8th Grader Sues School District. Wins. Who Objects to Settlement? The Teacher's Union.

[msanthrope]

Sharail Reed filed suit against her school district. She got an injunction and a settlement. The teacher’s union will object to that settlement. UTLA Challenges ACLU

The background:

LAUSD was sued by a group of gutsy 7th and 8th graders who were tired of the California State budget cuts hitting their schools disproportionately. Injunction, Page 3, line 25 They lost teachers, whereas schools that had more well-to-do student populations lost significantly less, or none at all. Id.

Why? Seniority. Teachers with seniority in the LAUSD tend to leave poor schools for richer ones, leaving the youngest teachers at the worst schools. So when the budget cuts hit, the last-one-hired, first-one fired union rule went into effect, hitting primarily poorer schools. Complaint, p.3, lines 5-20.

Markham, where Sharail goes, lost 30% of its teacher population. Injunction, Page 3, line 25 Other schools lost 50 to 72% percent of teachers. Complaint, p.3, line 19. The District wide average? 6.6%. Injunction, Page 3, line 25.

Sharail, and other kids, filed on equal protection grounds. And she won an Injunction. Even better, the LAUSD woke up and realized that they had a duty to Sharail and students like her.

So instead of a long court fight, the Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, and the District agreed to a settlement that protects 45 of LAUSD’s poorest schools from losing most of their teachers.

Who objects? The teacher’s union. UTLA Challenges ACLU

The District did argue they had to follow the contract, protecting the 'property' interest of teachers, but teachers have no vested interest in a contract that voids fundamental rights. Injunction, Page 7, lines 24-26

Nor does state law protect the seniority system, since seniority can be suspended if equal protection is violated. Injunction, Page 7, lines 12-16

This is parent/student reform via the courts. And fundamental rights are trumped by no contract.

Here’s the statement of Sharail Reed, filed with her Complaint.

My name is Sharail Reed. I’m in 8th grade at Markham and when I grow up I want to be a psychologist or a lawyer.

This suit is about how it’s wrong for us to have so many different teachers and not really to be learning. In my history class this year I had so many different teachers that it was a blur. They would write their names on the board and the next day the name would be erased because the teacher would be gone. One time we stood outside the class most of the period after the bell rang waiting for a sub to show up.

I’m part of this suit because I’m standing up for what I believe and what I know is right. I don’t want this to happen to somebody else. I've already been through it and I want it to stop right here. I’m trying to make a difference so the 7th graders here won’t have a bunch of subs.

SNIP

I know in other schools none of the teachers left because of the budget cuts. It’s not fair for my school to lose so many teachers. It feels like everyone else is learning except for us. It feels like we’re a lower class school and like we’re not as thought about as other schools. When it comes down to it, we all want to learn but when we don’t get the opportunity to learn we’re left with nothing.
Statement of a Heroine

[msongs]

1. and your complaint against the teachers' union is.....? nt

[msanthrope]

2. I find it interesting that a union would object to an Equal Protection settlement.

Here, you have a judge who very carefully documented gross inequities that these students suffered. (see the injunction, noted above.)

You have a Defendant who admits the wrongdoing, and is willing to remedy.

You have public interest law firms fighting the good fight....

The only objections to rectifying?

The Teacher's Union.


a note, on edit--the only time I've EVER heard of union objecting to a civil rights settlement?????

Cops and FD unions, objecting to new standards/minority recruitment programs.

[EFerrari]

12. Why is the union objecting to this settlement? Because it's the wrong solution.

"The union said it was concerned that the agreement would leave low-performing schools with a higher concentration of less experienced teachers. It also said "state law already gives schools districts flexibility in layoff procedures to best meet the needs of students" and "the settlement does nothing to solve ongoing staffing problems at hard-to-staff schools."'


The union is not anti-civil rights as your OP suggests. They are against this fake solution to the problem.

[msanthrope]

18. The ACLU offered a fake solution to a civil rights problem?

The Union didn't even bother to show up to the settlement negotiations.....

"The union said it did not participate in settlement talks even though it was a defendant in the suit. And lawyers and others encouraged UTLA leaders to become involved.

"There's a lot of room to work with the union," said Catherine Lhamon of Public Counsel, one of the groups that filed the suit. "It's always been our hope that UTLA would be full partners in this."

SNIP

Some district officials also expressed frustration with the union.

"Our labor partners, UTLA in particular, have not agreed to the many changes and reforms we've put forth for… our students," board member Yolie Flores said."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/08/local/la-me-lausd-20101008

What, precisely, in the settlement is a 'fake solution?'

[EFerrari]

24. The district that was happy to leave those schools in the hands of subs is frustrated?

My heart bleeds for them.

ACLU is doing a good job of attacking this problem. On the other hand, the district is using it as a way to attack tenure and the union. How completely unsurprising.

And you use it as evidence that the union is anti-civil rights. Ditto.

[msanthrope]

28. Generally, when you object to a civil rights settlement for self-interest, well, that makes you

anti-civil rights.

