NBC 7 political reporter Joey Safchik sat down with Cody Petterson, president of the San Diego Unified School District board, to discuss how the Trump administration’s policies have left some educators with extra homework.
Read the full transcript of the interview below:
Safchik: How does the start of this school year feel different than last year?
Petterson: Yeah, well, we have been sort of preparing for some of these policies that we’re seeing for a long time. Back in last November, we knew kind of more or less what was coming for us, given an anticipation that Project 2025 would kind of be the ground rules. Chapter eight. Check it out. You’ll kind of know what’s coming. So we were prepared at that time, and we instituted a whole series of policies in anticipation of that many around immigration, but also around thinking through some of our other policies that we knew would be potentially threatened by the administration.
Safchik: So you did that homework beforehand, but what kind of learning curve has there been during the first nine months of this administration?
Petterson: Yeah, I think part of it is when you’re thinking ahead, a lot of it, there’s a quality unrealness to it, where you think, this can’t this isn’t really going to happen, is it? And in fact, it is happening. And part of that is, you know, a series of, I wouldn’t say surprises, but you still are shocked when you have the first one. Like, for instance, several weeks ago, we had our first parent pulled from their car at drop-off about a half block from Linda Vista Elementary. And that’s certainly a shock that it’s happening. We’ve seen, at pick up and drop off, seizures of parents throughout the county. So one of the things we’re wrestling with, you know, we at our district have a single point of entry on all of our sites now. We have 175 sites. And so we’ve set very clear protocols around entry and exit. And for federal agents, that certainly involves a federal judicial warrant in order to enter the campus, or to obtain student information. However, one of the things, to your point, we’ve had to wrestle with is what do we do about things that are unfolding outside of our of our campus, where we really, have struggled to think through how we can impact that space and keep our students and families safe in that space.
Safchik: Let’s talk about the San Diego Unified related news of the week. You led the board in endorsing Prop 50, the redistricting ballot measure. Why did you feel it was necessary to take that stand?
Petterson: Yes. So the board historically, both, under my presidency and in my term and prior to that, has taken positions on legislation, on propositions both local and state measures. So that’s not necessarily out of the norm with regard to that. You know, obviously, the redistricting question is more political than many that we take. However, we felt as a board that this proposition was essential for pushing back. I mean, if you see the discourse, this is a response to what’s happening in Texas and other states around gerrymandering in those states. And really, I mean, it’s funny, I’ve talked to my kids, I have a nine and a 12 year old, and my nine year old’s a very curious young guy. And he’s kind of asking about why this or that happens and why he saw me on TV talking about this or that. And, you know, part of the challenge we’re facing is, you know, it’s very common to talk about illiberalism as a rule, by cheating. And so you see a series of sort of legalized lawlessness, around the country. And what do you do, as I’m telling my son, well, how do you respond to that? Do you just allow your values and the interests of your family and the security of your families be threatened by allowing the cheating to proceed without responding? Or do you figure out how to respond in a way that’s effective, but also recognize your own values? I, for example, came out of working at the county. And I watched the 2020 IRC – Independent Redistricting Commission – operate. I watched that good faith effort, hundreds and hundreds of hours, both testimony from the public, maps submitted by the public, deliberation from that commission. So I’m a believer in that. And frankly, as I said in the press conference, if we could wave a wand and make all states adopt a similar commission or similar commissions, we would do so. That’s what we want to see moving forward as a country. But as these states gerrymander in such an aggressive, aggressive way, ultimately we have to think through a way that’s consistent with our values, but also addresses that and does not allow cheating to ultimately undermine the wellness of our families.
Safchik: You alluded to this, but how unconventional is it for a school district board to take a stand on something as highly political as this?
Petterson: My understanding is that in regard to Prop 50, where the first district in the state to do so. But, I anticipate that being a widespread phenomenon over the next several weeks. If you look at what it’s not only responsive, but I have not heard a single person in California talk about, for example, is advancing a raft of progressive legislation and Green New Deal, and that is not what the goal is here. The goal here really is to provide an opposition party in Congress, to be able to just hold the line on our due process, on our balance of powers, on a budget that makes sense for working families. I mean, this is really, I think for a lot of us, it’s frightening.
I did my dissertation work in, in highland Peru. I did a PhD in anthropology there, and I watched a country which, if you look at Peru now, it is still struggling to, to get back on its feet after those Fujimori years and the what they call a a self coup, which is really kind of what we’re seeing here in slow motion. Once you lose the political culture, once you lose the institutions, it is very, very difficult. It is a decades-long generational struggle to rebuild those institutions so for me as a board member and I think for my colleagues on the board, this is really about having an opposition-powered party that’s able to actually resist some of these policies.
Safchik: How much pressure to endorse did you feel from the unions who have been major backers bankrolling this from the start of this Prop 50 campaign?
Petterson: I will say the honest truth. We get elected or supported by unions and not supported by unions, basically because of what our values are. They can interview a bunch of candidates and they figure who’s consistent values. The idea that either Democrats or Republicans are necessarily being swayed by the money is a little bit of– it’s not entirely accurate. What ends up happening is interest groups of all stripes, left and right, find candidates who share their values. These are my values. I didn’t get a single call from a single labor union. This was my values. So, I’m sure that part of the reason I was endorsed in my race by them was that they understood. Those are my values. I’m going to protect our families. When I see a father doing what we as a country, as a state, as a city believe parents should do, be responsible, love your kids, cut out from work early, figure out your schedule so you get to get to school early and be there for your child. We know from the data that’s what’s good for kids. But we also, as a community, those are values. So if I see an administration that’s got masked military and paramilitary, agents coming into our communities and violating our values and in the interests of our families, now we’re going to be struggling to find any way that we can push back against that agenda.
Safchik: Do you worry about dissent like this drawing the ire of the administration?
Petterson: Yeah, I’ve been asked that question over the last several weeks, and I would say obviously. Absolutely. But the first thing I would say is you’ve got to analyze the question, why is that question being asked specifically? Because this is an administration that is likely to, in ways that are not legal, to impose consequences on people that stand up for their rights and stand up for their families for a school district.
Safchik: Does that mean funding cuts?
Petterson: It could very well. I mean, well, we are overall and part of why we’re adopting this is because overall, about 6% of our budget at San Diego Unified comes from the federal government. That includes impact aid for our military-associated families. That includes Title One funding. It includes universal school meals. So we do get a substantial amount of funding, and there has been a rolling series of pretexts for threatening to withdraw that or freezing that money. Gender ideology, racial indoctrination. I mean, whatever the flavor of the day is in terms of this administration’s executive orders. So we are always concerned about that funding. We’re concerned about that as a state, but most likely that would come as a consequence or that would come as a consequence to the state or to public education more broadly. So, yes, funding. That’s true. There’s a lot of other ways that there could be consequences for us. There could be a stepped, stepped up anti-immigration activity. We have thought through what those consequences might be. But the reality is, you know, it is true that in a scenario like this, particularly an authoritarian moment that we’re having or a sort of self-coup type situation we’re having, the tall grass gets cut, which is to say, those people that stand up get targeted. But the reason the tall grass gets cut isn’t because it’s tall in this scenario. It’s because other institutions and other leaders are sort of cowering and staying low, hoping that they don’t come for them. But the reality is they will come for all of them once they’re done with locking down immigrant communities. We’ve seen it. They’re not just coming from immigrant communities. Once they’re done with that and they’ve invaded Los Angeles, violated Posse Comitatus in Los Angeles. They’ve taken over D.C. They’re now threatening, we have memes of Apocalypse Now for Chicago. I mean, these are dramatic violations. This is not a liberal conservative question. If you think about a prudential conservatism, that’s like a sort of Edmund Burke conservatism, that actually says, hey, we need change, but we need to do it in a paced manner. tThis is not prudential conservatism. This is very radical activity. So obviously we are very concerned about consequences, but we hope that everybody stands up. So we are all tall grass, so that those people that are standing up ultimately aren’t the ones that get cut, that we face this together. That’s the only way.
Safchik: Is it a school district’s place to get involved in politics to this degree?
Petterson: Frankly, we will get involved in politics as a board in whatever ways we believe is in the service of our values as a community, in the service of the interests of our students, in the service of the interests of our parents and our neighbors. And our community at large. You wrestle. You know, a school district, fundamentally, your first responsibility is to act in loco parentis, that is, to act as a parent. When that child is in your care. That’s our first concern, is the wellness of that child. We saw in LA, we saw actual students being pulled out by ICE. So we know that that is impacting the wellness of our child. It’s impacting their families. You know, we wrestle with how we can do the most within our power, within our legal power, because we believe in rule of law, how we can actually leverage what power we have to have the maximum impact on the wellness of our kids and on their families. So, you know, we will do whatever it takes within our legal power to do so.
Safchik: Predicted my next question. When it comes to immigration, how much latitude does the school district have to push back against these policies?
Petterson: Well, we will have a press conference this Friday. I will have a press conference with Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera and County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer. We are considering a series of proposals, to think through how we can actually take those powers that we do have in terms of contracting and doing work with vendors, how we can expand the impact of our I would say, frankly, our non-cooperation with ICE. I mean, really, I will say for myself, I don’t necessarily speak for the board in this manner, but this will have to come before the board ultimately. But I think of these federal military and paramilitary forces as ultimately being alien to our culture. This is not appropriate. This is not an appropriate federal-state balance. This is not consistent with our culture. Immigrants are at the foundation of our economy. They are working in our homes. They are working in our yards. They are us. They are in fields. They are in restaurants. They are, I mean, that is the base of the economy in San Diego and California more broadly. We are welcoming, dynamic, culture and community and economy. So for us, this is alien, this sort of what I think of state terror terrorizing our residents and terrorizing our children. Not only is it not appropriate, not only does it violate our values, I consider it hostile to our communities. And I, frankly, as a board member, and I hope my colleagues, will do anything in my legitimate power to resist that.
