Family social ECONOMIC background matters, SO MEASURE IT BETTER!

A few months ago, the Census Bureau released data based on a relatively new, more sophisticated measure of poverty.   The old measure had been in place since the 1960’s and did not account for the realities of today’s living expenses.  The new measure considers housing, medical, and child care costs and does a much better job adjusting for support received through federal assistance programs.   In areas with high costs of living like California and Hawaii, the new measure classified substantially more residents as poor, while the reverse was often true in areas with lower costs of living. 

This new measure is by no means perfect, and it certainly does not do anything directly to help poor families in the U.S.  But this measure may allow policy analysts to better assess the needs of American families and the relative effectiveness of safety net programs.  The change is solely on paper, but it is an important change nonetheless.

The K-12 education sector is long overdue for improvements in how it routinely measures the social background of children.  More often than not, a student’s participation in the free and reduced school lunch program and his or her LEP status are the only available indicators of family background.  Although additional indicators are sometimes collected for research or special programs and assessments, free/reduced lunch and LEP tend to be the only measures that are available for all schools in regular enrollment data.

Free/reduced lunch is a lousy indicator of socioeconomic status for a couple of reasons.  First, it classifies all students into just one of three categories (free lunch, reduced lunch, no lunch support), losing valuable detail in the process.  With this approach, a family of four making $28,000 per year will be indistinguishable from a family of four making $14,000 per year, as both would be classified as free lunch.  Second, free/reduced lunch is based on income primarily, and income by itself is not a very good indicator of social class.  In Class and Schools, Richard Rothstein points out how the use of income via free/reduced lunch as the primary measure of socioeconomic status can lead to the misrepresentation of some schools’ populations.   One school that was nationally recognized as being both high poverty and high performing was actually a public school where many Harvard and MIT graduate students sent their children.  True, graduate students don’t make much money, but few sociologists would regard this group as a high needs population. 

Social scientists have used hundreds if not thousands of different indicators to measure class and socioeconomic status, and the measures will often vary depending on available data.   However, a handful of variables emerge more often than the rest, due to both availability and their quality as predictors of outcomes in the social sector.  If I had to pick a single variable to add alongside family income, parental educational attainment would be a good choice.  A common way of representing SES in richer datasets is to combine information on income, parent education, and occupational status or occupational prestige (e.g.).  While converting occupational status into a number can be tricky, it’s a bit more straightforward for parental education levels. In many cases, measures of parent education are even reduced to maternal educational attainment due to the prevalence of single-parent households.  Thinking back to the Boston public school that enrolls the children of Harvard and MIT Ph.D. students, it is easy to see how a combination of income and parental education levels would give you a much more accurate sense of the average socioeconomic status of some families. 

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t know what legal justification the feds or states would need to collect additional personal information from parents; but, from a researcher’s perspective, the case is easy to make.  The link between social background and academic achievement is well established, but the debate over the extent to which these links should influence educational policy continues.  Achievement gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups remain large, and school segregation along these lines may be getting worse.  Meanwhile, wage, wealth, and income inequality in the U.S. continues to worsen, as it has been doing since the mid 1970’s.  In this context, there is substantial need for better measures of students’ social background, particularly given the shortcomings of current measures. 

Moreover, the weaknesses of free/reduced lunch as a socioeconomic indicator are not just an inconvenience for researchers these days.  For better or worse, many states and districts are now using statistical models to influence the retention, tenure, and promotion decisions of teachers.  Better background variables on students may help improve these models.  With all of these factors in mind, one could make the case that looking beyond free/reduced lunch is not only in the best interest of federal and state departments of education but also that it is their responsibility to do so. 

Heart Wrenching and Unimaginable Yet VERY TRUE

Probably well intended... however, this report  wholly underestimates the frequency and is inaccurate with regard to victim profiles. Almost all are Women and Children. Many of whom are taken by force off public streets in plain view. The majority of these victims are sold into prostitution or other sexual slavery in foreign countries we support. Like Saudi Arabia, Mali, and even Israel.

