Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once opined, “The first requirement of a sound body of law, is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community.” In a related way, there is a Latin phrase inscribed on the wall above the dais in the California State Assembly chambers which reads, “Legislatorum Est Justas Leges Condere” or “It is the duty of Legislators to make just laws.” Laws are less likely to be just if they are remotely administered in a way distasteful to the community for whom they are meant.
For a legislative body that pretends to defend democracy, a measure like this is untenable, because it creates a caste system for parents. Those who have the time, means, and know-how will do what they can to influence the actions of bureaucrats in Sacramento. For those who cannot miss days of work at a time or are burdened with caring for their children and other family members, they may be out of luck. What they may have been able to do at a school board meeting over a few hours on a mid-week evening becomes an impossible task if it requires multi-day travel, hundreds of miles away, during work hours.
Every community is comprised of prudent adults capable of having evenhanded discussions regarding the best methods of educating children about complex and sensitive issues. Indeed, we elect them every two years and call them “fiduciaries” and “trustees.” And while these trustees may not always make the best decisions or they may fall under the influence of constantly evolving cultural trends, the Legislature should respect the democratic process that put these duly elected local officers into office. Ultimately, these trustees are accountable to the people they serve. Should a trustee not live up to their obligations, it is easier to replace them than to track down a faceless bureaucrat in Sacramento.
The “mother-may-I” approval process dictated by AB 1078 violates the principles of self-governance by placing all final decisions regarding changes with instructional materials, books, or curricula in classrooms and school libraries at the feet of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and, conversely, the CDE. The bill creates a labyrinth of processes that will only increase confusion and compliance costs.
Predicted operational state deficits suggest leaner budgets for education funding over the next few years. Any mandates for CDE to develop guidance and arbitrate disagreements over curricula will put pressure upon the legislature to expand CDE’s already bloated budget. And serious questions about the measure’s constitutionality will likely result in protracted litigation costs to the state and local districts. With the losing track record our Attorney General has at the U.S. Supreme Court, we should avoid lawsuits over obviously unconstitutional statutes.
This bill is the height of legislative overreach and is an affront to local school board autonomy. It is difficult to trust the CDE when their guidance on parental notification processes is inconsistent with state law and unconstitutionally subverts the rights of parents. Shaming school districts with scarlet letters and refusing their students adequate funding, all because the trustees elected by the community may reject the values of Sacramento’s elite, is discriminatory against minority opinions.
Californians would prefer that the legislature find ways to improve reading scores than foment an unnecessary culture war. And taxpayers would rather keep scarce education funds in the classroom rather than Sacramento offices and courtrooms.
