برچسب: enforcing

  • Temecula Valley Unified can continue enforcing transgender policy, CRT ban, for now

    Temecula Valley Unified can continue enforcing transgender policy, CRT ban, for now


    Community member Kayla Church stands in support of LGBTQ+ community and in opposition to Temecula Valley Unified curriculum ban.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    While litigation moves forward, the Temecula Valley Unified District can keep enforcing its transgender notification policy as well as its ban on critical race theory, which restricts instruction on race and gender more broadly, Riverside County Judge Eric A. Keen ruled Friday. 

    In what seemed to be a contradiction to this decision, Keen had ruled on Feb. 15 that the case — Mae M. v. Komrosky — filed on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students, in August by Ballard Spahr and the country’s largest pro-bono law firm Public Counsel LLP — will move forward. The plaintiffs had asked Keen to temporarily block enforcement of the policies while the case was fought out in court, but did not get it.

    “We are deeply disappointed with the denial of the preliminary injunction, primarily for the students and teachers and parents that we represent,” said Amanda Mangaser Savage,  supervising attorney for Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project. 

    “While these policies remain in effect, students in Temecula’s classrooms are being denied access to an accurate and fact-based education and, instead, are receiving an education that is dictated entirely by the board members’ ideological preferences.”

    Supporters of the board’s policy, including Joseph Komrosky, the Temecula Valley Unified school board president, have claimed that the policies do not discriminate against transgender students or students of color.  

    “The diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff, parents, and guardians is an asset to be honored and valued,” Komrosky said in a news release by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Murrieta-based law firm, “dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts,” that is representing the district for free.  

    “These policies were enacted by the school board to ensure our district puts the needs of students and their parents above all else,” adding that Temecula Valley Unified is committed to providing students with a well-rounded education devoid of “discrimination and indoctrination.”  

    A board guided by conservative values

    The turmoil in Temecula Unified started in December 2022, when the school board, with a newly elected conservative majority, banned critical race theory. The following spring, the board fired the former superintendent, Jodi McClay, without cause and temporarily banned the Social Studies Alive! textbook due to a mention of LGBTQ+ activist Harvey Milk in the supplemental material

    In August, the board passed a policy that percolated through about a half-dozen other districts, requiring that school administrators notify parents if their child shows signs of being transgender. 

    Since then, teachers have voiced concerns about more widespread curriculum censorship and negative impacts on students’ mental health — which have drawn attention and scrutiny from state officials. 

    Edgar Diaz, president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union, criticized Keen’s ruling, stating that it “does not consider the ripple effects” of the district’s policies. 

    Diaz added that wooden blocks have since been placed on library shelves in lieu of books because teachers and staff fear “there may be some banned concept in them.”

    “We shouldn’t be banning anything; we’re an educational institution. If children are curious about something, they explore it; they talk to the teachers. And especially in high school, they’re old enough to form their own opinions about what’s real and what’s not real,” said Temecula Valley Unified school board member Steve Schwartz. 

    He added that if an LGBTQ+ student “doesn’t feel safe enough in their home to tell their parent but needs to share it with someone and shares it with a teacher, it doesn’t seem like a good idea for the teacher to have to tell that parent.” 

    Widespread divides over critical race theory 

    The transgender notification policies and critical race theory ban supported by the Temecula Valley board are part of a larger movement driven by conservative organizations like Reform California. These groups formed to counter widespread calls from the left for racial justice following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020. 

    Nearly 800 measures in 244 local, state and federal entities have been taken against critical race theory, according to CRT Forward, an initiative of the UCLA School of Law’s critical race studies program. 

    In California alone, 13 measures have been introduced at the local level, nine of which have been passed or implemented. 

    As of April 2023, however, 60% of anti-CRT measures were adopted in predominantly conservative states.

    “Today’s ruling unfortunately means that Temecula will continue amongst the ranks of Texas and Florida,” Mangaser Savage said. 

    “While California is obviously a liberal state, I think that the fact that this is happening in our districts demonstrates how pernicious this is.” 

    While the nearly 4,000 U.S. adults surveyed by researchers at the University of Southern California largely agreed on the importance of public education and the core functions of literacy, numeracy and civics, they are more polarized on topics about race and LGBTQ+ issues.  

    The survey specifically found that between 80% and 86% of Democrats support the idea of high school students learning about LGBTQ+ topics compared with less than 40% of Republicans. Introducing LGBTQ+ topics at the elementary level garnered less support on both sides of the aisle. 

    Over half of those surveyed also supported discussion of topics about race at the high school level. But at the elementary level, Democrats were much more likely to support the idea of students learning about slavery, civil rights and racial inequality. 

    Critical race theory is usually taught at the college level, and Schwartz said it has not been taught in Temecula Valley Unified. 

    “But if I were a teacher today, and a student came to me and said, ‘What do you think about CRT?’ my response would be: ‘Why don’t you do some research and see what you think about it, and then we can have a discussion,’” Schwartz said. 

    “My thought is not to tell kids not to investigate things that they’re interested in. That’s what learning is all about.” 

    The lead-up in Temecula 

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a court brief in support of the plaintiffs in December. According to Mangaser Savage, that brief marked the first time in recent history that the state got involved with litigation to limit ideological censorship in schools. 

    Following Bonta’s brief, more than 20 civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights organizations — including American Civil Liberties Union’s chapters in Southern and Northern California — have also filed briefs in support of the preliminary injunction.

    Those organizations include: 

    • Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California
    • California LGBTQ Health & Human Services Network
    • Equal Justice Society
    • Equality California
    • Family Assistance Program
    • Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
    • GLSEN
    • Inland Empire Prism Collective
    • Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
    • LGBTQ Center OC
    • LGBTQ Community Center of the Desert
    • Legal Services of Northern California
    • Los Angeles LGBT Center
    • Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
    • Public Advocates, Inc.
    • Public School Defenders Hub
    • Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance
    • Sacramento LGBT Center
    • Safe Schools Project of Santa Cruz County
    • Transgender Law Center
    • TransFamily Support Services
    • Trevor Project

    Penguin Random House and PEN America have also announced their support for the preliminary injunction. 

    As pressure has mounted on the district to stop its enforcement of allegedly discriminatory and illegal policies, the school board’s makeup has also changed — and more could shift in the coming months. 

    In December, One Temecula Valley PAC, a political action committee, lodged a recall effort against the board’s three conservative members and gathered enough signatures to move forward with a recall election this spring against Komrosky, the board president. 

    Conservative board member Jennifer Wiersma, however, will remain on the board, while Danny Gonzalez announced his resignation in December with plans to move to Texas. 

    Temecula Valley Unified’s school board met on Feb.13 to appoint a replacement but was unable to and decided to move forward with an election. Whoever replaces Gonzalez in that seat will determine whether the board retains its conservative majority. 

    “Despite the small but vocal opponents that seek to rewrite history and indoctrinate students,” Komrosky said, “I am very optimistic for our school district.”

    Editors’ note: This story has been updated to add a statement from Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project supervising attorney, Amanda Mangaser Savage.





    Source link

  • Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing CRT ban

    Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing CRT ban


    The Temecula Valley Unified School District can no longer implement its ban on critical race theory (CRT) as litigation moves forward, a California Court of Appeals ruled Monday — marking the first time in California that a court has overturned a district’s effort to censor student learning about racial and LGBTQ+ equity, according to Amanda Mangaser Savage of the Sullivan & Cromwell Strategic Litigation Counsel at Public Counsel. 

    “This ruling binds all of California,” said Amelia Piazza, an attorney with Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project, “and, I think is an important signal to school districts all over the state that this type of censorship, the courts aren’t going to tolerate it — and that students shouldn’t be deprived of a fact-based education now for any reason, and certainly not because it conflicts with the ideological positions of school board members.” 

    The decision is the latest chapter in the lawsuit Mae M. v. Komrosky, filed in August 2024, on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students — alleging that the December 2022 ban on critical race theory has led to a hostile environment at schools, censored teachers and infringes on students’ right to equal protection and to receive information. 

    Monday’s opinion also called the district’s policy “unconstitutionally vague” and said it has led to anxiety among teachers who remain confused about the policy and fearful of consequences — even if there are accidental violations. 

    But supporters of the district’s policies maintain that they do not discriminate against students of color or transgender students. 

    “Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character,” said Nicole Velasco, a spokesperson for Advocates For Faith & Freedom, a law firm representing the district for free, in an email to EdSource. “We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law.” 

    Velasco added that while disappointed in the ruling, they “remain confident in the legality of Temecula Valley Unified School District’s actions and the strength of the case as it proceeds.” 

    In a statement released Tuesday, David Goldberg, the president of the California Teachers Association, said that “as educators and union workers, we work so hard to provide every student with a quality education and for schools to be safe places for all students, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” 

    He added that teachers should be able to focus on teaching without being caught between state law and district policies. 