If you take out the acknowledgements there is little of substance left. Read it yourself and give us your take!

the text above, is the link to California Attorney General's report on human trafficking.

Broken up Nine CHILD ABDUCTION Gangs, Arresting 355 Suspects and Rescuing 89 Children.

Police rescue 89 abducted kids, arrest 355
Published: 2012-12-26

A NATIONAL operation in China has Broken up Nine CHILD ABDUCTION Gangs, arresting 355 suspects and rescuing 89 children.

The Ministry of Public Security said it conducted the nine-province operation this month after receiving reports of child abductions in Fujian and Yunnan provinces, Xinhua news agency reported.

The ministry said the child trafficking activities spanned several provinces and that the suspects bought abducted children in provinces including Yunnan and Sichuan and transported them to other provinces, where they were sold. All the rescued children are being cared for while authorities collect DNA to help identify their parents.

The umbilical cord of one baby was still attached when it was rescued by police in Sichuan Province.

Police said some village officials responsible for family planning were found to be involved in trafficking. Civil servants were also among buyers in Fujian Province.

The operation took place starting on December 18 in nine provinces that also included Anhui and Guangdong.

Chen Shiqu, director of the Child-Trafficking Strike Force, said that since the country launched the campaign against child-trafficking in April 2009, Chinese police have broken up and about 11,000 traffickers and saved an estimated 54,000 children.

Wang Xizhang, vice chief of Fujian Criminal Investigation Corps, said that such gangs often had clear labor divisions. Some were in charge of buying and abducting kids, some looked for buyers and some were in charge of transportation.

"A child bought for about 30,000 yuan ($4,809 US Dollars) in Yunnan could be sold for 70,000 to 90,000 yuan to the end buyer. It was low cost and huge profit," said Wang. "Many of the traffickers were middle-aged women in rural areas, who had poor educational backgrounds and little income."

"They usually covered children up with thick blankets and clothes," said Li Xiaowei, a Fujian police officer who participated in the joint action. "Many of the abducted children were newborn babies. They could not stand such a trip and often died of diseases or even suffocation."

Chen said a the Chinese National DNA Database for abducted people was established in June 2011. It collects samples from parents who have missing children.

Our Hearts Go Out to these Firemen

Dismissal Bill Falters in Assembly

A bill that would make it easier to fire teachers and administrators failed to pass the Assembly Education Committee on Wednesday. Sen. Alex Padilla’s controversial SB 1530 will be dead for the session unless he can persuade one more Democrat to reverse positions.
 
The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, where it passed 33-4, but, in a test of strength by the California Teachers Association, only one Democrat, Education Committee Chairwoman Julia Brownley, and all four Republicans backed it in the crucial committee vote. The other six Democrats either voted against it (Tom Ammiano, San Francisco; Joan Buchanan, San Ramon) or didn’t vote (Betsy Butler, El Segundo; Wilmer Carter, Rialto; Mike Eng, Alhambra; and Das Williams, Santa Barbara).

The bill follows 2 incidents of sexual abuse in Los Angeles Unified and elsewhere, the worst of which involved Mark Berndt, 61, who’s been accused of 23 lewd acts against children at Miramonte Elementary in LAUSD. Padilla, a Democrat from Van Nuys, said SB 1530 responded to complaints from superintendents and school board members that it takes too long and is too expensive to fire teachers facing even the worst of charges. Rather than go through hearings and potential appeals, LAUSD paid off Berndt with $40,000, including legal fees, to drop the appeal of his firing. PUBLIC RELATIONS BABY!

Under current law, dismissal cases against teachers and administrators go before a three-person Commission on Professional Competence, which includes two teachers and an administrative law judge. Its decision can be appealed in Superior Court. (Lets not be having any radical notions of educators being innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. OAH IS A TRIBUNAL OF STATE PAID INCOMPETENCE WITH THEIR OWN SET OF DUBIOUS RULES.)