After all, the teachers and the unions have no interest in a contract clause that works an injustice on children, right?

[EFerrari]

66. Doesn't even merit a response. n/t

[msanthrope]

69. And yet, you responded. n/t

[wtmusic]

71. LOL

Just, LOL.

[BzaDem]

122. +1

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

63. Maybe it's because the UTLA contract has 19 pages devoted to how teachers

can mediate/delay/prolong/file a grievance/file for hardship/file for a medical waiver/in other ways tie the hands of LAUSD when LAUSD requests a transfer.

It's not about "wanting to leave these in schools in the hands of subs", it's about "having to leave those schools in the hands of subs". :eyes:

[wtmusic]

22. Mumbo-jumbo, gobbledy-gook.

The same crap from teachers unions, over and over again. If they want to destroy themselves that's fine with me, but they're taking public education down with them.

Criminal. :grr:

[Frank Booth]

76. You're ignoring the fact that UTLA has fiercely fought to keep the seniority system in place.

The same system that lets higher-seniority teachers avoid schools in Watts and Pico-Union.

[Dorian Gray]

93. One of my closest friends

is a teacher at one of the LA Unified schools, and she has been the Union Rep at the school for years. Her school, however, is one of the top performing schools in the district, and they've laid off one teacher in the last four years. So there is some truth (and she admits it) to the article that the poorer schools are disproportionately affected by seniority. It's a sad situation because there doesn't seem to be a good answer when all the teachers must take furlough days and the state of California is suffering economically. Hopefully things will right themselves soon.

[msanthrope]

96. Interesting take. Thank you for sharing that. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

108. Well, it is

a take on the situation, but it's such a complicated issue with no real "right" or "wrong" answer. I understand why the union wants to protect the senior teachers. Without their protection, they would be the first to be let go because of their higher salaries. At the same time, it's unfair that the poorer or inner city schools are faring less well. I think, however, with the state of affairs of the economy in California, there is no answer that anybody will be happy with. It's such a complicated mess, and I'm happy that I am not a teacher there currently.

[msanthrope]

110. well, I liked the proposed settlement-- up to 45 of the poorest and/or worst performing

schools would be given priority in refusing layoffs in order to keep their teacher pools intact.

The remainder of layoffs would be spread equally through the District.

"The approved settlement targets schools for protection from layoffs and defines those targeted schools as the 25 ranked in the bottom 30 percent by Academic
Performance Index (API) score, high teacher turnover rates, and other determining criteria. It also allows for up to 20 new schools to be protected as target schools. Although it allows the LAUSD discretion in protecting the schools most vulnerable to high turnover rates and classroom instability, this agreement protects schools throughout the LAUSD by ensuring that no school is impacted by layoffs at a rate greater than the District average."

http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103046

I think protecting vulnerable schools who have seen the most damage from recent layoffs, coupled with equal distribution by school is the most equitable solution....

will this mean that some teachers with more seniority will be fired, depending on their school? Yes. But seniority is a privilege that bows to fundamental rights.

[Dorian Gray]

119. I do hope that things can turn around for the state soon

My friend was actually happy with the non-paid furlough days because she was able to attend a wedding during the week that would have been her first week back.

But losing pay is a problem, and they've already cut the school year down by almost two weeks this year. It's not a tenable long-term solution to keep cutting days. Teachers will need to be laid off if the economic situation in CA stays the same. And it's a shame.

[wtmusic]

117. The source of the problem is a system which ignores merit.

Senior or not, pay is not based on merit - so terrific, motivated younger teachers are let go, and expensive, crusty old farts are kept on (coming from an old fart).

It's not all about experience.

[Dorian Gray]

120. That can be true

but it should be determined on an individual basis. Not all young and new teachers are motivated and terrific, and not all old teachers are crusty old farts. There is a place for both of them in the system, and evaluating merit in the educational system is so difficult. Each school has its own set of issues, and each principal's demands might be different. No one student body has universal needs, and a city-wide or state-wide or national-wide system of determining merit is a thorny issue. Which is why it's been met with the way it has by teachers' unions. I can't blame them for that. At the same time, it's apparent that something needs to be done about the problems. It's determining what is the most fair that is difficult for everyone involved.

[wtmusic]

124. Merit is difficult to determine

but it's something that has to happen. The unions' lack of a self-policing mechanism has led to a situation where barely adequate (and some truly awful) teachers are on the payroll. People have had enough.

Obama/Duncan's Race To The Top initiative has a very comprehensive and flexible approach to evaluating teacher merit, but because he has also embraced charters the unions won't even consider it. IMHO the charter school movement is a truly horrendous mistake which will take decades to play out.

[Dorian Gray]

107. oops

wrong spot

[QC]

75. Their very existence. n/t

[bemildred]

3. The obvious solution is for the district to keep the good teachers in the bad schools. nt

[msanthrope]

4. You are conflating 'bad' with 'poorest.'

As the complaint details, (cited above) the schools worst hit were ones that had actively recruited young, energized teachers willing to stay with underserved communities....these were reforming schools where teachers were trying to make a difference.

