Showing posts with label CA Govt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CA Govt. Show all posts

Monday, June 11, 2012

Proud to be a Teacher (Educator?) Ashamed to be CTA?


Proud to be a Teacher(Educator)?

Ashamed to be CTA?


Let me preface with the often used but true statement: I believe in unions, I have walked three picket lines before the age of 25 and CTA is functionally useless. As we stand on the parapet of the crumbling dreams of so many far sighted men and women. This our "Alamo," allegorically speaking,  and all we can hope for from CTA "leadership" is a half-hearted magazine column on issues they should have addressed four years ago. By the way, of course the magazine only goes out to educators. Let me remind President Vogal not all CTA members are teachers. Just the obvious majority.

Excerpts from and opinions on the article

Proud to be a Teacher

By CTA President Dean E. Vogel
Sometimes the challenges we face on a daily basis in our classrooms are so great that it’s hard to remember the rewards of our profession and the reason why we chose to be educators. That’s why it’s been a delight to read thank-you notes from students that our members have shared with us over the past few months. Letters to the “Thank You, Teacher!” project can be read online at www.cta.org/thankyouteacher, and they give us all a moment to pause and remember why we are in it and why we stay.
This month, I received a note from one of my former students, and believe me, it both surprised and deeply touched me. Rachel was a student of mine in kindergarten, and her childhood memories of my class included me playing the guitar, singing during circle time, and enforcing a rule against children playing with their Velcro shoes.
Rachel wrote, “Thank you so much for all that you did. My inner child and outer adult ever appreciate it.”
She concluded her letter by letting me know she is now in her seventh year of teaching and “couldn’t imagine being anything else but an educator.”
I felt the same pride when I went to Washington, D.C., to see Rebecca Mieliwocki, a California middle school teacher and member of the Burbank Teachers Association, honored as National Teacher of the Year during a White House ceremony.
Rebecca related that she had been working in publishing when she realized something was missing. I was struck by her comment: “I took some time to make a list of things I needed and wanted in my ‘perfect’ job: creativity, decision-making control, fun, flexibility, stability, the potential to work with young people. It dawned on me that teaching was the obvious place.”
Rachel’s note and Rebecca’s achievement served as personal reminders to me of why we do it. They are also reminders of why I became involved with my union. It was to make things better for teachers and for our students.
These days it’s hard for a teacher to turn around without feeling like she’s under attack. Many of us would prefer to retreat to our classrooms, mind our own business and just teach our students. We may not be interested in the political drama. But as the Greek statesman Pericles once said, “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”
Politics directly impacts almost everything we do in our schools and in our classrooms. And many politicians and corporate power brokers behave as if they know more about the dynamics of teaching and learning than we do. Yet no one knows better than we do what our students need to be successful.
We are facing some crucial issues coming up in the November election that will test that notion. As much as we’d like to shut the door of our classrooms and just teach, we won’t be able to do that without passing a funding initiative that will begin to provide the resources to adequately fund our schools. We won’t be able to do that if our voice is silenced and our ability to participate in politics is taken away. We won’t be able to do that if we don’t elect candidates who will advocate for public education.
In the coming weeks, I know many of us will be preoccupied with year-end activities (and the grim future with no Job, and) little time to do much else than help our students and each other tie things up and move forward. But as we head into summer, I hope you take some time for yourselves to recuperate and recharge. I also hope you take some time to become involved with this campaign season. Read through this issue of the Educator, go to our website, learn about the election issues we face, and step up. For the sake of our students, and for the sake of our profession, we all need to be involved in the election ahead. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Saturday, May 19, 2012

California Court of Appeal Determines Supervisory or Management Employees (Administrators) May Be Held Liable for Retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act


Originally published on the website of legal firm Dannis, Woliver and Kelly -DWK.