SB 1530 would have carved out a narrow band of exceptions applying to “egregious or serious” offenses by teachers and administrators involving drugs, sex, and violence against children. In those cases, the competence commission would be replaced by a hearing before an administrative law judge whose (SUPPOSED) advisory (AND BULLSHIT SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT ) recommendation WHICH WILL BE TREATED THE SAME AS A CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL COURT WHERE THEY HAVE RULES BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION,) would go to the local school board for a laughable final decision. That decision was made when the teacher was first suspended, with or without merit. That OAH circus decision is sometimes appealable in court.

The bill also would have made admissible evidence of misconduct older than four years. Berndt had prior reports of abuse that had been removed from his file,  because a statute of limitations in the teachers contract in LAUSD prohibited their use. (Couldn't these self-serving fools find another example?)

School boards already have final say over dismissal of school employees other than teachers and administrators, so the bill would extend that to efforts to remove “a very creepy teacher” from the classroom,” as Oakley Union Elementary School District Superintendent Richard Rogers put it. “What is more fundamental than locally elected officials responsible for hiring and dismissal?” he asked.

The bill had the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the LAUSD president, Monica Garcia, who described her fellow board members as “seven union-friendly Democrats” who want to “get rid of people who will hurt our children.” Monica must receive campaign support from the bills backers.

But Warren Fletcher, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, countered that “SB 1530 solves nothing, places teachers at unfair risk, and diverts attention from the real accountability issues at LAUSD.” Turning the tables, Fletcher, CTA President Dean Vogel, and others have filed statements with the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing to investigate Superintendent John Deasy’s handling of misconduct allegations in the district.

The argument that current law works resonated with Buchanan, who served two decades on the San Ramon Valley School Board. Calling the bill “intellectually dishonest” because nothing can prevent another Miramonte from happening, she said, “We never had problems dismissing employees.” She acknowledged that the “long, expensive dismissal process” needs to be streamlined, but the bill doesn’t get it right. A teacher at a school in her legislative district was accused of sexual misconduct by a student who got a bad grade. That teacher “deserves due process.”

The two teachers on the Commission on Professional Competence provide professional judgment that’s needed to protect the rights of employees, said Patricia Rucker, a CTA lobbyist who’s also a State Board of Education member. “We do value the right to participate and adjudicate standards for holding teachers accountable,” she said.

Fletcher said that school boards would be subject to parental pressure in emotionally charged cases, and, as a policy body, should not be given judicial power. Assemblyman Ammiano, a former teacher, agreed. “A school board is not the one to make the decision,” he said.

Wrong! They make the decision in closed session. The OAH is just a formality. So as to look good on paper.

Full-scale assault on the educator dismissal laws - David Welch wants to make it even easier to be FIRED FOR PERSONALITY AND NON-EDUCATION BASED REASONING

Full-scale assault on dismissal laws

Nonprofit with big name attorneys files suit

Posted on 5/17/12 • Categorized as

By  John Fensterwald

EDUCATED GUESS
 

 A nonprofit founded by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur has filed a sweeping, high-stakes lawsuit challenging state teacher protection laws. A victory would overturn a tenure, dismissal, and layoff system that critics blame for the hiring and retention of ineffective teachers. A loss in court could produce bad case law, impeding more targeted efforts to achieve some of the same goals.
Students Matter is the creation of David Welch, co-founder of Infinera, a manufacturer of optical telecommunications systems in Sunnyvale. The new nonprofit filed its lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday on behalf of eight students who attend four school districts. A spokesperson for the organization told the Los Angeles Times that Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad and a few other individuals are underwriting the lawsuit. They have hired two top-gun attorneys to lead the case: Ted Boutrous, a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of  Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Ted Olsen, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush.
The lawsuit asserts that five “outdated statutes” prevent administrators from making employment decisions in students’ interest. The tenure statute forces districts to decide after teachers are on the job only 18 months whether to grant them permanent job status. Once granted tenure, they gain due-process rights that make it expensive and difficult to fire them even if they’re “grossly ineffective.” And then, when an economic downturn comes – witness the last four years – a Last In/First Out (LIFO) requirement leads to layoffs based strictly on seniority, not competency.
The protection of ineffective teachers “creates arbitrary and unjustifiable inequality among students,” especially low-income children in low-performing schools, where less experienced teachers are hired and inept veteran teachers are shunted off, under a familiar “dance of the lemons” since they cant be fired. Because education is a “fundamental interest” under the state Constitution, the five statutes that “dictate this unequal, arbitrary result violate the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution” and should be overturned.  The lawsuit doesn’t prescribe a solution.

