Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Lapsed teaching credential? Now what?
Just what exactly happens when a teacher allows his/her teaching credential to lapse? A permanent teacher, hired originally as a 1.0 FTE allowed his full time credential to lapse 30 days into the start of the school year. The District gave the teacher the opportunity to apply for a part time credential, which he did and the District continued to employ him in a part time capacity. 15 months later, and half way into the succeeding school year, the teacher contacted the District and informed them that he had completed requirements for reinstatement of his full time credential and demanded the District return him to full time status and salary. The District refused to do so arguing that it was not required to create a position it did not need and furthermore, was certainly not required to do so in the middle of the school year. The trial court denied the teacher's Petition for Writ of Mandate and the 3rd District Court of Appeals upheld the Trial Court's determination. As this was not a published decision, it can not be relied upon in other cases, but at least this confirms that a teacher has a responsibility to maintain his/her credential.
Cann v. Oroville Union High School Dist. CA3
By Emily E. LaMoe
Cann v. Oroville Union High School Dist. CA3
By Emily E. LaMoe
SB 1285
SB 1285 (Steinberg) was amended again on August 18, 2010 This is the bill that addresses teacher layoffs in response to the Reed v. Los Angeles USD case. That case barred the district from layoff of teachers in three middle schools on the grounds that the disproportionate impact on staff at those schools was denying the students their constitutional rights of equal protection to an education. See previous article on the Reed case and this bill. The bill was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and referred to the Assembly Rules Committee.
In its previous iteration the bill contained requirements regarding schools in deciles one through three, and barred districts from laying off teachers at those schools in numbers that were disproportionate to the overall percentages of layoffs. Those provisions of the bill have now, thankfully, been deleted, and the only change in the law embodied in SB 1285 is Education Code section 44955(d) Ed Code 44955 The bill renumbers the existing subsections of 44955(d). The current 44955(d) (1) and (2) become 44955(1) (A) and (B) and there is a new subsection (2). 44955(1) (B), which allows districts to deviate from seniority for purposes of equal protection, adds “pupils and certificated staff” to the constitutional equal protection language. New subparagraph (2) of 44955 (d) contains language that the Legislature intends to specify criteria and conditions for “identifying schools analogous to the schools identified in Reed v. LAUSD . . .” It also includes legislative intent language “to require” districts with schools that meet those criteria and conditions ensure the proportion of layoffs of teachers is no greater than the district average.
There is an excellent bill analysis by an Assembly staff person that addresses the competing interests in this layoff dilemma. Interestingly, opponents to this bill, according to the analysis, argue that current law already allows districts to skip employees at low performing schools, citing the case of Bledsoe v. Biggs. Also according to the analysis, school districts who weighed in on this bill in response to those arguments cite the risks and costs of litigation and to withstand a legal challenge of deviating from seniority. School districts are right – when a district does deviate from seniority, attorneys hired by the unions often fight tooth and nail and threaten litigation to challenge that determination. Districts need clear authority to avoid that risk.
My two cents’ worth: Depending on what criteria the Legislature develops, and when it develops it, this version of the bill is moving in the direction that makes it worth supporting. It gives districts clear language of Legislative intent that districts may protect staffs at low performing schools from the disproportionate impact a layoff can produce. As pointed out in the Assembly analysis of August 3rd, the best teaching force for low-performing schools is not necessarily the more experienced teachers in the district, if they do not want to be at those schools. Districts often recruit teachers specifically who have the skills, talents and desire to work with high risk student populations, and then provide those teachers with additional training, support and opportunities to gel as a team. I’ve worked with a district in a layoff situation that had recently hired excellent newer teachers with relevant prior-life experiences who the district sought to protect in a layoff situation, as those teachers had made significant gains with students that had not been successful in the regular programs. Teachers often devote countless hours together to develop school-wide cohesive programs in order to ensure that children are taught in a nurturing and coordinated system. Ideally, districts should be able to insulate those staffs to see that those efforts pay off in long-term improved student performance. That is not to say the same efforts are not happening at other schools, but it is clear that it takes some very special individuals with a strong desire to work in high poverty schools in which there are so many challenges. This bill will assist districts to preserve those staffs. Districts, on the other hand, need to make that preservation a priority and set up the facts that will demonstrate reasons why those teaching staffs should be protected. In this era, protections from layoff can also aide districts in recruiting teachers to fill those hard to staff positions.
By Diana D. Halpenny
In its previous iteration the bill contained requirements regarding schools in deciles one through three, and barred districts from laying off teachers at those schools in numbers that were disproportionate to the overall percentages of layoffs. Those provisions of the bill have now, thankfully, been deleted, and the only change in the law embodied in SB 1285 is Education Code section 44955(d) Ed Code 44955 The bill renumbers the existing subsections of 44955(d). The current 44955(d) (1) and (2) become 44955(1) (A) and (B) and there is a new subsection (2). 44955(1) (B), which allows districts to deviate from seniority for purposes of equal protection, adds “pupils and certificated staff” to the constitutional equal protection language. New subparagraph (2) of 44955 (d) contains language that the Legislature intends to specify criteria and conditions for “identifying schools analogous to the schools identified in Reed v. LAUSD . . .” It also includes legislative intent language “to require” districts with schools that meet those criteria and conditions ensure the proportion of layoffs of teachers is no greater than the district average.
There is an excellent bill analysis by an Assembly staff person that addresses the competing interests in this layoff dilemma. Interestingly, opponents to this bill, according to the analysis, argue that current law already allows districts to skip employees at low performing schools, citing the case of Bledsoe v. Biggs. Also according to the analysis, school districts who weighed in on this bill in response to those arguments cite the risks and costs of litigation and to withstand a legal challenge of deviating from seniority. School districts are right – when a district does deviate from seniority, attorneys hired by the unions often fight tooth and nail and threaten litigation to challenge that determination. Districts need clear authority to avoid that risk.
My two cents’ worth: Depending on what criteria the Legislature develops, and when it develops it, this version of the bill is moving in the direction that makes it worth supporting. It gives districts clear language of Legislative intent that districts may protect staffs at low performing schools from the disproportionate impact a layoff can produce. As pointed out in the Assembly analysis of August 3rd, the best teaching force for low-performing schools is not necessarily the more experienced teachers in the district, if they do not want to be at those schools. Districts often recruit teachers specifically who have the skills, talents and desire to work with high risk student populations, and then provide those teachers with additional training, support and opportunities to gel as a team. I’ve worked with a district in a layoff situation that had recently hired excellent newer teachers with relevant prior-life experiences who the district sought to protect in a layoff situation, as those teachers had made significant gains with students that had not been successful in the regular programs. Teachers often devote countless hours together to develop school-wide cohesive programs in order to ensure that children are taught in a nurturing and coordinated system. Ideally, districts should be able to insulate those staffs to see that those efforts pay off in long-term improved student performance. That is not to say the same efforts are not happening at other schools, but it is clear that it takes some very special individuals with a strong desire to work in high poverty schools in which there are so many challenges. This bill will assist districts to preserve those staffs. Districts, on the other hand, need to make that preservation a priority and set up the facts that will demonstrate reasons why those teaching staffs should be protected. In this era, protections from layoff can also aide districts in recruiting teachers to fill those hard to staff positions.
By Diana D. Halpenny
Monday, August 16, 2010
KMTG Legal Alert
KMTG Legal Alert
August 16, 2010 | Bulletin No. 946388.2
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
New Laws Affecting School Districts and Community College Districts
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
New Laws Affecting School Districts and Community College Districts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Mandatory Prequalification Process for School Construction!
Senate Bill 258 is currently making its rounds at the State Capitol. This Bill mandates school districts to use the prequalification process for public works projects costing more than $1 million - essentially eliminating the Lease-Leaseback model for such applicable projects. Senate Bill 258's author explains that, "with the economic downturn, school districts are receiving bids from contractors who have never worked on a public works project, are unfamiliar with the additional rules and regulations relating to public works projects, and have never bid on projects" - thereby adding to the risk that the contractor will not complete the project and eventually will cost the school district and the taxpayer. This Bill seeks to mitigate against these kinds of risks.
This Bill is supported by several contractor associations -- and opposed by various school organizations and school districts, including Association for California School Administrators, Association of California Construction Managers, California Association of School Business Officials, California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing, and Fresno Unified School District.
The current draft of the Bill was last amended on June 10, 2010 and the next hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2010.
Stay tuned for updates on this Bill and how the final draft of the Bill could affect your next school project!
By Karina Terakura
This Bill is supported by several contractor associations -- and opposed by various school organizations and school districts, including Association for California School Administrators, Association of California Construction Managers, California Association of School Business Officials, California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing, and Fresno Unified School District.
The current draft of the Bill was last amended on June 10, 2010 and the next hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2010.
Stay tuned for updates on this Bill and how the final draft of the Bill could affect your next school project!
By Karina Terakura
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)