[thunder rising]

6. Exactly, some good teachers have to go back to the poor schools.

[bemildred]

14. No I am not, "bad" meant "bad".

Poor schools are not necessarily bad, the district ought to put the best teachers where they are most needed, i.e. where the students need the most help. That can be anywhere.

[msanthrope]

19. I misunderstood you, sorry! You are correct. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

27. you mean teach for awhile recruits, don't you.

[msanthrope]

31. If you have any evidence as to the caliber of the teachers subjected to layoffs,

you should post it.

[Hannah Bell]

37. here you go:

Teaching interns illegally rated as qualified

State illegally classifies interns as 'highly qualified,' assigns them to poor and minority schools, court rules

(09-28) 14:45 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — California has violated federal law by classifying thousands of inexperienced, noncredentialed teachers as "highly qualified" and assigning them to schools with heavily low-income and minority enrollments, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was a victory for impoverished families in Richmond, Hayward and Los Angeles who filed suit in 2007. They claimed their schools were saddled with disproportionate numbers of untrained interns because of federal and state regulations that flouted federal law.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-28/bay-area/24100380_1_full-state-certification-john-affeldt-interns


and a lot of them are "Teach for Awhile":

Writing in dissent today, Judge Richard C. Tallman said he did not believe the plaintiffs have standing against the federal Education Department because their real complaint is with the California Department of Education and its teaching-certification definitions.

Tallman characterizes the lawsuit as an attack on Teach for America participants and their intern status as meeting the "highly qualified" teacher definition under the challenged federal regulation.

"By removing the Teach for America teachers' 'highly qualified' label, hope to lower the number of Teach for America teachers legally allowed to fill vacant positions in low-income area schools," Judge Tallman wrote. But that goal may not even result from striking down the regulation because many "highly qualified teachers" prefer to work in affluent schools over those in low-income areas, he said.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/09/federal_highly_qualified_teach.html

[msanthrope]

42. You do realize that's the wrong case? The wrong court, too. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

46. yes dear, i realize it's not the case in your OP. It's a recently decided case demonstrating

that California state's policy was to label uncertified interns, such as TFA teachers, as "highly qualified" & place them disproportionately in poor minority classrooms.

Which speaks directly to your request for information about the quality of teachers in these classrooms.

This is state policy. It has nothing to do with seniority, but with state hiring practices.

[msanthrope]

49. Do you have any evidence that links your case to my case? An issue?

A single person?

Do you have any evidence that the union, or the district raised this an issue to justify the layoffs?

[Hannah Bell]

52. disingenuous one.

[msanthrope]

55. That might be the sweetest thing you've ever said to me.

On edit, though, here's a question--

If TFA is involved, then how does this affect the EP claim?

Are the children to be denied EP?

[Gabi Hayes]

39. you don't seem to know much about education

how do you measure the 'calibre' of teacher being laid off?

test scores, is my guess

what's the 'calibre' of teacher being hired, at cost of thousands per recruit, being used to replace many of these teachers laid off?

then there's this, from our own madfloridian, discussing the phenomenon of experienced teachers being laid off, then replaced by TFAers:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6032

Teach for America. A way to replace experienced, higher-salaried teachers?

Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion
Mon Apr 19th 2010, 07:36 PM

From the University of Oklahoma student paper, there is an interesting point of view.

Teach for America not as good an idea as some graduates believe

The article presents it from a point of view of a social consciousness.


Those who are thinking of participating in Teach for America with a social justice mission in mind should consider this. Although a far more daunting task for sure, those really interested in social justice should consider ways of solving problems like unavoidable unemployment and low-wage jobs.

On top of failing to make a dent in poverty, Teach for America actually detracts from social justice by hurting real teachers. Teach for America students take low, entrance-level pay while also receiving a government subsidy for their salary in the form of Americorps stipends. Schools lay off teachers and then hire Teach for America teachers to fill positions that real teachers would otherwise be filling. Teach for America teachers are undercutting the wage needs of real teachers and causing them to be laid off as a result.

Imagine this: a well-off college student takes a subsidized teaching position at an impossibly low wage and displaces actual teachers who might already be struggling to get by — all for social justice!

For anyone who has any concern for labor rights, this is extremely abusive. Not undercutting wage demands of often unionized workers is rule number one of how to be a serious social justice advocate

http://oudaily.com/news/2010/mar/12/column-teach-america-not-good-idea-some-graduates-/

[msanthrope]

44. While I find madfloridian's journals interesting, you still haven't

explained what Teach for America has to do with this case...

Perhaps you could explain just how Teach for America is involved????

Plaintiff? Defendant????

[Hannah Bell]

47. you've been linked twice, dear. quit pretending.

[msanthrope]

51. Again, do you have any evidence that the cases are linked?

A single issue, litigated in one case, that is part of another?

A single person?

