A New Jersey elementary school teacher was discharged from her tenured position after referring to her first grade students as “future criminals” in a Facebook post.
The administrative law judge determined that the district’s need to operate efficiently outweighed the teacher’s free speech rights. The judge also said, “In a public education setting, thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.”
For more information see the NSBA coverage here: http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=10160
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
AB 501 Expands Exclusive Representation Rights to “All Public School Employees”
AB 501 expands the definition of “employer” and “employee” under the Educational Employment Relations Act. A public school employer now includes joint powers agencies and auxiliary organizations established by the California Community Colleges. All public school employees, except those elected or appointed, and management and confidential employees, now have the right to exclusive representation. Non-classified employees, such as yard duty supervisors, who traditionally did not have representation rights, now have those rights under AB 501. For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
SB 293 Imposes Retention Cap on Public Projects
The Legislature recently passed and Governor Brown approved Senate Bill No. 293 (“SB 293”), which brings changes to the Business and Professions Code, Civil Code, and Public Contract Code. Most significantly, SB 293 reduces maximum retention amounts that can be withheld on public works projects (view KMTG's full Legal Alert).
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Monday, October 31, 2011
UPDATE: Missouri Governor Repeals Portion of Law Prohibiting Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed a bill that repeals part of the Amy Hestir Student Protect Act, which prohibited private internet interactions between teachers and students. As you will recall, the law was determined to likely be unconstitutional and a judge issued an injunction temporarily preventing the law from taking effect. See 8/31 blog post, "UPDATE: Missouri Law Prohibits Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet, But State Court Finds the Law Likely Violates Right to Freedom of Speech."
Although schools have an interest in preventing inappropriate contact between teachers and students, the First Amendment Rights of those teachers and students are also an important issue to weigh when making legal and policy decisions whether and how to regulate teacher and student interactions.
For additional background, see 8/9 blog post, "Missouri Law Prohibits Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet."
Meghan Covert Russell
Although schools have an interest in preventing inappropriate contact between teachers and students, the First Amendment Rights of those teachers and students are also an important issue to weigh when making legal and policy decisions whether and how to regulate teacher and student interactions.
For additional background, see 8/9 blog post, "Missouri Law Prohibits Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet."
Meghan Covert Russell
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Attempt to Fix the Open Enrollment Act Vetoed by Governor Brown
AB 47 would have addressed some flaws in the Open Enrollment Act (aka the Romero Bill) but was vetoed by Governor Brown on October 8, 2011. The Open Enrollment Act was enacted last year in the wake of legislative flurry to enact Race to the Top legislation. The Act requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to identify a list of 1000 “low-performing” schools ranked by API scores, limits any one district’ schools on the list to 10% and exempts charters and other specified schools from the list.
During its first year of implementation in 2010-11, the list of 1000 schools included a number of high performing schools with API scores of 800 and above as well as a number of special education programs. In 2010, at least 96 of these schools requested and received a waiver from the Act’s provisions. An additional 103 low performing charter schools were excluded from the list.
AB 47 would have required a list of up to 1000 schools rather than a total of 1000 schools. It also would have excluded any school with an API over 700 or that had growth of 50 points or more from the list; and would have included charter schools but excluded special education programs.
While the bill had considerable education community support, passage of the bill was based on a clear party line vote. Perhaps the Legislature will try again next year and Governor Brown will change his mind, allowing the flaws to be fixed while maintaining the original intent of the Open Enrollment Act.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
During its first year of implementation in 2010-11, the list of 1000 schools included a number of high performing schools with API scores of 800 and above as well as a number of special education programs. In 2010, at least 96 of these schools requested and received a waiver from the Act’s provisions. An additional 103 low performing charter schools were excluded from the list.
AB 47 would have required a list of up to 1000 schools rather than a total of 1000 schools. It also would have excluded any school with an API over 700 or that had growth of 50 points or more from the list; and would have included charter schools but excluded special education programs.
While the bill had considerable education community support, passage of the bill was based on a clear party line vote. Perhaps the Legislature will try again next year and Governor Brown will change his mind, allowing the flaws to be fixed while maintaining the original intent of the Open Enrollment Act.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
Monday, October 10, 2011
Governor Vetoes AB 165-Student Fees Bill
AB 165 codified the state constitutional right to a free public education by prohibiting school districts from charging fees for classes and extracurricular activities. It also included new onerous enforcement mechanisms for districts and complaint procedures for parents.
In his veto message on October 8, Governor Brown said district compliance with this right is essential and districts should be held accountable, but this bill took the wrong approach. He stated that “the bill would mandate that every single classroom in California would mandate that every single classroom in California post a detailed notice and all 1042 school districts and 1200 charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even where there have been no complaints, let alone evidence of any violation. This goes too far.”
It appears the veto will require the parties to the ACLU lawsuit to go back to court or participate in further settlement discussions. In the meantime, districts should continue to review their student fees practices to ensure compliance but they can enjoy a reprieve from the onerous enforcement mechanisms in AB 165. For additional analysis and discussion please see our Legal Alert.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
In his veto message on October 8, Governor Brown said district compliance with this right is essential and districts should be held accountable, but this bill took the wrong approach. He stated that “the bill would mandate that every single classroom in California would mandate that every single classroom in California post a detailed notice and all 1042 school districts and 1200 charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even where there have been no complaints, let alone evidence of any violation. This goes too far.”
It appears the veto will require the parties to the ACLU lawsuit to go back to court or participate in further settlement discussions. In the meantime, districts should continue to review their student fees practices to ensure compliance but they can enjoy a reprieve from the onerous enforcement mechanisms in AB 165. For additional analysis and discussion please see our Legal Alert.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The California School Boards Association (CSBA), the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), the Los Angeles Unified School District, the San Francisco Unified School District and other school officials announced yesterday that they have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against the State over an alleged $2.1 billion education funding deficit. The suit seeks a recalculation of the Proposition 98 formula that determines how much funding schools receive annually.
Notably, the California Teachers Association (CTA) is not part of this lawsuit. Last summer, the Governor and state lawmakers struck a last-minute budget deal, with the blessing of CTA, which included provisions restricting further teacher layoffs and a retroactive payment promise if California voters do not approve a tax increases next year.
In similar news, The Arc of California and the United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Diego, both advocacy groups for the disabled, also filed suit against the State over budget cuts that have affected services provided to developmentally or physically disabled persons.
For more information on these two suits, see coverage here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Notably, the California Teachers Association (CTA) is not part of this lawsuit. Last summer, the Governor and state lawmakers struck a last-minute budget deal, with the blessing of CTA, which included provisions restricting further teacher layoffs and a retroactive payment promise if California voters do not approve a tax increases next year.
In similar news, The Arc of California and the United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Diego, both advocacy groups for the disabled, also filed suit against the State over budget cuts that have affected services provided to developmentally or physically disabled persons.
For more information on these two suits, see coverage here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)