    Temecula Valley Unified has not announced whether it will appeal the court’s decision, according to Velasco. But Piazza said they will continue to litigate until a final decision that will “permanently enjoin” Temecula’s resolutions is reached. 

    “Especially, as the federal government sort of escalates its attack on public schools and the right to a fact-based education, I think it’s a really meaningful decision to come down in the California courts,” Piazza said.





    Source link

  • Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing Critical Race Theory ban

    Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing Critical Race Theory ban


    The Temecula Unified School District can no longer implement its ban on Critical Race Theory as litigation moves forward, a California Court of Appeals ruled Monday — marking the first time in California that a court has overturned a district’s effort to censor student learning about racial and LGBTQ+ equity, according to Amanda Mangaser Savage of the Strategic Litigation Counsel at Public Counsel. 

    “This ruling binds all of California,” said Amelia Piazza, an attorney with Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project, “and, I think is an important signal to school districts all over the state that this type of censorship, the courts aren’t going to tolerate it — and that students shouldn’t be deprived of a fact based education now for any reason, and certainly not because it conflicts with the ideological positions of school board members.” 

    The decision is the latest chapter in the lawsuit Mae M. v. Komrosky, filed in August 2024, on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students — alleging that the December 2022 ban on Critical Race Theory has led to a hostile environment at schools, censored teachers and infringes on students’ right to equal protection and to receive information. 

    Monday’s opinion also called the district’s policy “unconstitutionally vague” and said it has led to anxiety among teachers who remain confused about the policy and fearful of consequences — even if there are accidental violations. 

    But supporters of the district’s policies maintain that they do not discriminate against students of color or transgender students. 

    “Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character,” said Nicole Velasco, a spokesperson for Advocates For Faith & Freedom, a law firm representing the district for free, in an email to EdSource. “We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law.” 

    Velasco added that while disappointed in the ruling, they “remain confident in the legality of Temecula Valley Unified School District’s actions and the strength of the case as it proceeds.” 

    In a statement released Tuesday, David Goldberg, the president of the California Teachers Association, said that “as educators and union workers, we work so hard to provide every student with a quality education and for schools to be safe places for all students, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” 

    He added that teachers should be able to focus on teaching, without being caught between state law and district policies. 

    Temecula Valley Unified has not announced whether it will appeal the court’s decision, according to Velasco. But Piazza said they will continue to litigate until a final decision that will “permanently enjoin” Temecula’s resolutions is reached. 

    “Especially, as the federal government sort of escalates its attack on public schools and the right to a fact based education, I think it’s a really meaningful decision to come down in the California courts,” Piazza said.





    Source link

  • Numerous districts don’t heed federal advice to bar police from enforcing school rules

    Numerous districts don’t heed federal advice to bar police from enforcing school rules


    Policing experts say that discipline is the responsibility of school administrators, not law enforcement.

    Many California school districts’ contracts for policing services do not prohibit officers from involvement in routine student disciplinary matters, despite the federal government’s guidance that administrators are responsible for handling those issues, an EdSource investigation found.

    EdSource obtained 118 contracts between 89 districts across the state and the cities and counties that provide them with school resources officers from local police, sheriff’s and probation departments. More than half either allow police to enforce school rules and code of conduct violations, such as using profanity or wearing inappropriate clothing, or don’t address disciplinary issues.

    The U.S. Department of Justice advises that agreements for what are generally called school resource officers “clearly indicate” that officers will not be responsible for requests to resolve routine discipline problems involving students. That guidance aims to “prevent unnecessary law enforcement involvement in noncriminal student misbehavior.” (A spokesperson for the department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services did not respond to multiple requests to elaborate on the department’s recommendations.) 

    Jyoti Nanda, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, said that officers lack the training necessary to respond to behavioral issues that can result in student discipline.

    “Well-trained educators can handle all of the disciplinary issues,” Nanda said. “When police enforce school rules as opposed to criminal law, they are overreaching their footprint” in ways that are “deeply damaging to children.” 

    Many policing contracts also put resource officers in vaguely defined roles. 

    They are to act as “informal counselors,” “mentors,” “role models” and exemplars of “good citizenship.” Some contracts are meant to “promote a positive image of law enforcement.” One agreement refers to them as “youth development officers.” Another says their duties include serving as “a visual deterrent to aberrant behavior.”

    Some give police authority to enforce school rules and code-of-conduct violations, such as using profanity or public displays of affection, that could result in a student being disciplined. 