Petterson: I’m curious. You used the word cheating earlier when talking about redistricting. Obviously, that’s language that maybe resonates with students. How do students factor into all of these discussions? Are teachers talking to students in classrooms about what’s happening in the world around them?
Petterson: Well that’s interesting. We do have San Diego Unified for Democracy. It’s a program that is nonpartisan within our schools to have children talking about due process, talking about their rights, talking about the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution, talking about how they advocate for themselves. We have two student trustees on our board. We are very grateful for them. They frequently come up. I’ll give you an example. We had a consideration of, we are the first district in the country, to adopt as our number one goal, student social and emotional wellness. Not just learning, but the wellness of the kids. And that in part, comes from my experience as a dad. I want for my kids to learn math. I want them to learn science and English language. But ultimately I want them to be loved. I want them to be well. I want them to feel like they belong. I want them to feel that they matter, like their peers and their teachers notice when they’re not there. We had this whole discussion in which we were talking about social, emotional, and then also their involvement in community, their wellness, and the students came in and said, hey, we need to add physical, because the thing that most impacts our wellness is the fact that we’re not sleeping or we’re not eating right, or we’re under a lot of stress. And we added that as a fundamental element of that first goal is physical wellness. And that’s coming from the student voice. I am sure this is all, everything that’s happening right now in this country is filtering into dinner conversation. This is not a formal element. This particular thing is not yet a formal element. We obviously are very sensitive about politicizing our school environment. But broadly speaking, having students think about their rights, having them think about how they advocate for themselves and their community is a fundamental part of our curriculum.
Safchik: You just said you’re sensitive to politicizing the school environment. Certainly actions like endorsing Prop 50 inevitably trickle down and reach students and have an impact on how they perceive their school district and its elected leadership. How do you balance the politics of your job with making sure that kids are meeting reading and math standards?
Petterson: Right. Thanks for the question. I mean, I think for me, we do not want to get engaged in politics that are not directly relevant to our students and our staff. In this case, we see a very clear threat, not not just in terms of the immigration issues, which are obvious to anybody, but also in terms of the threats to our title funding, which are really for our most underprivileged, most traditionally underserved communities, but also in terms of the the gutting of the Department of Education, the gutting of the Department for Civil Rights, the gutting of the Department for Federal Student Aid. So, you know, you will not see this board taking political positions that do not have a direct relevance for the well-being of our students, both their emotional well-being, their growth and their academic achievement. You know, for better or worse, we like transparency. We like accountability. We like for the public to be aware of what’s going on. Public schools, we like them to be invested in. I’m a father of two San Diego Unified students. I was a San Diego Unified student in my own day. I don’t know that I knew really much at all what a board was. My children hardly know and they’re going to events and they don’t exactly know. So my guess is that this question about Prop 50 per se is not, does not have much sort of conscious awareness penetration down into the school itself. But we do anticipate that if we are able, through this advocacy, to affect the passage of Prop 50 and therefore resistance to the current administration’s attacks on our students and on public education, we do anticipate that that will have an indirect effect on them.
Safchik: The goal is for Democrats to win back the House? What would you ask of them then? What do you need of them?
Petterson: The thing we need most from them is, like I say, I will say for myself, I’m a progressive guy. But I am not at this point thinking about achieving my sort of progressive goals. You know, more than anything, we just need a party of opposition in the legislature to put the brakes on this agenda. That is what I think about in terms of Prop 50. It is about ensuring that we don’t see across the board a deterioration of our norms. And I would say to talk about prudential conservatism. I hope to see those traditionally– your parents’ conservatism, your grandparents’ conservatism, which was about prudence. It was about restraining change that was not well vetted or well thought out and did not unfold over a lengthy period of time. A deference to sort of traditional institutions. I hope that wins out. I hope on that side of conservatism, there are folks saying, whoa, this is wild. This is so aggressive. It’s so destructive to institutions and political norms. I mean, imagine that this now, what if this now swings in the next election to the other direction? Do you think the folks that are supporting this Trump agenda are going to be excited about Democrats policing with the federal government, cracking down on whatever their objectives are striking? I mean, you think about this strike on a, quote, drug running boat, which somehow had 11 people on it. I doubt that it was, frankly, that it was a drug ring. But let’s say no rule of law, no due process, not even with our territorial waters, certainly not committing crimes. We do not like drug trafficking, but it’s not a death penalty crime. You killed 11 people without a due trial outside of the bounds of our country. Across the board, whether it’s education or law enforcement or military, there are erosions to our civil liberties and our traditional political norms that are going to be very hard to, it’s going to be very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. And so for me, what I hope to see if we are able to create a genuine opposition party within Congress, it will be, to the extent possible, pushing this, this genie of undermining our long standing reforms. I’m for change. I’m for political reform. But it should be done at a pace and a level of forethought and democratic involvement and transparency that is appropriate to this country and its norms. So that’s what I hope to see is just a break put on this insanity that’s unfolding in DC right now.
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