On April 26, 2012, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court in part, holding that management employees may be liable for retaliation under the Education Code. The Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hartnett v. Crosier (D058914), a case in which a former employee of the San Diego County Office of Education (“SDCOE”) sued several SDCOE employees, alleging that they retaliated against him in violation of the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (Ed. Code, § 44110 et seq.). 

 Background

The California Legislature enacted the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (“Act”) in 2000, so that public school employees, particularly classified school employees and teachers, may “bring forward to their supervisors or management improper activities without having to fear they are endangering their jobs.” Education Code section 44113 prohibits employees from using or attempting to use official authority or influence to interfere with protected disclosures under the Act. A protected disclosure is a good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either an improper governmental activity or a condition threatening health or safety of public employees for purposes of remedying the condition. 
The Act’s prohibition on use of official authority or influence to interfere with a protected disclosure includes “promising to confer or conferring any benefit; affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal; or taking, directing others to take, recommending, processing, or approving any personnel action, including but not limited to appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, or other disciplinary action.” (Ed. Code, § 44113, subd. (b).) An employee who violates the prohibition may be liable in an action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party. Education Code section 44114, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide also that a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a public school employee or applicant for having made a protected disclosure is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in jail for up to one year as well as liability for civil damages, including punitive damages for malicious acts. 

Rodger Hartnett’s complaint stated that he was a claims coordinator in SDCOE’s risk management department. He alleged that he was discharged in 2007 not for incompetency, insubordination, and dishonesty as the school district contended, but in retaliation by several SDCOE employees for reporting that some SDCOE employees referred legal business to friends and family members in exchange for gifts, gratuities, and discounted personal legal services. He claimed his discharge violated the Act and entitled him to punative damages and attorney fees among other relief.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the individual employee defendants, finding that Education Code section 44113, subdivision (a) did not impose liability because the defendants were management employees as defined in the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) and that Education Code section 44114, subdivision (d) did not provide punitive damages and attorney fees for Hartnett because he was also a management employee. Hartnett appealed, contending the trial court erred in these determinations
.
Decision

The Court of Appeal held that management employees who are also supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions are not exempt from liability under the Act. The Act references the EERA to define “employee,” which excludes management employees, but the EERA also separately defines supervisory employees.   The Court agreed with the Third District Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Conn v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163, that Education Code section 44113 does not exempt management employees from liability for retaliation if the employees were acting as supervisory employees when they committed the allegedly offending acts. In Hartnett, the Court of Appeal reasoned that to exempt management employees exercising supervisory authority in personnel actions would exempt those most likely and able to retaliate against employees making protected disclosures and thwart the Act’s very purpose. The Court did uphold the trial court’s determination that Hartnett was not entitled to claim the additional remedies of punitive damages and attorney fees because he was a management employee.

Impact

Management employees may be held liable for claims of retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act if such employees are acting as supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions when they commit the allegedly offending acts.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

FROM 2001 to 2003, I "taught for America."




Originally from an op-ed piece by Jesse Hagopian

After graduating from college, I headed for the Bronx, N.Y., where I underwent Teach for America's (TFA) "teacher boot camp." With just five sleepless weeks of on-the-job training teaching summer school to fourth-graders, team meetings and night classes, I was given the stamp of approval and shipped off to Washington, D.C.

The Seattle School Board is expected to vote Wednesday whether to bring TFA to our school district, and before they decide, they should consider the lessons of my experience.

At 21, I found myself in a public elementary school in the ghetto of South East Washington, D.C. — in a classroom with a hole in the ceiling that caused my room to flood, destroying the first American history project I ever assigned the students.

One lasting memory came on my third day of teaching sixth grade.
I had asked the students to bring a meaningful object from home for a show-and-tell activity. We gathered in a circle and the kids sat eagerly waiting to share their mementos. One after another, each and every hand came out of those crumpled brown lunch sacks, clutching a photo of a close family member — usually a dad or an uncle — who was either dead or in jail. By the time it was my turn, all I could do was stare stupidly at the baseball I pulled out and pick nervously at the red stitches.

