocking on the doors of legislative leaders and others looking for answers. Finally, a lawyer who is a good friend told me: “Look, Carl, the oath is merely ceremonial, once the county registrar has certified that you’ve won that seat — absent death, resignation, recall or defeat in the next election — that office is yours no matter what oath you took.” My quiet reaction was: “My God, isn’t that a horrible example and terrible civics lesson for our students?”
Once again, I turned to a classic Hollywood film for an answer. Fred Zinneman’s Academy Award-winning 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons,” vividly captures the importance of what taking an oath “before God and man” actually means. In this historical drama about the conflict between King Henry VIII of England and Sir Thomas More, everyone, including family members, implores More to avoid being beheaded by taking an oath recognizing Henry as supreme regarding religious matters. In a moving letter from prison to his own daughter, future St. Thomas tells her that his conscience would not allow him to violate an oath that he took before God and man.
At Thursday night’s school board meeting in Chino Valley, there were at least seven people present who, upon first entering their positions, had taken an oath to defend both the state and federal constitutions — the five elected school board members, the Chino Valley superintendent and the elected state superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. As a Californian and a Catholic who believes that all of God’s children in our public schools deserve the best from those who have taken a taken an oath to defend them, I’m hoping that we can all find common ground in the example and heroic life of public servant St. Thomas More that an oath taken before God and man still means something.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that our state is going to need a new coalition committed to keeping extremists off our public school boards. Both Temecula Valley and Chino Valley are showing us how important and challenging this new work is going to be in keeping all our children safe from bigotry and discrimination.
Let’s roll up our sleeves and go to work!
•••
Carl A. Cohn is professor emeritus and senior research fellow at Claremont Graduate University. He previously served as the superintendent of Long Beach and San Diego Unified school districts. His research on the new and emerging politics of education in America is supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Panelists discussed dual admission as a solution for easing the longstanding challenges in California’s transfer system.
A grassroots campaign recalled two members of the Orange Unified School District in an election that cost more than half a million dollars.
Legislation that would remove one of the last tests teachers are required to take to earn a credential in California passed the Senate Education Committee.
Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track and at a lower pay rate, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
Comments (20)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Nave Meros 9 months ago9 months ago
I don’t see why it is discriminatory or bigoted to tell parents their kids are adopting a new name. This makes no sense.
Replies
Adam Fisher 9 months ago9 months ago
It's not. I am genuinely baffled that people would actually think that it is better for a student suffering from gender dysphoria to not tell their parents. Students with a condition where they think they are a different sex than they actually are need significant psychological intervention. The parents must be involved. I can't imagine a student telling a teacher or counselor that "they are hearing voices" or "are feeling suicidal", but "please don't … Read More
It’s not. I am genuinely baffled that people would actually think that it is better for a student suffering from gender dysphoria to not tell their parents. Students with a condition where they think they are a different sex than they actually are need significant psychological intervention. The parents must be involved. I can’t imagine a student telling a teacher or counselor that “they are hearing voices” or “are feeling suicidal”, but “please don’t tell my parents” and the teacher or counselor then telling the student “no problem, your secret is safe with me”.
Mike Thompson 9 months ago9 months ago
Mr. Cohn, your editorial is bad in so may ways. Why do you describe the new board majority at Temecula Valley as "church-sponsored"? Did you describe the prior one as "teachers-union sponsored"? Why do you say the new parental notification policy requires all school personnel to share with parents any confidential information that they might receive from a student? That is not true. Did you read the policy? Did you listen to the … Read More
Mr. Cohn, your editorial is bad in so may ways.
Why do you describe the new board majority at Temecula Valley as “church-sponsored”? Did you describe the prior one as “teachers-union sponsored”?
Why do you say the new parental notification policy requires all school personnel to share with parents any confidential information that they might receive from a student? That is not true. Did you read the policy? Did you listen to the school district’s attorney?
Why do you say that this restoration of parental rights has been the organizing principle for returning to blatant bigotry? Why is it bigoted to require teachers to tell parents if their children want to change their name?
Why do you say that back in 2011 you were a big supporter of returning to local control of public schools, yet as soon as you disagree with the decisions made by locally elected officials you think we now need more state control? If situation were reversed and it was the state advocating for parental notification and a local board advocating for student confidentiality, would you argue for more local controls? You are really only saying that you don’t like the governance because you disagree with their decision. Maybe the rule should be simply that you decide.
Why do you say that these board members that you criticize violated their oath to defend the state and federal constitutions? Not a single court has opined that students have a constitutional right to require a teacher keep information from their parents that the students voluntarily disclosed. It is more likely that the confidentiality clause means that a student cannot be forced to state their gender identity. But if they choose to disclose their identity, then it is no longer confidential.
And by the way, your lawyer friend who told you that “absent death, resignation, recall, or defeat in the next election – the office is yours no matter what oath you took” does not seem to be a very good lawyer. For example, California Government Code 1770 lists several other reasons where an office becomes vacant, including moving out of your area, being physically out of the state for more than 60 days, failing to discharge duties for more than three months, being convicted of a felony, among other reasons. One important reason an elected school board can’t be removed from office? Because you don’t think a school board’s vote is legal.
As anyone who thinks clearly can understand, your real issue is that you disagree with the board’s decision. Just say that – that you disagree with the people charged with making the decision. You did get one thing right – if you disagree with their decisions, encourage the public to vote them out of office next election. Good luck with that.
Replies
Carl Cohn 9 months ago9 months ago
Mike- I plead guilty to referencing a couple of Academy Award-winning films from the 1960's, but you're taking us all the way back to the 1944 winner "Gaslight" with your comment. Are you suggesting that the media completely manufactured the church-sponsored rally, at which pastor Tim Thompson of the 412 Church publicly recruited the new school board majority in Temecula Valley Unified? Or, are you suggesting that pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel isn't calling … Read More
Mike- I plead guilty to referencing a couple of Academy Award-winning films from the 1960’s, but you’re taking us all the way back to the 1944 winner “Gaslight” with your comment. Are you suggesting that the media completely manufactured the church-sponsored rally, at which pastor Tim Thompson of the 412 Church publicly recruited the new school board majority in Temecula Valley Unified? Or, are you suggesting that pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel isn’t calling the signals in Chino Valley Unified?
Look for a press conference this morning where some equity-minded legal giants will have something to say about your bogus claims!
Mike Thompson 9 months ago9 months ago
Mr. Cohn, Please post a link to the press release if you can, I would love to see it! Regarding "Gaslighting", my experinece has been that when someone says that in response to a question what the really mean is "You boxed me in with your question and I really don't know how to answer it without being embarrassed." So I'll keep it as simple as I can to just two questions. 1. Do you think the decision of … Read More
Mr. Cohn,
Please post a link to the press release if you can, I would love to see it!
Regarding “Gaslighting”, my experinece has been that when someone says that in response to a question what the really mean is “You boxed me in with your question and I really don’t know how to answer it without being embarrassed.”
So I’ll keep it as simple as I can to just two questions.
1. Do you think the decision of what books and materials to use for a given class should be made at the State level or by the local school district?
2. Why is it “bigoted”, to use your word, to require teachers to notify parents if their children want to use a different name than the one they gave them, when they have made that request public at school?
Carl Cohn 9 months ago9 months ago
I asked you two very specific questions about the pastors of the 412 Church and Calvary Chapel. Sorry, but you’re the one who was too “embarrassed” to answer. Nice try!
The lawsuit by Public Counsel is well-reported by most media outlets, including this one.
Mike Thompson 9 months ago9 months ago
Ok, I'll answer your two questions. No, I am not suggesting that the media completely manufactured the church-sponsored rally, at which pastor Tim Thompson of the 412 Church publicly recruited the new school board majority in Temecula Valley Unified. I fully believe the 412 Church recruited these board members. And no, I am not suggesting that pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel isn’t calling the signals in Chino Valley Unified. I don't know … Read More
Ok, I’ll answer your two questions.
No, I am not suggesting that the media completely manufactured the church-sponsored rally, at which pastor Tim Thompson of the 412 Church publicly recruited the new school board majority in Temecula Valley Unified. I fully believe the 412 Church recruited these board members.
And no, I am not suggesting that pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel isn’t calling the signals in Chino Valley Unified. I don’t know him, but I’ll assume he is calling the shots.
Now, will you answer my two questions?
1. Do you think the decision of what books and materials to use for a given class should be made at the State level or by the local school district?
2. Why is it “bigoted”, to use your word, to require teachers to notify parents if their children want to use a different name than the one they gave them, when they have made that request public at school?
Carl Cohn 9 months ago9 months ago
Thanks for the outreach, Mike! With regard to your first question, I believe that 98% of the time, these questions about curriculum should be decided by local boards of education. However, when a decision is made that could cause irreparable harm to students or teachers, the state has a legal duty and obligation to intervene. Don't know if you've actually read the 57-page complaint in the Public Counsel lawsuit against the Temecula Valley Unified Board of … Read More
Thanks for the outreach, Mike!
With regard to your first question, I believe that 98% of the time, these questions about curriculum should be decided by local boards of education. However, when a decision is made that could cause irreparable harm to students or teachers, the state has a legal duty and obligation to intervene. Don’t know if you’ve actually read the 57-page complaint in the Public Counsel lawsuit against the Temecula Valley Unified Board of Education, but it’s an absolutely brilliant description of what irreparable harm actually looks like in a school district.
With regard to your second question, it’s pretty clear that the highest law enforcement officer in our state, Attorney General Rob Bonta, believes that the new policy recently adopted in Chino Valley Unified may well be illegal. He called it a “forced outing policy that threatens the safety and well-being of LGBTQ+ students vulnerable to harassment and potential abuse from peers and family members unaccepting of their gender identity.”
With all due respect, Webster defines “bigotry” as “particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular group.”
It’s clear to me that the AG and his team of lawyers recognize “bigotry” when they see it in a school board’s policy.
Adam Fisher 9 months ago9 months ago
Dr. Cohn, who do you think should be responsible for curriculum decisions if not the local school board? Should this be the responsibility of the State of California?
Carl Cohn 9 months ago9 months ago
In most instances, it should be the local school board, unless their decision does not comport with state and federal law.
Adam Fisher 9 months ago9 months ago
That is good to hear. All the curriculum decisions are left up to the local school board, as long as they are not against the law. I'm glad we agree on that. I've seen some teachers at the Temecula board meetings say that because their recommended social studies curriculum was vetted and approved by 47 teachers, it should be accepted. At least we can agree that that isn't true, that it is the … Read More
That is good to hear. All the curriculum decisions are left up to the local school board, as long as they are not against the law. I’m glad we agree on that.
I’ve seen some teachers at the Temecula board meetings say that because their recommended social studies curriculum was vetted and approved by 47 teachers, it should be accepted. At least we can agree that that isn’t true, that it is the school board’s decision, as long as it is not illegal.
Nave Meros 9 months ago9 months ago
Was the Temecula school board’s suggested curriculum illegal?
Tyler Wilder 9 months ago9 months ago
Typical article. One sided as always. We don’t have reporters anymore. Just glorified bloggers. The state government is broken beyond repair. That’s why thousands leave every week. Most school districts are broken. But that’s ok as long as they tow the line. Democrats don’t care.
Todd Maddison 9 months ago9 months ago
I certainly agree with “let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work”, but shouldn’t that work be “improving the education of our kids”? Which is exactly what the “extremist” parents want – a focus on education, not social issues, and particularly not on sexuality. Much as I appreciate Carl’s work, here he seems to have fallen into the all-too-common approach of simply labelling the position he opposes in a way that he knows will … Read More
I certainly agree with “let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work”, but shouldn’t that work be “improving the education of our kids”? Which is exactly what the “extremist” parents want – a focus on education, not social issues, and particularly not on sexuality.
Much as I appreciate Carl’s work, here he seems to have fallen into the all-too-common approach of simply labelling the position he opposes in a way that he knows will generate knee-jerk reactions that can be fostered without any need to actually think through the positions.
Here we see the “extremist” label trotted out. As in “our state is going to need a new coalition committed to keeping extremists off our public school boards.”
So…. For at least a hundred years, it was considered “normal” – and to some degree expected – that a teacher or school would inform parents if their kids appeared to be having issues related to mental health. That might be as innocuous as disruptive behavior or as serious as suicidal tendencies, but if a teacher had a child say something to them indicative that the student was struggling with something, it was considered part of their duty to report it. This was completely accepted by the educational establishment.
Also for a hundred years, it was expected that a school library would be curated in a way that kept out materials inappropriate for kids of whatever age that library served. Much as my high school self would have loved it, you would not have found either the latest Penthouse Forum or the Anarchist’s Cookbook in my high school library. That’s the way schools were run, and again the education establishment accepted that.
Now, particularly in the last few years, we’ve seen a complete shift away from that. Now the educational establishment seems to think teachers should not be telling parents when their kids are struggling with something and libraries are not expected to filter their collections in age-appropriate ways.
Whether you feel gender dysphoria is a good thing or a bad thing, it is most certainly a mental issue a child would struggle with, and whether you think “every book should be allowed” in school libraries or not if you’ve looked at the material being discussed at meetings it’s clear why those materials are being opposed by some.
The parents being labelled “extremists” are, in reality, the exact opposite. They are simply advocating for a return to “the way things worked” for a long, long time into the past. Advocating for “no change” is hardly extremism. Extremism is advocating for change – particularly change that takes something in a completely different direction.
That is most certainly not what the parents here are doing.
The parents here would more rightly be called “traditionalists”. But we’re not going to call them that because there is no knee-jerk reaction to that word. People reading that might actually be willing to understand what they’re trying to do – and perhaps even agree with them.
Can’t have that, can we?
The true extremists are those who have taken our education system away from the path that it has been on and are supporting radical change in that. Particularly radical change in a way that parents do not feel is appropriate.
And note the amount of space they’re taking up doing that on something that has nothing to do with improving education.
Imagine if Thurmond had used his time to show up at one of the many districts that is performing ever more poorly academically every year, and advocated for them to get their s—t together, stop using education money to simply give themselves outsized bonus raises and instead consider it a crises that they are not doing a good job educating kids!
That’s not a world we live in, unfortunately…
Eleanor 9 months ago9 months ago
Thank you for your important editorial, Dr. Cohn. There is so much hate and fear motivating these policies. It is important that we all stand up to the bullies like those in Temecula and Chino Valley and tell them that their behavior and their policies are unacceptable.
Brenda Lebsack- Interfaith Statewide Coalition Founder 9 months ago9 months ago
Mr Cohn - I'd like to invite you to visit the Interfaith Statewide Coalition Website to help inform yourself of what's being taught to our youngest of children in California Schools under the guise of "inclusion". It is www.Interfaith4Kids.com. Faiths of all races and language groups are joining together to oppose the radical teachings that tell kids their gender can change like the weather based on their feelings. https://interfaith4kids.com/index.php/our-media/gender-books-in-elementary-schools-cause-gender-confusion-in-children Mr. Cohn, do you know … Read More
Mr Cohn – I’d like to invite you to visit the Interfaith Statewide Coalition Website to help inform yourself of what’s being taught to our youngest of children in California Schools under the guise of “inclusion”.
It is http://www.Interfaith4Kids.com.
Faiths of all races and language groups are joining together to oppose the radical teachings that tell kids their gender can change like the weather based on their feelings. https://interfaith4kids.com/index.php/our-media/gender-books-in-elementary-schools-cause-gender-confusion-in-children
Mr. Cohn, do you know what the definition of “nonbinary” is according to my school district’s Safe School Climate document produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Is it: boundless range of identities that can exist beyond the spectrum of male and female.