    Some contracts say that officers will teach classes, without specifying the courses or training requirements.

    The Anderson Union High School District’s contract with the Shasta County Probation Department requires resource officers to “provide class instruction as identified by the district and approved by the county.” Superintendent Brian Parker did not respond to questions about that requirement.

    The varying roles officers play can result in legal risks to students, according to University of North Carolina law professor Barbara Fedders, who has argued for removing school resource officers.

    “Relationship forming and being nice and all of that is misleading. Because if you then need to question the kids, you’re going to be able to take advantage of that relationship and use it for law enforcement purposes,” Fedders said in an interview.

    ‘Situations that arise from student conduct’

    Some contracts don’t differentiate between officers’ roles in investigating school rule violations and potential crimes.

    The Fullerton Joint Union High School District, which straddles Los Angeles and Orange counties, has policing contracts totaling more than $800,000 with the cities of Fullerton, La Habra and Buena Park. Each requires resource officers to “investigate situations that arise from student conduct at school.” The agreements also authorize officers to search students if they believe, or have reasonable suspicion, that something illegal occurred, or are “directed to do so by a school administrator.” 

    Fullerton Union High School in Orange County.
    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Legal experts were critical of those terms.

    The language in the contract “sends the wrong message not only to officers but to students and parents and teachers because it’s so vague,” said retired Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell, who also served as San Jose’s independent police auditor from 2015 to 2020.

    “It’s pretty much at the discretion of an administrator, or even the officer, to just decide if there’s something suspicious, or they think may be illegal,” Cordell said. “We’re not talking here about probable cause. Who’s the reasonable person? The officer? The administrator? Who knows?”

    District Superintendent Steven McLaughlin, Assistant Superintendent Ruben Hernandez, school board President Vickie Calhoun, and Dr. Chester Jeng, who was board president when the contracts were ratified on a consent agenda vote, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The city managers of Fullerton, La Habra, and Buena Park also did not reply to messages seeking comment.

    Khadijah Silver, a supervising civil rights attorney for the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers For Good Government, also criticized Fullerton’s contract language.

    “It’s basically saying, anytime a kid acts up, you’re free to go violate their civil rights and interrogate them off of the school’s premises and all of that,” Silver said. “It’s unconstitutionally overbroad language that fails to define or delineate any bounds of appropriate police behavior whatsoever.”

    ‘What any reasonable adult would do’

    Some legal experts say that by allowing officers to enforce school rules, districts create situations that are confusing and intimidating to students. Nanda said that officers’ involvement in discipline is often “ambiguous.” Students, she added, may not understand why an officer stops them in the hallway: Is it for an alleged crime or a violation of school rules?

    “Are they just walking the child over to the principal’s office, or are they interviewing the child and taking police notes? How does that play out?” she said. The presence of resource officers can result in harsher discipline for students, “particularly for Black students, male students and students with disabilities,” according to a 2023 study by researchers at State University of New York, Albany, “even though officers are typically not trained to, and often do not intend to, become involved in minor disciplinary matters in the school.”

    Although the Alabama-based National Association of School Resource Officers recommends that districts prohibit officers from “becoming involved in formal school discipline situations,” its executive director, Mo Canady, said in an interview that he thinks officers should get involved in situations that could result in discipline. 

    When officers see a young person misbehaving and get involved, they’re doing “what any reasonable adult would do,” Canady said. “Adults should never walk by and ignore a situation like that. I don’t care if we’re at a shopping mall, whatever it is.”

    Asked whether there is a difference between an adult and an armed police officer intervening when a juvenile misbehaves, Canady said: “That’s why one of the issues that we harp on constantly is the importance of good relationships that (officers) build with students.”

    California’s Department of Education does not provide guidance on the use of school resource officers, Elizabeth Sanders, an agency spokesperson, said. 

    The California School Boards Association provides districts with what it calls a “sample policy” on policing contracts, which recommends that the duties of resource officers should “not include the handling of student code of conduct violations or routine disciplinary matters that should be addressed by school administrators or conduct that would be better addressed by mental health professionals.”

    Troy Flint, spokesperson for the association, said district leaders are free to “interpret the sample policy in a way that captures their community’s desired approach to law enforcement on campus. We recognize there’s a diversity of opinion throughout the state about the role security personnel should play on campus or whether they should be there at all.”

    ‘Why are we policing our students?’ 

    The Oxnard Union High School District has contracts with two law enforcement agencies that clearly prohibit resource officers’ involvement in disciplinary matters.