[Hannah Bell]

53. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9298053&mesg_id=9298720

[Gabi Hayes]

67. to spell it out for the last time, TFA and similar groups, like that bogus

'non-partisan' think tank (funded by the Bradley Foundation) linked in your non-attributed article cited in huffpo, have a gigantic vested interest in destroying teachers' unions

it's obviously in their (and your own?) interest to do so. stop being so transparently dense on this subject

you think there's a reason your meretricious OP has gotten negative recs? not everybody is as easilty hoodwinked as you'd like

again, why the apparently very deep (and very carefully cited, when convenient) interest in this particular case, and your disingenuous praise of the ACLU (is that the first time for you?)

[msanthrope]

72. Again, other than speculation, do you have a single bit of evidence that

TFA teachers have anything to do with this?

How, precisely, should a putative TFA involvement affect the Equal Protection claim of the children?

[Gabi Hayes]

78. you can knock it off....it's not working, microrhetoro. it's very clear what the

agenda is here, and this lawsuit is an important part of it

you won't admit it, because it's central to your disingenuous case that groups like TFA and Green Dot schools have no other agenda than 'teaching the children'

as for Green Dot Schools, begun by another greedy crook, and defended by the very same John Rogers cited in your huffpo article, populated by various right wing astroturf groups, it's yet another example of the so-called not for profit schools being a front for corporatatos whose goal is to get their hands in one of the biggest public cookie jars left that haven't been already decimated by wall street crooks and conmen

here's the story on Green Dot. the most interesting part is in one of the comments, from which I'll quote. and the story itself, like your posts, and OP, leaves out the most salient point>>>that the founder stepped down because he was caught with his hand in the school's cookie jar, like MANY other charter-type school scammers:

by Robert D. Skeels
To be sure, Steve Barr lost his position because of the missing $51K scandal, his embarrassing falling out with Michele Rhee during Green Dot's negotiations in D.C., and his constant wrangling with the one man at Green Dot who is greedier than he is -- Marco Petruzzi. The money grubbing Green Dot Public Schools machine would have discarded the Silverlake snake oil salesman completely, except their decade long public relations campaign portraying Steve Barr as the "friendly face" of the neoliberal dismantling of public education by corporate interests has been so successful, it would have harmed the corporate charter-voucher establishment in the long run. In the interest of "market share" Green Dot kept Barr on to serve as the corporate spokesperson for the sycophantic right wing business press and other corporate sociopaths to dote on him while they eliminate the last vestiges of the public commons, and give themselves bailout financed bonuses.

Steve Barr's corporate charter-voucher establishment in Los Angeles, like all EMO/CMO factory schools with their unelected and unaccountable boards, have been a paradigm of parent and community disenfranchisement.

The recent definitive studies demonstrating both charter school racism http://bit.ly/8RRuaZ

and CMO charter-voucher school discrimination and exclusivity toward children with special needs

http://bit.ly/5LHf2j

are further proof that the decades long failed experiment of the corporate CMO supporters must end.


http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/11/20/green-dot-public-schools-chairman-steve-barr-steps/?c=10303

[msanthrope]

80. Wait--are you saying the ACLU is fomenting a TFA and Green Dot agenda?

Do you have anything except blogposts that indicates that TFA and Green Dot have anything to do with this?

And again, are you actually suggesting that putative involvement of people you don't you like somehow affects a civil rights challenge????

[Gabi Hayes]

84. you mean a blog post littered with agenda driven wingnuts like the one you

cited in your OP from huffpo?

that sort of blog post you deride, yes?

you know very well I'm not addressing your narrow focus here. you can't/won't acknowledge the roll of groups like TFA/Green Dot/right wing astroturf thinktanks like your huffpo blog cites

you can't/won't because the big picture is obvious: you want education 'reform' in the hands of corporations

that's fine. why don't you just admit it?

I admit that public education is in deep, deep trouble. but the incipient cure is killing the patient before it has a chance to recover

I've worked in low income public schools for 13, so I see it every day. I've SEEN/LIVED the changes since NCLB started the ball rolling, and I'm afraid it's already too late

your pals have probably already won

hope you're happy

[msanthrope]

86. The ACLU are agenda driven wingnuts? Did you not notice the Huffpo link was to the AP feed?

That wasn't a Huffpo blog--it was the AP feed.

A news story.

I've quoted the AP news feed, and the actual court documents filed in this case, and somehow, I;m hiding sources?

More than once on this thread, you've accused me of hiding sources and agendas...

So, can you explain to me how hyperlinking to actual court documents, and the AP news feed does that? That's primary sources, and one news story...

as opposed to blogposts and journals.

[wtmusic]

87. Advocating seniority reform does not equate to cheerleading the charter movement.

The union's inflexible stance on seniority is what is killing public education.

In your words, "Your pals have probably already won. Hope you're happy."

[Gabi Hayes]

60. you know very well, don't you?

TFA has many teachers employed in LA

you claim not to know that?

their agenda seems pretty much the same as yours

why don't you tell us how you amassed such detailed knowledge of this case (carefully linked/not linked so as to make it difficult to see where you info's coming from, the huffpo article being one example)

it's hard to find numbers for this year, but as of last year, they were only going to have 64, IIRC, because of budget cuts.

Atlanta has 210, though, and all big cities are trying very hard (and paying THOUSANDS per teacher to get them) to get as many as they can

suffice it to say, the answer to your disingenuous question is very obvious: huge bucks at stake for the those who would profit at the expense of our childrens' education

read any current unbiased study, and it shows that not only do TFA teachers do no better (worse, in the study I linked) than certified teachers, charter schools are also being shown to do no better (in many cases, worse) than even the lowest performing innercity schools

how bout a little of your own background, btw? why are you so well-informed/strident on this topic?

what axe do you have to grind?

fill us in, please?

be honest

[msanthrope]

68. Again, do you have ANY evidence that Teach For America is involved in this case?

Is that what you are saying is the defense of the union? That the fired teachers were all TFA, so they don't count?

And not for anything, but how using a hyperlink hiding a source?


On edit--if TFA are involved, then how does that affect the civil rights case?

Are the children not to have Equal Protection if TFA is involved?

[Gabi Hayes]

79. I've already answered the question of TFA's involvement. it's NOT with this case, but

you can't deal with their real interest, can you?

and you refuse to reveal your own deep interest in this case, despite my repeated requests

you continue to ask others for information, links, etc., when your own OP is carefully designed to hide sources and agendas

again, nice try


you demand, yet never respond in substand

can't believe I'm still bothering


buh bye

[msanthrope]

81. So, if TFA isn't involved, then WHY are you bringing them up???

On edit, why are you so upset I linked to the AP news feed and primary sources?

[msanthrope]

89. "when your own OP is carefully designed to hide sources and agendas"

You've repeated this claim more than once on this thread...

Would you kindly tell me just how one hides sources and agendas while hyperlinking to 1) court documents, filed in the public courts; and, 2) an AP news article.

Not blogposts, not journals....primary sources and a news story.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. really.... do you believe this garbage? Teach For America strikes again, charging THOUSANDS in

finders' fees for untrained "high acheivers" who know nothing about teaching, stick around for a few years (resume building as you say), then blow that pop stand

so sick of crap like this

keep blaming it on the teachers. THEY sure are the problem, aren't they?

is it amusing, or disgusting, to see the vitriol with which teachers/unions are treated here? would've thought I wandered onto some right to work site

here's some evidentiary data to see what's happening so far with TFA recruits' effectivness on those oh-so-all-important measures of student 'learning': standardized test scores. can you guess?

according to the following link, in the (poorer, mostly) schools researched the TFA teachers, when compared with uncredentialed teachers, who often work there, as opposed to schools staffed with those who have credentials, ''novice TFA teachers perform equivalently, and experienced TFA teachers perform comparably in raising reading scores and a bit better in raising math scores.''

The question for most districts, however, is whether TFA teachers do as well as or better than credentialed non-TFA teachers with whom school districts aim to staff their schools. On this question, studies indicate that the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well in reading and mathematics than those of credentialed beginning teachers.

http://edjustice.blogspot.com/2010/06/teach-for-america-what-evidence-says.html





the actual brief is here
www.epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america.

[msanthrope]

38. What does Teach for America have to do with this thread?

Your first link has nothing to do with this case.

Your second link doesn't work.

[Hannah Bell]

40. quite a bit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9298053&mesg_id=9298559

& both you & i know this lawsuit didn't originate in the mind of the sweet little 13-year-old.

[msanthrope]

45. Again, that's the wrong case, and the wrong court.

Could you perhaps explain how this is connected?

[Hannah Bell]

48. i already did, dear.

[Gabi Hayes]

50. why bother with this one? agenda written all over it

its initial post is larded with exactly the sort of language that characterizes what's becoming an all-out attack on teachers, as well as teachers' unions.

here's another example of the propaganda being spread, in a story from from the source msanthrope CITES:

The reform train is moving," said Emily Cohen, district policy director of National Council of Teacher Quality. "Districts aren't as afraid of unions anymore."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/utla-challenges-aclu-layo_n_754263.html#

and just what IS this NCTE? can you guess? here:

But what is the National Council on Teacher Quality? Despite using the NCTQ as a bedrock source, the Strib doesn't qualify it in ANY way - it merely implies the organization's apparent objectivity.

It turns out, though, the NCTQ is a right wing outfit funded by usual conservative philanthropies that have agitated against teachers' unions using changing rationales for decades, including the loathsome Bradley Foundation, the virtual fount of the movement. Its board is filled with the people who populate right wing think tanks funded by those same philanthropies, who have plotted and carried out the dishonest attack on public schools.

One notable person on the board is Chester Finn, perhaps one of the most important voices in the attacks on public school teachers. Finn has been advocating for school choice for decades. When someone finally asked him how competition would help the left behind schools, he basically had no answer. The magical market would do the trick, he ridiculously asserts.