Incremental versus global approach

Students Matter’s wholesale assault on the laws contrasts with fact-specific, narrowly tailored lawsuits brought by attorneys for the ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel Law Center. Two years ago, they won a landmark victory in Reed v. the State of California when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William Highberger found that the heavy churn of teachers due to LIFO at three Los Angeles Unified middle schools violated students’ right to an equal educational opportunity. That decision led to a settlement between the district, the mayor’s office, and the attorneys that has protected the staffs of 45 low-performing schools from layoffs for the past three years. The strength of that case lay in its ability to tie specific harm to students to the layoff law, which explicitly permits exceptions to seniority layoffs to protect students’ fundamental constitutional rights. LAUSD had not exercised that exception. (United Teachers Los Angeles has appealed; arguments will be heard June 28.)
Earlier this year, the Sacramento-based nonprofit EdVoice brought suit against Los Angeles Unified over the pro forma way it conducts teacher evaluations. But here, the suit isn’t seeking to overturn the Stull Act, which defines how evaluations are done; it says that the district (along with nearly every other one) has chosen to ignore the law’s requirement that student performance be included in teacher evaluations.
 


There’s no shortage of critics of the tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws, which teachers unions have lobbied hard to preserve. California is one of few states that have not lengthened the probationary period for teachers. More than two dozen states have strengthened their evaluation systems in the past several years. California’s dismissal law, with its 10-step process laden with due process, can cost districts hundreds of thousands of dollars to fire a teacher on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, which is why districts often work around it by paying teachers to retire or pushing them from one school to another.

Persuading a judge that the practical problems and the effects of the laws rise to the level of a constitutional violation is another matter. (In an analogous case, California is among the nation’s bottom spenders on K-12 education; it has tough standards and a challenging student population. But attorneys last year failed to convince a Superior Court judge in Robles-Wong v. California and Campaign for Quality Education v. California that adequate education funding is a constitutional right.)

Tough burden of proof

The tenure law may be particularly challenging. As the suit points out, something like 98 percent of probationary teachers have gotten tenure. The two-year probationary period (actually 18 months, since teachers must be notified by March of their second year) is not long enough. Too often evaluations have been slapdash. But the law itself doesn’t require a district even to cite a cause in denying tenure; the power of dismissal lies with the employer.

Students named in the lawsuit are from Los Angles Unified, Pasadena Unified, Sequoia Union High School District, and Alum Rock Union Elementary District, although only Los Angeles Unified and Alum Rock, which serves 11,000 students in San Jose, are specifically cited as defendants, along with  Gov. Brown, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, the State Board of Education, the state, and the State Department of Education.

The only specific reference to Alum Rock was in the identification of plaintiff Daniella Martinez, 10, whom the lawsuit says chose to transfer to a public charter school because “of the substantial risk that she would be assigned to a grossly ineffective teacher who impedes her equal access to the opportunity to receive a meaningful education.” The initial filing doesn’t cite evidence of  specific teachers who negatively affected Daniella or the other seven defendants. It refers to studies by such groups as the National Council On Teacher Quality, which issued a blunt assessment of the tenure and dismissal practices of Los Angeles Unified, and on research by Hoover Institution author Eric Hanushek, who concludes that just by dismissing 6 to 10 percent of weakest teachers, students’ academic achievement and long-term earnings as adults would increase significantly.
Los Angeles, as the state’s largest district, may have been named as a defendant because its superintendent, John Deasy, has been outspoken about the need to change labor laws. United Teachers Los Angeles has also  sued over a comprehensive teacher evaluation system that Deasy has put in place.