    The district’s $2.33 million contract with the city of Oxnard states that police are to distinguish “between disciplinary misconduct to be handled by school officials from criminal offenses.” The contract also says that officers “are responsible for criminal public order offenses” and “should not get involved in school discipline issues.” A separate contract with the city of Camarillo contains similar language. Both contracts require officers to establish “clear probable cause” before searching a student.

    Oxnard Union High District Superintendent Tom McCoy chats with school resource officers Alexus Santos,left, and Sgt. Hannah Estrada on the campus of Pacifica High School in Oxnard.
    Credit: J. Marie / EdSource

    But the district’s contract with Ventura County for one resource officer does not address discipline. Superintendent Tom McCoy said in an interview that it is “well understood and discussed in meetings” that resource officers provided by the county do not enforce discipline. It’s never been an issue. They are very aware of our policies.”

    The district has a policy that is not in its policing contracts and that allows students to request “a person of the same gender or gender identity or a staff member familiar to them to be present” if they are questioned by law enforcement.

    McCoy added that the district requires students who “are questioned or interviewed by police on campus also must be referred for counseling and wellness services on the same day to address any specific needs identified through the interview process.”

    Karen Sher, the school board member whom McCoy credited with helping create the district’s policy, said her experience teaching at a school with resource officers led her to ask herself, “‘Why are we policing our children?’”

    Oxnard Union High School District board member Karen Sher.
    Credit: J. Marie / EdSource

    Sher said she believes that officers have a role to play in school safety, but she also worries about how their presence might affect disadvantaged students. About 16% of district students lack stable housing, she said.

    “How on earth does anyone believe those students have not had an interaction, both positive or negative, with police?” Sher asked. “We expect them to come to school, see police cars in front of their school, and expect them to feel good about that? That’s a very entitled perspective.”

    Eric Wiatt, a Ventura County sheriff’s deputy who has worked at Adolfo Camarillo High School for the past three years, said adjusting to being a resource officer took time. 

    “The first year was a learning experience of communicating with (students) and developing a rapport. It wasn’t natural in me. You know, all the different social media platforms that are used and the different slang they use,” Wiatt said in an interview.

    He says he spends a lot of time investigating bullying and threats made on social media.

    School resource officer Eric Wiatt from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department patrols the campus of Adolfo Camarillo High School in Camarillo.
    Credit: J. Marie / EdSource

    “We actually dig into them. We take every threat very seriously. We do a full investigation,” Wiatt said.

    When he’s not investigating threats, Wiatt walks the campus wearing a bulletproof vest over his uniform and a pistol holstered to his hip. He often eats lunch with students.

    Riley Young, a 16-year-old junior whom school officials selected to be interviewed by EdSource, described Wiatt as calm and helpful.

    “I’d been getting in trouble,” she said. “He helped me realize that being good in school and in life was important.”

    ‘Providing clarity’

    District leaders provided a range of reasons why their policing contracts don’t address whether resource officers can be involved in disciplinary matters.

    The Madera Unified School District’s contract with the city of Madera for resource officers doesn’t address disciplinary issues. Superintendent Todd Lile said the idea that officers would enforce discipline “has never been present and, as a result, has never been explicitly called out in contractual language.” Police are “not thought of or expected to keep control of a campus,” he said.

    The Lucia Mar Unified School District has two contracts for resource officers. Its agreement with the city of Arroyo Grande prohibits officers from enforcing discipline. But its contract with San Luis Obispo County does not address disciplinary matters.

    Amy Jacobs, a district spokesperson, said Lucia Mar has a policy prohibiting law enforcement’s involvement in discipline, but Jacobs didn’t provide an answer when asked why that policy wasn’t written into the contract with the sheriff’s office.

    The Galt Union High School District board in Sacramento County agreed to a three-year contract with the city of Galt for three resource officers in 2023. The agreement did not address police involvement in discipline. But shortly after Anna Trunnell became district superintendent in 2024, the contract was revised. 

    It now states that resource officers “will not be responsible for requests to resolve routine discipline problems involving students. They will not respond to incidents that do not pose any threat of safety or would not be considered crimes if they occurred outside of the school.”

    Trunnell said the new language “assists in providing clarity when responding to student needs.”

    The lack of clarity in many school policing contracts is “profoundly alarming,” said Nanda, the Southwestern law professor.

    “It’s crucial,” she said, “for parents, educators and administrators to pay attention to the who, what and why of officers in our schools.”





    Source link