Working in the "other America" was a personally powerful experience and made me decide to dedicate my life to finding a solution to transform public education and the broader society that would allow such neglect to occur.
But while TFA allowed me this window into the problems of our country, it didn't prepare me to address these challenges. With only five weeks of training, it wasn't just that I was not equipped to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of students with a wide range of ability levels, create portfolios that accurately assessed student progress, or cultivate qualities of civic courage — it was that I didn't even know that these things were indispensable components of an effective education.

As well, TFA often overemphasizes the importance of test scores, driving corps members to narrow the curriculum to what's on the test to prove that they are effective teachers. Yet even by this measure, TFA-ers don't make the grade.

Consider a six-year study of TFA out of Stanford University that looked at more than 4,000 teachers and 132,000 students on six different tests and found not one case where TFA educators performed as well as certified teachers. Moreover, TFA's own statistics show that a mere 33 percent continue teaching after their two-year commitment — creating high turnover in the very schools that most need the continuity and stability.
Seattle has an abundance of teachers with teaching certificates and master's degrees struggling to get a teaching position in the local public schools — West Seattle Elementary School, a target school for TFA, had some 800 applicants for a single job. Why bring in undertrained TFA recruits when we have so many young teachers in Seattle who have spent years developing their skills?

TFA is being presented as a solution to the problems in our public schools. But the reality is, in this era of cash-strapped school districts, officials are lured not by the quality of TFA-ers but by the fact that young teachers who leave the district and make room for more young teachers provide an inexpensive alternative to investing in more experienced teachers who will earn a higher salary.

Yet, if the Seattle school district truly wants "excellence for all," it will need highly trained teachers who have a lasting commitment to the profession — not the revolving door that has come to be known as "Teach for Awhile."
Jesse Hagopian teaches history at Garfield High School and is a founding member of the Social Equality Educators (SEE).


E-mail article 


Monday, March 26, 2012

Testing and the State Trustees




State of California
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
State Board of Education seal
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
1430 N Street, Suite 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-319-0827
Fax: 916-319-0175


March 15, 2012

Norma Martinez
State Trustee
Greenfield Union School District
493 El Camino Real
Greenfield, CA 93927

Dear Ms. Martinez:
On behalf of the State Board of Education (SBE), we wish to thank you for your service as State Trustee of the Greenfield Union School District (SD). You have done an exemplary job and your commitment to the students, parents, and community of Greenfield is greatly appreciated.
As you know, at the September and November 2011 SBE meetings, the members of the SBE approved your recommendation to move towards the Exit Plan and return full local governing authority to the local governing board on or before June 30, 2012.
As you proposed, and we agreed in our follow-up discussions, your last day of service will be May 25, 2012. This will allow time for continuing work on some critical components of the exit plan, including the development and approval by the governing board of the academic plan for closing the achievement gap, development of a superintendent evaluation process, and continued governance training.
Consistent with our mutual agreement, please consider this letter notice pursuant to Section 10 of the MOU, effective March 26, 2012, of termination of the MOU between you, as Trustee of the Greenfield Union SD, and the State Board of Education. With the termination of this MOU, full authority for the governance of the Greenfield Union SD will return to the local governing board beginning on May 26, 2012.
Upon termination of this MOU, the Greenfield Union SD will be responsible for calculating your final paycheck based on your monthly compensation and expense allotment, as specified in the MOU, through May 25, 2012. As is required by Labor Code section 227.3, your final paycheck will also include payment for any annual leave days earned through May 25, 2012 that you have accrued but not yet used.
Again, on behalf of the State Board of Education, we thank you for all that you have accomplished in your two years of service.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Kirst (signed)
President
Susan K. Burr (signed)
Executive Director
cc: Patricia L. de Cos, Deputy Executive Director
      Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
      Members, State Board of Education
      Nancy Kotowski, Monterey County Superintendent of Schools
      Maria Castillo, President, Greenfield Union SD
      Trevor McDonald, Superintendent, Greenfield Union SD

This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out?