Deasy would appear to be a friendly witness for the plaintiffs. In a statement, he said he supports lengthening the probationary period, quickening the dismissal process, and reforming the state’s layoff law. “To my dismay, we have lost thousands of our best and hardest-working classroom instructors through the last hired, first fired rule. When forced to reduce our teaching staff through budget cuts, we are compelled through state law and union rules to base these difficult decisions primarily on seniority,” Deasy said.

But when questioned, Deasy will be pressed to acknowledge that it may not be the laws but the implementation that counts. Since joining the district, first as deputy superintendent, then superintendent, Deasy has pushed administrators to apply more scrutiny in granting tenure and more perseverance in dismissing bad teachers. Last year the district terminated 853 teachers. Furthermore, the number of probationary teachers denied tenure rose significantly last year: from 89 in 2009-10 (10 percent of those eligible) to 120 teachers in their first year and 30 in their second year. Other superintendents would agree that well-trained, persistent principals can document the case for teacher dismissa ls, notwithstanding cumbersome, excessively burdensome requirements.

Local news media documents LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy in a lie then does nothing to confront Deasy about it

Thanks to Lenny Isenberg

PERDAILY.COM
 

The following is a crystal clear example of how a mainstream local news media is able to document LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy in an outright lie then do nothing to confront Deasy or anybody else at LAUSD with the lie(s). The first video below is of an interview that KNBC Conan Nolan did with Superintendent John Deasy on February 13, 2012, where Deasy justifies giving alleged teacher child molester Mark Berndt $56,000, because according to Deasy, Reporter Nolan, and a supposed 2009 L.A. Times survey, 50% of teachers get their jobs back at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Deasy didn't want to take the chance that Berndt would get his job back. 

The second video completely contradicts this and was done by Nolan's reporter colleague at KNBC Patrick Healy on March 13, 2012, which says that in 2011, LAUSD got rid of 853 teachers and not one got their job back and only two went to the OAH and both lost. Both statements cannot be true and yet neither Nolan or Healy or any other news media dares to report the truth about Deasy and LAUSD, even though, given their daily access to LAUSD, they undoubtedly know the truth.

It is clear that Deasy is lying on this and other assertions. Last week, he claimed that only the worst teachers were being incarcerated in teacher jails by LAUSD and that if teachers are cleared by the police, they get their jobs back immediately. I have many many teachers in my database who have sat in teacher jail for over 3 years many without any charges and long after they were cleared by LAPD. And yet no mainstream or public media reports this.

Listen carefully to Superintendent Deasy closely when he says, "We don't know the facts in the case," but then says "We are within our rights to make a judgment call of inappropriate behavior and initiate termination proceeding." Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty or due process of law? The hysterical witch hunt atmosphere that now prevails at LAUSD, which Deasy continues to exploit after Miramonte, has now destroyed the lives of hundreds of teachers without a shred of verified evidence given under penalty of perjury. There is not one case in my database that LAUSD has respected teachers civil rights and given them timely due process of law in a neutral forum as clearly required by law.

click on photo

Another School District in State Receivership

Printer-friendly version

Release: #12-109
December 7, 2012

Contact: Paul Hefner
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

New Interim Administrator Appointed for Inglewood Unified School District

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today appointed La Tanya Kirk-Carter to serve as interim Administrator of the Inglewood Unified School District after accepting the resignation of Administrator Kent Taylor.
"This change is in the best interests of taxpayers, students, and employees of the Inglewood Unified School District," Torlakson said. "I'm confident that our work to address the district's troubled finances will proceed without interruption."
Taylor stepped down after the California Department of Education (CDE) learned of financial commitments he had made without the required CDE approval and prior to the completion of a financial review and plan to restore the district to fiscal health.
Kirk-Carter previously served as Assistant Superintendent of Business Services at the district. She will serve in an interim capacity until a new permanent administrator is named.
The state took over the district in September under legislation passed at the request of the district that provided up to $55 million in emergency state loans to help the district meet its financial obligations. The legislation required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to assume all the legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board of the district.
Inglewood Unified School District is the ninth school district in California to request an emergency loan, thus triggering the state takeover, since 1990. Since then, local governance has been returned to four of these districts.

