AB 1955’s assault on parental rights and local school boards
Dear John,
Just when you think California legislators can’t thumb their noses at parents any harder, Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) introduced a bill this week that aims to strip control from local school boards. Ward’s AB 1955 — the Orwellian-named SAFETY Act — is an attempt to override the parental notification policies passed by a growing number of school boards across the state that require schools to inform parents if their child changes their name and/or gender at school.
It also attempts to codify the illegal California Department of Education “guidance” advising schools to lie to parents about students swapping genders. This comes after an attorney with the state Attorney General’s office admitted in federal court last month that the department’s guidance was unenforceable.
But what makes Ward’s move extra sleazy is that his legislation is what is known as a “gut and amend” bill. That means he hijacked another bill and replaced its text to create AB 1955, allowing him to skirt the usual legislative process that allows the bill to be debated and the public to weigh in on it through public hearings according to the predictable legislative calendar.
Instead, Ward introduced the bill, which is backed by the California Teachers Association and the powerful LGBTQ+ lobby — right before Memorial Day weekend and announced it will be heard by the Senate Education Committee this coming Wednesday, May 29. The Committee only gave parents and parent groups until today to submit letters opposing the bill.
There’s a lot that can be said about what’s wrong with these tactics and the bill itself, so what follows is the text of the letter California Policy Center submitted to the Committee yesterday. Despite the truncated deadline, we encourage you to submit your letters before Wednesday’s hearing. You can easily create an account to submit your letter through the Committee portal here. Learn more about how to submit a letter with our toolkit here (starting at 2:49 in the video guide).
We also ask that, if possible, you attend the hearing in person to speak out against this bill. The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. this Wednesday in Room 2100. If you plan to attend the hearing, you can let us know by replying to this email.
Finally, you can email your local legislators and ask them to oppose AB 1955 by using CPC’s Take Action Portal here.
***
|
|
May 22, 2024
Assemblyman Chris Ward
1021 O Street, Suite 6350
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT – ASSEMBLY BILL 1955, STRONG OPPOSITION
We at the California Policy Center write in strong opposition to Assembly Bill 1955 which claims to affirm current law — a law that doesn’t exist. It is difficult to believe that you, as the author — and some number of your colleagues — believe that this so-called SAFETY Act is anything but lipstick on a pig.
Here’s the bottom line: Public schools are meant to support parents in their efforts to educate their children, not to subvert parents as this bill would codify.
There are so many problems with this bill that a simple opposition letter cannot cover every one of them. It’s hard for skeptics to see this gut-and-amend as anything but an effort to hide those problems from public scrutiny, let alone adequate constitutional review.
We can expand upon the following key points should the committee be serious about its interest in sincere debate when AB 1955 is scheduled to be heard on May 29.
First, this bill is unconstitutional. It violates parents’ established authority over their children and would constitute – as a federal judge has already found – a trifecta of harms. It would harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if gender incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It would harm parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make healthcare decisions for their children. And finally, it would harm teachers, compelling them to violate parents’ rights by forcing teachers to conceal information they believe is critical to the welfare of their students. See Mirabelli v. Olson EUSD (2023), Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-WVG, September 14, 2023.
Second, this bill would also violate the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA is clear on the right of the parents to have universal access to information about their child from their public school. Indeed, it’s strange not to see any reference to FERPA in the legislative findings and declarations. Districts that create dummy files or "unofficial records" to “support” a new identity for kids who may believe they were born in the wrong body stand to lose federal funding under FERPA, which says: "No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g(a)(1)(A).
Third, this bill assumes that parents are dangerous and not to be trusted. As such, it presumes that the state or self-interested strangers are better positioned to deal with the difficulties of adolescence than parents. Hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements with victims of sex assault by public school employees is evidence that the opposite is too often true.
Fourth, while it is certainly prudent to protect the privacy of a child from the public – consistent with federal and state law – children do not have a right to privacy that transcends their parents’ well-established rights.
There’s a grim poetry in the fact that this bill has been gutted-and-amended in the second house. That reflects a deceptive practice, the kind which this bill would encourage. Shortcutting the house of origin committee hearings means that the public missed out on a robust discussion in the Assembly before the previous contents of an unrelated measure were replaced by some of the most controversial language this legislature has seen in years.
The Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction continue to harass local school districts for their adoption of policies affirmed by judges across the state. So, it’s noteworthy – curious, even – that this body would be legislating issues before the appellate process is complete. The legislature is generally hesitant to step in until the highest courts rule on controversial issues. This bill would break that norm.
Further, this bill does not (as you suggest) restate current law. It attempts, in fact, to codify the California Department of Education’s illegal guidance on AB 1266. Even the Attorney General has told a federal judge that the practice envisioned in this bill is currently “unenforceable” or illegal.
And we can’t help but notice the irony in your other bill, AB 1858. That bill would require parental notification and the option for an opt-out when executing school shooter drills. You recognize the need for “age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate drill content” and are careful about terminology used with impressionable minds, understanding that parents have the best perspective on their children’s behavior, mental capacity, emotional state and reaction to intense and adverse situations. That you can’t transpose that same awareness to this proposal is concerning and suggests that this is a politically motivated stunt meant to divide concerned Californians rather than genuinely protect our children.
Finally, it’s unclear that this bill, if made law, would have any substantive effect on the local school board parental notification policies it clearly targets for elimination. This bill may only further inflame rancorous debate and erode trust amid parents and school officials.
Again, any attempt to hide information from parents, to subvert parental authority or to order school employees, including teachers, to lie to parents is an abuse of authority. More than being illegal, it’s unethical. We believe it is important to restore trust between school districts and parents and guardians of pupils rather than send our vulnerable youth into the arms of strangers as they navigate their formative years. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children and should be aware of all information associated with their public education process.
There is no amendment in the world that can cure the fatal flaws with this measure. Thus, our strong opposition to AB 1955.
Sincerely,
Lance Christensen
Vice President of Education Policy & Government Affairs
|
|
|
It's official! Corey DeAngelis's new book, The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools, is a national bestseller! Join California Policy Center for a special book signing event with DeAngelis on Wednesday, June 5th from 6:00-8:00 p.m. in Orange County.
DeAngelis has quickly become "America’s most prominent and influential advocate of school choice." He has barnstormed state to state supporting school choice like no other, crushing the teachers unions' PR machine at every stop — and has been instrumental in supporting school choice legislation passed in a growing number of states.
There is no cost for the reception when you use the promo code CPCFREE. RSVP now to reserve your FREE copy of The Parent Revolution. Space is limited, so don’t delay!
|
|
Radio Free California #332: Gavin Newsom Doesn’t Care about Black People
On this week's podcast with CPC president Will Swaim and CPC board member David Bahnsen: Reparations generates more crime, and the victims are almost always black. Gavin Newsom breaks his “no new taxes” pledge while making it. CPC's Lance Christensen analyzes the teachers’ union’s budget battle with Newsom, and National Review art critic Brian T. Allen discusses the California arts scene, from missions to metallurgy. Listen now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