What's taking so long? This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out? "Hell has a special level for those who sit by idly during times of great crisis."
Robert Kennedy

The Art of SETTING LIMITS, Its not as easy as it looks.

Art of Setting Limits Setting limits is one of the most powerful tools that professionals have to promote positive behavior change for their clients, students, residents, patients, etc. Knowing there are limits on their behavior helps the individuals in your charge to feel safe. It also helps them learn to make appropriate choices.


There are many ways to go about setting limits, but staff members who use these techniques must keep three things in mind:
Setting a limit is not the same as issuing an ultimatum.
Limits aren’t threats—If you don’t attend group, your weekend privileges will be suspended.

Limits offer choices with consequences—If you attend group and follow the other steps in your plan, you’ll be able to attend all of the special activities this weekend. If you don’t attend group, then you’ll have to stay behind. It’s your decision.
The purpose of limits is to teach, not to punish.
Through limits, people begin to understand that their actions, positive or negative, result in predictable consequences. By giving such choices and consequences, staff members provide a structure for good decision making.
Setting limits is more about listening than talking.
Taking the time to really listen to those in your charge will help you better understand their thoughts and feelings. By listening, you will learn more about what’s important to them, and that will help you set more meaningful limits.
Download The Art of Setting Limits

SYSTEMATIC USE OF CHILD LABOR


CHILD DOMESTIC HELP
by Amanda Kloer

Published February 21, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT
category: Child Labor
Wanted: Domestic worker. Must be willing to cook, clean, work with garbage, and do all other chores as assigned. No contract available, payment based on employer's mood or current financial situation. No days off. Violence, rape, and sexual harassment may be part of the job.

Would you take that job? No way. But for thousands of child domestic workers in Indonesia, this ad doesn't just describe their job, it describes their life.

A recent CARE International survey of over 200 child domestic workers in Indonesia found that 90% of them didn't have a contract with their employer, and thus no way to legally guarantee them a fair wage (or any wage at all) for their work. 65% of them had never had a day off in their whole employment, and 12% had experienced violence. Child domestic workers remain one of the most vulnerable populations to human trafficking and exploitation. And while work and life may look a little grim for the kids who answered CARE's survey, it's likely that the most abused and exploited domestic workers didn't even have the opportunity to take the survey.

In part, child domestic workers have it so much harder than adults because the people who hire children are more likely looking for someone easy to exploit. Think about it -- if you wanted to hire a domestic worker, wouldn't you choose an adult with a stronger body and more life experience to lift and haul and cook than a kid? If you could get them both for the same price, of course you would. But what if the kid was cheaper, free even, because you knew she wouldn't try and leave if you stopped paying her. Or even if you threatened her with death.



Congress Aims to Improve Laws for Runaway, Prostituted Kids

by Amanda Kloer

categories: Child Prostitution, Pimping

Published February 20, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT

The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:

Shelter: Lack of shelter is one of the biggest vulnerabilities of runaway and homeless youth. Pimps will often use an offer of shelter as an entree to a relationship with a child or a straight up trade for sex. In the past couple years, at least 10 states have made legislative efforts to increase the number of shelters, extend shelter options, and change state reporting requirements so that youth shelters have enough time to win trust and provide services before they need to report the runaways to the police. Much of the new federal legislation would make similar increases in the availability and flexibility of shelter options.

Police Reporting: Right now, police are supposed to enter all missing persons into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database within two hours of receiving the case. In reality, that reporting doesn't always get done, making it almost impossible for law enforcement to search for missing kids across districts. This hole is a big problem in finding child prostitution victims and their pimps, since pimps will often transport girls from state to state. The new bill would strengthen reporting requirements, as well as facilitate communication between the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Runaway Switchboard

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women
Nor the Fool Politicians that used so many American GIs' lives as fodder for the fight over an english noun - "Communism"