Related Content

• State Emergency Loans - Information on emergency loans made to school districts.
• State Takeover of Inglewood Unified - State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Comments on State Takeover of Financially Troubled Inglewood Unified School District.
• Inglewood Administrator Appointed - State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Appoints Inglewood High Alumnus as State Administrator for Inglewood Unified School District.

# # # #

Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100

California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Contact Us  |  FAQ  |  Web Policy

Last Reviewed: Friday, December 07, 2012

THE 11 BASIC POSITIONS FROM WHICH ADMIN CAN WRONGFULLY DESTROY AN EDUCATOR:

THE 11 BASIC POSITIONS FROM WHICH ADMIN WILL RAPE AN EDUCATOR: LAWLESSNESS AND THE PRICKS THAT GET PAID TO PERPETRATE IT ON YOU! 

Thanks again to the hard work of Lenny Isenberg

at Perdaily.com

 Not if, but when HR or Your site Administor turns on you (for personal or financial reasons) and forces you to grab your ankles; in California you can expect:

1. A complete denial of basic due process of law

2. NO verified criminal charges under penalty of perjury and in front of a jury of your peers as required by law, the constitution and specific Supreme Court Ruling. But you will be suspended pending dismissal none the less.

3. You will be presumed guilty from the onset! Instead of being presumed innocent, a basic right in criminal and civil courts, so too the burden of proof is thrust on the educator without regard to your constitutional rights, US supreme court rulings and hundreds of State Education, labor, and government codes. This is the nature and rule of CA Administrative Law and the OAH.

4. CTA attorneys are supposedly paid to "defend its members." These same firms also take a large piece of other school district's budgets for prosecuting union employees. For instance, the CTA attorneys WILL go along with months to years  of stalling by agreeing to continuance after continuance inspite of stature to the detriment of their clients with the only goal of stringing out their billable hours only to settling the case at the employees expense and often termination. ...CTA then pays them an extra bonus, 40% of the paltry punitive settlement. Too often  the desperate and scared educator IS COERCED by these attorneys INTO SIGNING bullshit entrapment laden agreements.

5. Teachers are now automatically hit with the vague ambiguous "morals charges" under California Ed. Code 44939 to strip them of their right to grievance and arbitration under collective bargaining. Expect the local union to look the other way. Or try to tell you the union legal doesn't protect members from this kind of allegation. An almost certain lie. Even the infamous 'hatchet' ALJ H. James Alher admitted in a hearing, that he could not define the term "Moral Turpitude" yet he allows it as a charge and convicts many educators on its foundation. If in southern California, you are assigned Ahler as the ALJ over your OAH hearing tell your attorney to file an immediate request to have him replaced. This guy works almost directly out of the district's law firm's pockets. He is immune to discipline per Federal rule over ALJ's. Ahler, while driving intoxicated (twice the CA legal limit)  hit and killed a pedestrian in Vista CA.

6. No legal Skelly hearing  will  be provided. A  pre-disciplinary requirement on the district who must required by the 1975 case that states charges and evidence needs to be provided pre-discipline to charged teacher. This is never done. Half the time HR is still trying to figure the best charges to file against the educator. Some times they wont even tell you that the meeting is a skelly hearing, whose subsequent report to the school board for approval will become permanent record.

7. There is no bond provision or other ability to stop teacher from being put on unpaid administrative leave without benefits. How many people can survive under these circumstance and at the same time hire their own attorney in addition? This would cost them $5000 for openers with some teachers already having been fleeced of over $100,000. In Moreno Valley, CA the local is very reluctant to let go of any money for  the defense of  their members. Nor will you be able to look at that attorney's billable hours and retainer fee. Rumor is that each educator has over $20,000 dollars supposedly set aside by CTA. But CTA will never admit the existence of this.

8. Your CTA local provides no legal assistance and will only refer to their local attorneys such as the infamously incompetent Ron Skipper, Matt Singer (and others in Southern California. Happy to sell you out or ignore pertinent laws to ease their work load while collecting their easy money CTA checks.)

9. Example: Article V of the LAUSD/UTLA Collective Bargaining Agreement allows UTLA to bring a consolidated action on behalf of all their teacher members so charged in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, LAUSD's own Bulletin Policies dealing with housing teachers, duration of housing, and who should be housed, and violation of state codes and federal law. UTLA NEVER has done this and makes every effort to keep teachers divided and unaware of each other. Strength in numbers? Check the wording of your contract. Other locals have similar.

10. In no other profession, e.g. lawyer, doctor, accountant, police officer, where the professional is licensed from the state;  will the public employee - educator - be deprived of the constitutional property right to make a living in their trained field without a criminal court conviction of that case and the same charges.

11. My personal favorite is when CTA, that you have paid dues to for years, deprives you of the right to vote in any union election or take part in any union activity. By this bizarre logic, all your district would have to do is put all teachers on unpaid administrative leave and no member would be able to vote to stop them. Huh? Yep! It looks like some districts are trying to do just that.

Fontana School Board Member Kathy Binks

A Rare Commodity: Board Member Kathy Binks

Originally published in the San Bernardino

Sun Telegram

Fontana Unified School District

... Discussion on an adult bullying prevention policy was tabled to give board members time to review a proposal "with teeth" that was presented by Board Member Kathy Binks. Binks presented an alternative to the policy, which was drafted by the board's attorney and included in the packet of information board members receive prior to the meeting. 

Binks' proposed a resolution to control "instances of bullying and bullying-like conduct by adults, including, but not limited to, governing board members, toward other adults, including other board members" calls for "governing board members found by a majority of the board, during a properly agendized public meeting of the board, to have violated this policy may be subject to appropriate legal action, public censure and public disclosure of the conduct found to be in violation of this policy."

Binks, who is retiring from the board after 25 years of service on Dec. 12, said she hopes other board members will pursue implementation of this policy.

CTA REFUSES TO USE BUT A FRACTION OF IT'S ONE-THIRD BILLION DOLLAR annual INCOME TO onerously and relectantly PROTECT AND DEFEND (some not all of) IT'S MEMBERS IN NEED.

Our's is the first era where Teachers in California Have NO Enforced Rights though dozens of laws, statutes, and codes exist to protect our them. This has come to pass due mostly to the ineptitude and corporate style greed of The California Teachers Association, Our "Union." Sometimes calling itself a "Professional Organzation," not a Union. 

CTA REFUSES TO USE BUT A FRACTION OF IT'S ONE-THIRD BILLION DOLLAR annual INCOME TO onerously and relectantly PROTECT AND DEFEND (some not all of) IT'S MEMBERS IN NEED. It seems fitting you should know the salaries of the people who take an average of $75 per month from each educator (CTA states 325,000, down from over 345,000 members.) 75X325,000.00 = $ 24,375,000 PER MONTH, 12mo.X $24,375,000.00 = $292,500,000.00 per year. CTA is the richest state union in the country and the richest of its type in the world. The same CTA that gave itself through your local representatives, no membership votes were cast, an income increase every year that there have been teacher layoffs - the last six years.

I personally couldn't get a qualified CTA attorney to represent me at all. Inspite the local's CTA representative promising me that "it would be no problem." CTA legal refused to allow me an attorney in an administrative hearing regarding my pending dismissal on a set of out and out LIES by Moreno Valley Unified School District's, HR Drag Queen - Henry H. Voro's. CTA legal also refused an explanation or to provide the total each member is allotted for legal defense.
What are they hiding now?