So in order to justify its entire story, the Strib relied on an organization funded and staffed by right wing Republican critics of public school teachers, without ever informing readers of the nature of that organization. How does that happen? The writers of the censored Sandia report had specifically warned about "..unfounded criticism from the public raises the specter of a downward spiral in future educational quality." It's as if the reporters at the Strib had read the Sandia report and decided to make the researchers' worst fears come true (of course in all likelihood the reporters have never even heard of the report).

http://triumphofconservativephilanthropy.blogspot.com/

anybody surprised at the sources 'applauding' the 'reform train' plowing through the educational landscape?

and why no attribution in the OP for much of what's in there. I'd like to see some provenance, other than citations of the injunction, aclu settlement, etc.

want to bet the other names in the huffpo story, like John Rogers, director of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access (works at UCLA, too), have a similarly wingnut bent?

I gotta go, but this whole thing stinks to high heaven, and looks to be a carefully stitched together hit piece, relying on some of our usual wingnut-funded sources

nice try, though

[ClarkUSA]

5. That's disgusting. Shame on the teacher's union and those teachers for putting $$ before kids.

Thank you for taking the time to compile the facts

Bookmarked for future reference:

"8th Grader Sues School District. Wins. Who Objects to Settlement? The Teacher's Union."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9298053&mesg_id=9298053

:kick:

[msanthrope]

7. I thought that direct citations to primary source material on an education thread

would be a refreshing change.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Yes, I can hardly believe what I'm seeing: facts minus the usual overwrought victimized spin.

Wow, what a concept.

You did good.

:thumbsup:

[wtmusic]

8. What's the policy of UTLA on teachers leaving poor schools for "rich "ones?

You have a reference to Complaint, p.3, lines 5-20. but I don't see anything relating to teachers leaving.

I thought teachers lost their seniority if they transferred. :shrug:

[msanthrope]

15. UTLA has a teacher-initiated transfer program--your seniority number doesn't

change, since your seniority--at least in LA--seems to be based district wide.

[wtmusic]

17. Thx. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. Surely dismissals should be by school rather than by district.

Selecting which staff to keep purely on the basis of seniority rather than keeping the ones you need - teaching 6-year-olds and teaching 12-year-olds are not the same skill at all - seems like a daft idea for me, but even if you're going with it then surely you should be dismissing the n% least senior teachers at each school, not the n% least senior across the district.

[msanthrope]

95. The collective bargaining agreement of UTLA prevented a by-school

basis for the layoffs. As I noted in the OP, the judge struck the provisions that work an injustice and noted that the senority law doesn't allow for EP violations, either.

[DeSwiss]

9. K&R n/t

[JNelson6563]

11. Disappointing.

:-(

[dsc]

13. So what would you say to a teacher with 6 years senority in one school

who gets displaced by a teacher at that school with 3 years? Assume for a second, as is likely, that the first teacher was never offered a job at the school in question. Incidently, this actually seems a recipe for that school to perpetually have nothing but inexperienced teachers as they will be protected from layoffs by being in that school.

[wtmusic]

16. They should be protected from layoffs if they're working at the poorest

schools in the district. That's the point. By guaranteeing their members seniority, UTLA is guaranteeing inner city kids they will have no chance whatsoever at a decent education.

[dsc]

21. actually if the numbers justify having x number of teachers at that school

then they would get the x number of teachers (even if it is via some being bumped into that school). The way every senority system I am familar with works is as follows. Say you have, to make it simple, two schools, each of which need five teachers. You currently have 12 teachers, six at each school. The two with the least senority are laid off. If they happen to be one in each school than all is great. If not, then the school that lost two teachers gets the one from the other school with the least senority or one who wishes to move. Thus, that school actually would be getting a teacher with more experience than they otherwise would be getting.

[wtmusic]

25. Teachers don't want to move to poorer schools

so those schools get fewer and less experienced teachers.

I'm trying to think of another job that relies exclusively on seniority for advancement, and coming up blank.

[dsc]

35. they do if the teacher is told either move to that school or you don't have a job at all

which is what would happen under any senority system I have heard of. Oh, and BTW, just about every single, solitary government position I have ever heard tell of that was civil service was last hired first fired.

[wtmusic]

59. Please, give me an example of just one.

One position that is last hired/first fired, with no consideration of merit. :shrug:

[dsc]

64. when our state laid off employees it was last hired first fired

the state is NC.

[wtmusic]

65. Which employees?

I want to know the name of another post where job performance is not taken into consideration at all.

[dsc]

73. It was an across the board cut

oh and pretty much every union manufacturing contract works the exact same way. Autoworkers to give one example.

[wtmusic]

83. I would bet that UAW contracts don't give members with seniority

priority when being considered for preferable job assignments. Otherwise, the dirty jobs would only be staffed by newbies - even jobs which required experience.

That's what's happening here.

