CTA opposition stalls bills
Union cites denial of due-process rights
Amid concerted opposition from the California Teachers Association, the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday delayed acting on two bills that would make it easier and quicker to dismiss teachers for misconduct.
Both SB 1530 and SB 1059, along with an identical bill, AB 2028, introduced in the Assembly, are in response to criminal charges of sexual abuse against students by three former teachers at Miramonte Elementary in Los Angeles Unified. In two of the cases, the district failed to document and follow up on earlier investigations of suspected illegal acts.
SB 1530, sponsored by Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from Los Angeles, would give school boards the final say over firing teachers facing sexual, drug, and other serious misconduct charges. A current three-person appeals board would be replaced by an administrative judge who’d be issuing only advisory opinions. The bill also would give districts the option of suspending a teacher suspected of serious misconduct without pay, and would eliminate the 45-day notice to teachers facing disciplinary action. The provisions closely parallel recommendations of the Los Angeles Unified School Board.
SB 1059, by Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar, would also quicken the firing process and would go further to also give school boards the final say over firing for unsatisfactory performance as well as misconduct. It, like Padilla’s bill, would remove a 4-year statute of limitations on keeping misconduct investigations in a teacher’s file.
But in an Action Alert on its website, urging CTA members to contact Education Committee members, the CTA condemned what it called “Legislation by Headline” by “apologists for the Los Angeles Unified School District management’s failure to follow existing law to protect students from abuse.”
CTA criticized the bills for “short cuts” on due process rights of teachers. It said that since the Education Code already gives districts discretion in defining unprofessional misconduct, “teachers could immediately be suspended without pay for excessive tardiness or yelling at a student.”
CTA has contacted Huff and Padilla, but neither has received any proposed amendments yet. Padilla said he would consider changes to the bill, but his bottom line is clear: School boards should be able to immediately remove teachers from the classroom once there is sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal, and, as elected officials, school boards “should be empowered with the final decisions.”
Um… maybe a teacher with excessive tardiness or who has incidents of yelling at students *should* be suspended without pay.
I also think it’s reasonable for school boards to have the final decision power.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Do we need more evidence of the indefensible nature of CTA?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ann: Not really. The nature of CTA has been clear for years to anyone who cared looking. and CTA apologiests will remain unconvinced not because of lack of evidence. But let’s hope that the proximity to the ballot signature gathering will make a difference this time.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“CTA has contacted Huff and Padilla, but neither has received any proposed amendments yet.”
CTA has no interest in working to even balance the interests of their members vs those of the kids. It’s their way or the highway because they have all the money and all the power.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Im confused about something. Since when does someone take a stance in a negotiation that completely and absolutely defines their own acceptable conditions?
And one likely relevant point made in both bills’ digests:
Because this bill would increase the number of employees subject to immediate placement on compulsory leave of absence, thereby increasing the duties of school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I thought it “allowed” districts to put people on unpaid leave, not “compelled” them to do so. I don’t see it as increasing costs per se unless the legislation requires it against the wishes of the district.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
el: You’re right. It’s an option.
Regarding the other comments, teachers also need protections from false accusations, so there clearly is a need for due process as well, whether or not the school board makes the final employment decision.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
A little reminder is due here as to the American way of dealing with “due process” as well as “presumption of innocence.” See following document: US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Please note from the above story: “In two of the cases, the district failed to document and follow up on earlier investigations of suspected illegal acts.”
There is nothing in the record indicating that in the two cases mentioned, or the third case for that matter, that statutory due process rights for teachers created any burden on the authorities to deal with the situation.
Teachers can be removed from the classroom by management when accusations of improper conduct are made. It is then up to them to follow their policies in conducting an investigation.
Employment decisions for dismissal were taken away from political bodies because of the undue influence of… politics. Human nature all too often lends itself to arbitrary and capricious actions. That what due process is intended to curtail and unions insure the due process.
For those who just want to beat up teachers, unions, and who, as someone recently said “I like to fire people!” all of the Constitutional, justice. legal, and reasonable rationales for keeping due process are not likely to be convincing.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Certainly an investigation and due process is important and appropriate. An accusation of improper sexual content is rarely an open-and-shut case, as an example. Any single instance of unusual behavior would be wholly different from One More Incident that fits in a larger pattern of Not Quite Right.
But excessive tardiness? I’m not sure what investigation is indicated. It seems to me that schools already have a process for tardiness for students and that it can apply at least as strictly for teachers. A teacher being late for a class leaving it uncovered is seriously disruptive and a safety issue, and I’m not sure how much investigation is needed once you get into multiple instances.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree with CTA that I don’t see this as having anything in particular to do with sexual offenders. The laws certainly make it possible as is to remove a teacher accused of wrongdoing and to charge/dismiss that teacher. Any teacher that goes across the line that far is relatively easy to deal with (if you’re not LAUSD) legally, if not emotionally and practically.
Where I think we do have something to iron out is the Not Quite Right phenomenon. Where multiple adults find another adult creepy and sort of off but there’s no incident you can build a case on. And while I appreciate CTA’s position of due process and fairness to the employee, I also know after many years out in the world that even an ‘unfair’ dismissal can be the right thing for both the employer and the employee. It sucks to work in a place where you’re not appreciated and not a valued part of the team. And if your lack of appreciation is because your manager is a jerk, new work with a better manager, while disruptive, often works out better anyway.
If your principal, superintendent, and school board all feel strongly enough about a particular person to remove them, the end result is probably for the best. And if the principal, superintendent, and school board are all in the wrong, then holding this teacher there against their tide of vapid failure and malice will not solve the problem anyway… you’d need to make changes in the administration.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Oh for heaven’s sake, we all know firing a tenured teacher for anything, other than child abuse we would hope, is an extraordinarily complicated operation that takes years of singular dedication and time. It goes way beyond reasonable “due process”.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
From Roque Burio Jr., the lemon who can dance and can also sing. Here is my song for those who despise teachers alleged to have committed misconducts: The Law protects everyone including both the innocent and the accused. It is mandatory that the Law must protect the would be victim before the crime, and the same law must also protect the rights of the alleged accused after the crime. Hence the LAUSD Weapon of Mass Dismissal of Innocent Teachers AKA SB 1530 had to be defeated by its authors for it turns out to be illegal and unconstitutional. He, he, he, and hah, hah, had why not ask the Democratic Party members? Down with the Paper Monster LAUSD. Long live teachers, students and parents. Long live taxpayers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity