The San Clemente City Council will soon consider a nonbinding resolution that would mark the city as in opposition to an education bill currently floating through the state legislature.
At the council’s March 21 meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Knoblock asked his colleagues if they would be interested in discussing whether to take a stance on Assembly Bill 1078, which Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson (D-Riverside County) introduced in February.
If enacted, local educational agencies and districts would be required to receive approval from the California State Board of Education to remove instructional materials; stop teaching certain curricula; remove books and other publications from libraries; and add people of all gender expressions and people who are LGBTQ+ to a list of diverse groups required to be accurately portrayed within instructional materials.
Knoblock said it was an issue of local control, and Councilmembers Victor Cabral and Gene James provided the support that allows for city staff to come back at a future meeting with a draft resolution and report.
“(Before this bill, if) our local school board decides that there’s an issue that they don’t want the teachers to teach, let’s say transgenderism, CRT (Critical Race Theory), certain pornography that’s been complained about in the required reading … the school board has the ability to deal with that issue at the local level,” he said.
He then passed out a draft copy he had written to the other councilmembers. According to Knoblock, the language used in the draft heavily reflected the Orange County Department of Education’s own resolution, which also expressed concerns about AB 1078.
Both resolutions argue that the United States has recognized the rights of parents to “direct the upbringing of their children,” the idea of local control of education is a “constitutional concept,” and that county and local education officials and school districts have more responsibility in operating the education system.
Additionally, the resolutions list other reasons to oppose the bill, including:
“Its transparent deviation and obstruction of parents and families in the local control of education. Its impositions of numerous state financial mandates on the state education budget reducing education dollars normally directed towards the costs of a student’s education.”
The Capistrano Unified School District has denied teaching CRT, which opponents believe generates anti-White sentiment and division. It has argued that the complex principles associated with the theory would be too advanced to teach at any grade level before college.
“Critical Race Theory should not be confused with equity, which many school districts have incorporated into their teaching methods and curriculum,” read an FAQ page from the Association of California School Administrators that CUSD has also used on its website.
Knoblock wrote in an email to San Clemente Times on Wednesday, March 29, that he was also concerned about the state expanding its “perpetual march” to take control from local communities.
“While the city doesn’t have jurisdiction in this issue, we can speak out on behalf of our children,” he said.
The resolution marks the third occasion in the last year in which Knoblock has asked the council to take an official stance on a trending political topic.
In early August 2022, he wanted San Clemente to declare itself as a “Sanctuary for Life” in the months following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. That resolution was eventually removed from the council’s agenda. Later that month, he proposed another resolution that would have asked California lawmakers to take steps to reduce voter fraud and increase public confidence in elections. The council voted that resolution down in a 3-2 vote.
Mayor Chris Duncan said that the latest item would distract the council from taking care of more urgent matters and drag it into a divisive conversation, which is why he did not initially second the mayor pro tem’s motion.
He added that he didn’t think the resolution was about local control, and that the action instead advanced a political agenda and served as an attack on public school administrators and teachers. There is no basis for not trusting such officials who work exhaustively to do the best for San Clemente’s children, Duncan said.
“I’m on the school site council at Vista Del Mar Elementary School,” said Duncan, a father of three school-aged children. “We get to have direct input onto the curriculum. So there already is a system in place for parents to have a say, and I can tell you that the administrators and teachers very much take our opinions into account.”
Councilmembers Cabral, James, and Mark Enmeier had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.
A media release from Assemblymember Jackson’s office regarding the bill stated that the law would “revolutionize how students learn and see themselves in the classroom.”
“We must strive to create a more equitable and inclusive education system for all students,” Jackson said in the release. “This bill will ensure that students in California receive a comprehensive education that celebrates the diversity of our state and promotes a sense of belonging in the classroom.”
AB 1078 is part of four bills within Jackson’s Anti-Racism Bill Package. The other legislation concerns combating hate crimes by creating a state Hate Crimes Intervention Unit, amending a proposition to allow for the inclusion of waivers for research-based and culturally specific interventions in state programs focused on equity, and requiring all state agencies and counties to conduct antiracism audits.
The bill has received backlash from other outside perspectives, including a Silicon Valley board trustee who argues transparency for parents would cease with its passing, as well as the California Parents Union and the California Family Council, which listed AB 1078 as one of the 10 worst bills introduced for the current legislative session.
CUSD and Orange County Board of Education officials were not able to provide comment as of press time.
Originally scheduled to be heard at the Assembly Education Committee’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon, March 29, the bill was recently pulled from the agenda, leaving its future up in the air.
Discussion about this post