[dsc]

90. actually they do

But that isn't how the preferrable teaching assignments are given out if you are referring to teaching in a specific school. Principals get to staff their schools how they see fit when openings occur. It is that the experienced teachers tend to gravitate to better schools and are seen, often correctly, as better teachers to hire.

[wtmusic]

115. The UTLA contract gives preference for transfers to members with seniority

"13.1 Teachers with permanent or continuing status may apply for transfer under this section if either:
a. The teacher has, for at least eight consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed date of transfer, served at one or more locations currently designated as a Title I or Urban Impact I School."

http://www.aeutla.net/docs/LAUSD-UTLA%20Agreement%202009.pdf

Translation: when your eight years are up at a Title 1 school (typically, the most difficult teaching environment), you can move. Result: inner city schools are staffed with the youngest and least experienced.

"Principals get to staff their schools how they see fit when openings occur." Not necessarily. When an administrative transfer is requested, teachers get up to 60 days to mediate the transfer. They can file a grievance, which puts the transfer on hold. They can file for hardship exemption. They can file for medical exemption. See the UTLA contract for 19 pages of other ways UTLA teachers can make it virtually impossible for the district to transfer them.

[snooper2]

102. They do, my dad worked at Chrysler Fenton MO plant

I think he was at 35 years when an opening came up for the tool shop...

That was the last gravy position he had....And he was first in line of people who wanted it due to seniority..

(Gravy job, because you basically walk around with a big cart. And if somebody's tool is broken or wore out, your give them a replacement and take old tools back to tool shop.)

[Hannah Bell]

70. these posters have no interest in facts. today is for teacher-bashing. they're out in force.

[msanthrope]

23. Are you talking different schools? Or the same school?

Regardless, while I think seniority can have merit, it simply does not override the fundamental right of Equal Protection.

"Incidently, this actually seems a recipe for that school to perpetually have nothing but inexperienced teachers as they will be protected from layoffs by being in that school."

Well, if you have those non-layoff teachers there long enough, they aren't going to be inexperienced anymore.

Which is sorta the point....

[dsc]

91. then they will leave that school once they have enough senority protection

to be OK over all.

[msanthrope]

98. Do you think that the reasons stated for teacher transfer in Post 94

are valid explanations for why previous teachers transferred out of these schools?

Your posts states that the newer union teachers will transfer,too.

For reasons outlined in post 94?

[dsc]

100. honestly the fact the schools are hard to work in is part of it

this is what you get when test scores are the be all and end all of what you grade teachers on. Like many people we don't want to have harder jobs rather than easier. But also it gets to location as well. My school is a tougher school but I live very close. I won't be transfering anytime soon. But if I were driving say 50 minutes and dealing with a tough school that might put me over the edge. I will say it has nothing to do with race but it has a lot to do with class and amount education is valued. It is tough to work in a school where education isn't valued. My life would be a lot easier if I worked in a wealthy school with kids who came from homes which valued education.

[msanthrope]

105. Why do you expect students to value the ship, when the teachers are taking the lifeboats out?

Seriously, when the teacher's unions fight for penalty-free transfer, and a seniority system that puts the most inexperienced in the poorest schools, how can you reasonably expect poor students to take away any message other than---

"You are not worth educating. But other children are."

Why do you expect CHILDREN to value their education, when the ADULTS around them--including their very teachers--don't value their education.

I know everybody says it isn't about race, and yet, coincidentally, the poorest schools happen to have the most minorities....

The kids who are the Plaintiffs of this lawsuit value their education.

[malletgirl02]

20. LA Times

Well if you are going to have the LA times posting test scores of teacher's students, and basing everything on test scores you going to have teacher's trying to transfer out of the poor schools into the richer ones.

[msanthrope]

26. I hate to bring facts to your argument....

but the suit preceded the LA Times publication of test scores.

If you are arguing that the publication of test scores will hasten the flight of teachers to 'rich' schools, then you really aren't saying a very nice thing about the teachers, are you?

[malletgirl02]

30. You don't have to be all snarky

You didn't need that facts statement, you don't have to talk down to me. I wasn't saying anything mean about teacher's by saying that. Everyone is always, taking potshots at them. With all the crap they go through, I don't blame them for trying to make things slight easier on themselves.

[bluestateguy]

29. The court has made a ruling. Now it is time for the losers to shut up and comply with it

nt

[msanthrope]

33. Not that easy--the court has yet to rule on the settlement, thus

the union is objecting. Although after reading that injunction, it's not hard to read the tea leaves.

The union apparently couldn't be bothered to show for the negotiations.

But they get to object.

[Gabi Hayes]

43. is that your next target: lawyers?

how DARE they have the effrontery to employ due process?

wtf are you doing here, anyway?

and since you're all OVER this case, why don't you add to your BS pile with some ridiculous reason as to why they 'didn't show up' for the settlement?

perhaps it was a fait accompli?

for what other unions do you have so much distaste?

all of em's my guess

[msanthrope]

56. Not at all--the ACLU did a very fine job on this case. They should be applauded. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

61. what are you, a comedian? you know exactly what I'm talking about

sounding more and more like an EC with every post

[msanthrope]

74. Actually, no. But here's a question--how would TFA involvement affect the EP

challenge?