Yes, we indeed have work to do to stop this misinformation and bring in school choice so that these extremist doctrines of boundless identities being taught in the name of “social justice” will not have a captive audience of impressionable imaginative trusting children.
And concerning religious “zealots” as you say – did you fail to notice that the California Teachers Union endorsed the Catholic Hate Group – The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in June 2023?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/06/21/dodgers_strike_out_with_fans_kowtow_to_radical_teachers_unions_149380.html
Pam 9 months ago9 months ago
While I respect the thoughts around protecting children, this is a very different California than the one that Mike Kirst and Jerry Brown envisioned. Education has been "politicized" to the point we have forgotten our primary purpose is educate of our children for college and career readiness. Unlike the Scopes example, no child is being denied an education. There are state-wide bullying policies in place to protect children. Today we have public officials demanding … Read More
While I respect the thoughts around protecting children, this is a very different California than the one that Mike Kirst and Jerry Brown envisioned. Education has been “politicized” to the point we have forgotten our primary purpose is educate of our children for college and career readiness. Unlike the Scopes example, no child is being denied an education. There are state-wide bullying policies in place to protect children.
Today we have public officials demanding that school districts mandate their ideology or deal with the wrath of Sacramento. Do they have this authority… perhaps we should consult our friends in Louisiana about their experiences from Governor Huey Long. Communities (voters) should have the right to make their own local decisions and debate amongst themselves to arrive at the right answer for their voters. If their boards are out of sync with the community then they need to remove them with their elections.
Kip Grubb 9 months ago9 months ago
Organized religions, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, or any other organization in America are entitled to 1st Amendment rights. The same rights that you have when writing your editorials. Vailed inferences, the smugness in your writing, reflects your disdain for the rights of others.
Replies
Scott 9 months ago9 months ago
It seems you missed the point that Dr. Cohn is making. Dr. Cohn was my superintendent when I worked in Long Beach Unified. I can attest that he only cares about all students being supported and successful. He also supports all to speak their minds and ideas. Your comment about his wanting to take away First Amendment rights of others is completely wrong. Dr. Cohn's point is these radical conservatives being elected to school boards … Read More
It seems you missed the point that Dr. Cohn is making.
Dr. Cohn was my superintendent when I worked in Long Beach Unified. I can attest that he only cares about all students being supported and successful. He also supports all to speak their minds and ideas. Your comment about his wanting to take away First Amendment rights of others is completely wrong.
Dr. Cohn’s point is these radical conservatives being elected to school boards lately are trying to take away students’ rights to learn in a supportive classroom where well-rounded, modern curriculum is being used to prepare them for college and the working world. He would like this trend to stop and for us to band together and stand up against these extremists that are damaging the education progression for students in California.
As a 30-year educator that has served in four school districts, I am worried that these conservative radicals are not accurate in their arguments of what is occurring in schools and classrooms. A conservative extremist has the right to provide their thoughts and opinions. However, I would like board members to speak the truth and not talk about conspiracy theories or make absolute false statements to try to take away a student’s right to learn in a supportive school environment and prepare them for a diverse modern world.
Mike Thompson 9 months ago9 months ago
There is nothing about telling a parent that their child "Susan" wants to be known as "Willian" at school that is "not supporting" the student. The school supports the student by making sure that parents know that the child has changed their identity at school. This is so fundamental it boggles my mind that anyone would think it is better for the student to keep that from the parents. If the teacher has … Read More
There is nothing about telling a parent that their child “Susan” wants to be known as “Willian” at school that is “not supporting” the student. The school supports the student by making sure that parents know that the child has changed their identity at school. This is so fundamental it boggles my mind that anyone would think it is better for the student to keep that from the parents. If the teacher has a bona fide reason to believe that telling the parents might cause injury to the student, they should report that to authorities immediately.