Governor, State Board to ACLU: We’re on your side
The lawsuit against Los Angeles Unified and the state over seniority-based teacher layoffs and massive cuts to state education funding has taken some strange twists.
Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Board of Education – defendants in the case – are taking the position that they agree with the plaintiffs. Their message: Don’t sue us. We’re on the side of kids in low-income schools whose teachers have been handed pink slips in disproportionate numbers.
The latest jockeying – unusual but not unprecedented – may be a sign that an initial settlement is near. A court hearing into a preliminary injunction has been pushed back a week, until Tuesday, at the request of plaintiffs attorneys, in order to conduct negotiations with the defendants.
In February, ACLU of Southern California and pro-bono attorneys with the group Public Counsel sued on behalf of students at three low-performing, high-minority middle schools in Los Angeles, where there has been a constant churn of teachers that lack seniority and an inability to find permanent replacements for them. Some of the schools have had underqualified teachers or substitutes for several years. The ACLU and Public Counsel rightfully argue the system is discriminatory.
A judge has already ruled that United Teachers Los Angeles, which negotiated the teachers contract, and Mayor Villaraigosa’s Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which operates some district schools, should also be named defendants in the case.
Schwarzenegger has sponsored SB 955, which would include eliminating the state law requiring layoffs by seniority in most instances. So it’s not surprising that he would support the lawsuit.
Unanimous State Board decision
On Wednesday, after a closed door-discussion, the State Board of Education voted unanimously to back the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Both State Board President Ted Mitchell and the newest board member, Ben Austin, issued statements backing the kids’ case. “By supporting the ACLU lawsuit, the State Board of Education unanimously sided with the parents and children of Los Angeles and California against the defenders of the status quo,” said Austin, a parent organizer in Los Angeles.
The ACLU and Public Counsel would certainly welcome a deal to prevent further layoffs at the three schools this year. But it’s not clear how far Schwarzenegger and the State Board would go in supporting the bigger issues raised by plaintiffs, or whether the ACLU and Public Counsel would even allow them to switch sides – if that’s in fact, what they are trying to do.
Plaintiffs are arguing that it’s not just the state law requiring layoffs by seniority that’s the problem but also inadequate funding for minority kids in low-performing schools. Schwarzenegger is proposing less money, not more, for K-12 schools this year – and no shifting of funding to poor schools.
The plaintiffs also don’t believe passage of SB 955 in itself is a solution, since it only enables districts to end the practice of seniority-based layoffs. It doesn’t require that they do this.
Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has put a hold on the bill for now because it doesn’t protect teachers who might be let go without cause or simply because a district could save money by firing veterans and hiring young teachers for less.
8 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
The complicated staffing of these challenging schools is summed up in the statement describing the lawsuit: “there has been a constant churn of teachers that lack seniority and an inability to find permanent replacements for them.” The inability to find permanent replacements is the real issue. I worked in the inner city schools of Los Angeles when there were no layoffs, but just the opposite. Money was not the issue, but the teaching conditions were. The total lack of community support and the disruptive environment in the classrooms drove the teachers out. I lasted three years in one school, and was at the top of the seniority scale at that site when I made the choice to pursue my career elsewhere. Frustration, anxiety, dispair, and a feeling of complete helplessness were my daily issues in the classroom. This “lay-off crisis is causing the problem” nonsense is just a diversionary step that intereferes with addressing the real problem of developing an educational environment in the schools.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Jackson makes some very good points. So does the ACLU. You will notice in the points by both that teacher tenure and seniority rights are never mentioned. We have a clever bit if re-framing the issue here. The points emphasized by the ACLU attorney, under the banner of “equity,” are “CA is 46th in the nation in per pupil spending and about to drop lower” and “our state and district have both chosen to balance their budget by decimating the teaching corps…”. Then there is the issue of “churn.” Why are these schools so over-represented by newer teachers that are more vulnerable to layoff? Here Mr. Jasckson fills us in with the details from the trenches. We have known for years that there is an up to 50% rate of turnover at high-poverty schools. The teachers report their reasons for leaving as: disciplne and personal safety issues; lack of support for students with learning difficulties; poor administration and support; unhealthy physical plant; lack of faculty influence on learning issues; inadaquate ongoing, quality professional development; lack of student success; and, excessive classroom intrusions. Again, sounds a lot like Mr. Jackson’s report. The real problems are at the site management, district management, and state funding levels; therefore, let’s attack teacher seniority rights. Reminds me of several years ago when there was a “dance of the lemons” law. This was to deal with the alleged issue of low performing teachers moving from school to school. Everyone in the profession knew the “dance of the lemons” was districts moving problem principals from school to school or position to position. Not to dump totally on site administrators. They are “at will employees.” Principals engaging in some of the hard nosed actions required to deal with student discipline and campus safety issues are likey to generate complaints from parents and the community, as least in the short run. At that point that the downtown administration and/or school board gets agitated enough, adios job.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Ravani, I would like to further this exploration to the second notable conundrum.