[Gabi Hayes]

82. last time...very last....I respond to you. it's the big picture. your narrow focus is self-

defeating to anyone paying attention

when you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law....but you know that, don't you

your big picture support of astroturf-led/funded so-called educational reform is more than obvious

now, for the last time.....

WHY?????

[msanthrope]

85. I just don't see the ACLU as part of the "astroturf-led/funded so-called educational reform."

Your big picture sort of looks like a Pollock.

[EFerrari]

Nurses. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

32. There are, of course, solutions that would work for all parties. But LA will use this to gut

seniority.

And some folks like that very much.

[msanthrope]

34. Then the union should have shown up to the settlement talks.

Seriously--how do you have a solution when you can't be bothered to show up to the court-supervised negotiations?

[Hannah Bell]

54. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9298053&mesg_id=9298720

[msanthrope]

57. How is it disingenuous to post an actual fact? The union didn't show up to the settlement.

As far as I can tell, they didn't put on a witness for the hearing for the injunction, either.

[Canuckistanian]

41. Therefore, obvious conclusion = "teacher's unions are bad"

Got it.

[msanthrope]

58. No--it's that UTLA is self-interested.

Which I don't begrudge them. That is their right...self-interest.

But the consequence of the pursuit of self-interest is the loss of the higher moral ground:

One cannot claim to be for the children, when one claims a property right in a contract clause that works an injustice on kids.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. A more reasonable conclusion is that this particular teachers union is more concerned about

seniority than equal access to education for their students. It would be interesting to see how local unions would handle a similar situation.

[NutmegYankee]

62. I only have two beefs with unions.

Don't get me wrong, I usually like unions and appreciate the protection and higher pay they bring, but

1. Too many unions use a seniority system that keeps worthless people in place such that when cuts come, they dump some really hard workers who are new; and

2. Too many manufacturing unions protected workers who worked very little, which damaged their companies and resulted in the loss of all of their jobs.

If Unions want to come back in vogue, they need to reform these two areas, particularly getting rid of the seniority system. In my field, Engineering, older engineers are practically revered, despite a lack of union protection because they are very experienced and knowledgeable. Incompetent engineers were naturally weeded out long ago.

[msanthrope]

77. Well, here you have seniority affecting the civil rights of a third party...

So, I have a very good feeling that this case, and its progeny, are going to change the teacher seniority system forever.

[tammywammy]

88. Interesting thread n/t

[crazyjoe]

94. I just love the BS excuses in this thread.

the fact is, the teachers with seniority don't want to teach poor black/latino kids who are dropping out at 60-70% rate anyway. They prefer a nice white school with less violence and drugs, and kids who actually want to get an education and go on to college.
So please, tell me how wrong I am, and don't skimp on the BS.

[msanthrope]

97. I don't know why teachers transfer but I think that layoffs

should affect all schools, equally. As in, everyone gets the same percentage of RIF.

[uncommon]

104. +1

[crazyjoe]

121. agreed, if they lay off 10 teachers, and they all happen to teach

at the poorer schools, then 5 teachers need to be relocated so it's 5 and 5, problem solved. No?

[uncommon]

103. I think you are largely correct -

in my experience, teachers get frustrated teaching kids who are primed for failure and would prefer to teach kids who have a good chance of success.

[msanthrope]

109. And teachers that leave reinforce the failure....

Transfer is a privilege--I think if teachers want that privilege, they should be prepared to pay for it since it works a detriment to children.

[uncommon]

114. Indeed.

[Skidmore]

111. Word!!!

It's easy to turn a blind eye to problems when they aren't in your backyard. Those kids deserve an education and it is up to ALL adults to make certain that they get it.

[sufrommich]

101. Good for those kids. nt

[joeybee12]

106. Arne, is that you? n/t

[msanthrope]

113. Yes, and I'm reporting you to Agent Mike, the DLC, the sell-outs

in the AFT, the Gates Foundation, and Geoffrey Canada.

I will bring down the weight of the entire military-industrial-education complex on the teacher-dissdents on DU--because you are that important.

You've been warned.

;-)

[Nye Bevan]

112. Seniority sucks.

If a school needs to get rid of a teacher I would prefer to fire a poor teacher who has been at the school 20 years rather than a brilliant, inspiring teacher who has been there 2 years.

Apple and Google do not use seniority in determining who to promote and who to lay off, when necessary. Why should schools?

Yes, experience is *one* measure of how valuable an employee is but is *far* from being the only one. The best teacher I ever had in my life was newly qualified when he taught me. And some of the worst teachers I ever had had been around forever.

[msanthrope]

116. When it gives rise to injustice, it does. n/t

[Scurrilous]

118. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

123. When the best response people can muster is "Look over there! TFA TFA TFA!"

you know they have no argument.