On Monday, the County Board of Elections published the list of measures going on the June ballot. Our Executive Committee has made recommendations on these measures which you can see here.

At the County level, we are recommending NO votes on Measure A (the Urban Limit Line), Measure B (the new County sales tax), and Measure G (the Community College bond). We are putting special emphasis on Measure B as you can see from our new website: https://StopMeasureB.com. Please share it with family and neighbors.

When Public Schools Stray from Education

The following is a new piece from our March speaker, Laura Powell. You can also find it on her Substack where you can subscribe to see more of her content.

In recent years, public school districts across California have drifted far from their core academic mission. While student achievement has stagnated or declined, districts have rapidly expanded administrative bureaucracies and non-teaching staff focused on programs only tangentially related to classroom instruction. This shift harms educational outcomes and erodes trust between schools, families, and taxpayers.

One of the most significant trends in education over the past few decades has been the growth of non-teaching personnel. In California and nationwide, administrators, counselors, and other support staff have grown far faster than classroom teachers. This expansion stems from schools taking on roles in addressing students’ perceived needs related to mental health and social identity. Programs emphasizing “social-emotional learning” (SEL), “school climate,” and inclusion have created new staff positions that barely existed a generation ago.

The philosophy driving these initiatives prioritizes developing “the whole child,” which sidelines academics. Teachers—not trained therapists—are pressed to facilitate activities resembling group counseling or psychological assessments, prompting students to share personal details about emotions, family dynamics, and social identities. This represents a troubling overreach, as schools encroach on domains traditionally reserved for families.

Historically, parents have been the primary guides for children’s emotional and moral development, while schools focused on academics. This division was long accepted as common sense. Federal law, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), reflects this by placing control over student records and sensitive information with parents—not children, schools, or government.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have reinforced these principles. Last June, the Court reaffirmed that parents retain a constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case involved a school district that introduced instructional materials intended to normalize certain views about gender and sexuality without parental notice or consent. The Court held that the district violated parents’ rights by interfering with their ability to guide their children’s moral and religious development. Although the facts of that case involved specific instructional materials, the principle applies more broadly—parents must have meaningful notice and the opportunity to guide what their children are exposed to with respect to moral and ideological instruction.

Another important case addressing these issues is Mirabelli v. Bonta, a federal lawsuit arising out of California policies that encourage schools to conceal information about a child’s asserted gender identity from parents. The litigation challenges practices that allow schools to maintain “unofficial” records and internal communications documenting a student’s asserted identity while withholding that information from parents. In some instances, staff have even been instructed to keep such information in private notes or informal communications to avoid disclosure. Earlier this month, the Court issued an opinion in this case reaffirming that such practices violate “parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

While districts expand social and psychological programming, many struggle to improve academic outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged students. Administrators often promote “cultural responsiveness” and identity-focused frameworks to close achievement gaps. Yet evidence from other parts of the country suggests that the most effective strategy for improving academic performance is straightforward and obvious—focus on academics.

Mississippi offers one compelling example. Once near the bottom nationally in reading, the state enacted reforms centered on evidence-based literacy instruction, rigorous teacher training, and early interventions for struggling readers. Over the past decade, Mississippi’s fourth-graders have posted some of the nation’s largest gains on eading assessments. Black students there now rank among the top performers nationally in fourth-grade reading—often surpassing peers in higher-spending states—without relying on expansive administrative or identity-based programs.

In contrast, many California districts invest heavily in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives while underemphasizing proven reading methods. Administrative growth supporting these efforts drives up costs without commensurate academic gains.

This trend shows no signs of abating. Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed $1 billion in permanent annual funding to expand the “community schools” model, transforming schools into social-service hubs offering health care, counseling, meals, housing assistance, and more. These services are often provided through partnerships with external organizations who may bypass parental involvement. Meanwhile, Assembly Bill 1851 seeks to mandate statewide “whole child” programming, embedding mental health services, SEL, counseling, and behavioral interventions as core elements for all public school students, not just those with identified needs

California taxpayers deserve better than an education system that fails at its primary mission. For parents, the stakes are even higher. Not only are their children not receiving the quality education they are entitled to, when schools move beyond their core mission of academic instruction, they intrude on the sacred domain of the family. Educators increasingly act as if it were their role to guide children’s emotional and moral development. But teachers are not parents, and schools are not families.

Eroding the boundary between the respective roles of parents and public schools leaves children vulnerable to the will of government institutions that cannot replace the loving care of a family. The framing that pits parents’ rights against children’s rights is simply wrong. In the vast majority of cases, parents’ rights and children’s rights are not just compatible but aligned. The core of children’s rights is the right to be protected, nurtured, and guided by the people who know and love them most—their parents. Safeguarding parents’ rights remains the surest way to protect children.

Sign up here to see Laura’s CoCoTax talk on Friday, March 27.