The education malaise needs to be discussed within the concept of a “triage” crisis with other elements very germaine to moving society forward. Economics, social mores, and the stature of academic excellence within that dynamic. You won’t find the schools in affluent communities considered “under-performing”. Astute parents, that recognize the all important dynamic of parental support in encouraging students to want to learn with the understanding that you have to be willing to work to accomplish that; need to be in the vast majority at any school. You reference that California is ranked lowest in “per-pupil spending” which probably influences the opportunity for success for the students. Within the other NEA surveys is this:
Table 1. Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers, 2007-08
Rank State 2007-08
1 CALIFORNIA 64,424 *
2 NEW YORK 62,332
3 CONNECTICUT 61,976
4 NEW JERSEY 61,277 *
5 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 60,628 *
Lowest per student, but highest per teacher. (08-09 N/A) I doubt that much changed last year. Can we look to “triage” the other elements involved in student success, and get those funding sources to the top?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Jackson:
Actually, I quoted the lead attorney from the ACLU when I mentioned CA’s funding per student as “46th in the nation and about to drop lower.” The ACLU, as far as I can tell, is referencing the ED Week “Quality Counts” data. That table uses dollars “adjusted” for cost of living. If you look at CA’s dollars per student in unadjusted dollars the state is about 30th of the 50 states. CA being, in most rankings I can find, the highest cost of living/cost of providing services of the states and that moves the ranking of 30th to 46th. And the Ed Week ranking of 46th was made on 2007-8 data prior to the recession and $18 billion in cuts to education. As to teachers pay, the same adjustments apply. RAND Corp. did an analysis several years ago and found CA teachers’ pay to be the lowest of the major industrialized states. And during the budget “crisis” most teachers in the state have taken hits to salaries via furloughs. I am not sure what your point on teacher pay is, but I don’t think there are significant arguments to be made that CA’s shool problems are related to its richly paid teacher corps. The kind of parent attitudes you speak of, that contribute to student success, are primarily middle class attitudes. It takes our immigrant population, the highest of any state, a generation or so to develop those “mores.” (About the same time, historically, you see a lowering of the birth rate.) Many of our Asian immigrants come from the middle class in their home country and bring a high value on education with them. When one looks at those countries we seem to admire because of high international test scores (which really don’t have much meaning in economic terms), take Finland for example, you find great cultural/linguistic homogeneity, cradle to grave health care, generous family leave policies, and seamless social services, etc., etc. We in the US, and here in CA, want the test scores but not the pesky socialism. So, yes, there is “triage” that needs to be done in any number of arenas. What you get instead of the triage, is a continuous braying about holding those with the least political power (forget all the “powerful teachers’ unions claptrap) “acountable” for the logical consequences of the state not having cradle to grave health care, generous family leave policies, seamless social services, etc., etc. The homogeneity issue is a tricky one. CA is an experiment in diversity without any social/historical precedent I am aware of. Having that great mechanism of “social leveling,” the public school system, continually under politcally motivated attack and fiscally starved isn’t helping the whole triage effort.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Ravani,
“I am not sure what your point on teacher pay is, but I don’t think there are significant arguments to be made that CA’s shool problems are related to its richly paid teacher corps.”
That was my point. There is one understood element in the educational formula: salaries must attract the best and brightest. The downside is that they get no support to do their job. I was paid well, but there was no support to make my skills relevant to the students. “Reformed drug users and convicts doing community service had more of an impact on the interest level on the students than my vocabulary, grammar, and insights through literature could provide. We are on the same page. There is more needed to provide the support necessary so the teachers can do their job.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Some valid points, gentlemen, yet neither of you has yet made mention of California’s Educational Employment Relations Act. There are built-in opportunities for parents (indeed, the public at large) to have conversations about collective bargaining proposals once they are made public at school board meetings yet who is showing that they have any authentic interest in complying with the spirit of this legislation? LAUSD used to have a so-called “sunshine committee” ten years ago. It wasn’t a solution to the problem but it did give all parties to collective bargaining an opportunity to discuss challenges and benefits of particular proposals BEFORE the district and union representatives made any deal.
I don’t think we’d still be dealing with some of the more troubling parts of this discussion (and perhaps have avoided the lawsuit entirely)if we’d have continued the practice and built community capacity to participate in such dialogue. Posting a notice about my rights to comment 72 hours before new contract terms are accepted is simply a disingenuous interpretation of this law.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Transparent:
I believe the real point is the lawsuit isn’t about the collective bargaining agreement. The ACLU has never pointed to either collective bargaining or the statutes covering teacher seniority rights as being the focus of the lawsuit. The focus of the lawsuit is covered above, and relates to the state’s inability to adequately fund education and, as I read it, management decisions about how/where to make budget cuts.
It is interesting that EdTrust, an education “advocacy” group (shills for corporate interests?), just months ago were complaining that poor/minority students’ civil rights were being violated because the schools serving those communities didn’t have a sufficient number of experienced (aka, senior) teachers. The solution? Do away with teacher contract rights vis a vis transfer rights. Now EdTrust is complaining, in a chorus with the other usual suspects (Huff/Romero SB 955), that poor/minority students civil rights are being violated because their schools can’t keep enough junior teachers. The solution? Do away with teachers seniority rights in layoffs. Again, the real problems are “churn,” due to management issues at those schools, and the state’s inadequate funding. But the “solutions” proposed are always an attempt to divert attention from the real problems and attempt to scapegoat teachers.
If you believe the LAUSD is not in compliance with EERA “sunshine” requirements there should be a way to file a formal complaint or find a legal remedy.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
A fellow educator pointed out recently, “The Rodriguez Consent Decree, which forced schools to balance their staff with regards to experience, was relatively effective at increasing this measure of equity for all students. Attacking seniority isn’t a progressive policy change, its a regressive response to the District’s failure to follow its own rules.” As usual the politicians have moved ahead without considering or sharing all the facts.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity