The union filed the action in June with the Public Employee Relations Board (or PERB), objecting to the new teacher evaluation system set up by Superintendent John Deasy, which will, in part, use student test scores. (Of course, there may not be any test scores this year, but that’s a different story.) If the two sides don’t reach a settlement, the case will move to a hearing before an administrative law judge.

The teachers union filed two other unfair labor practice charges in September, over teachers that were separated from their classrooms at Crenshaw High School and City of Angels Independent Study School.

Previous posts: UTLA Files Action Against District Over Teacher Evaluations*; Teachers Union Files Two More Unfair Labor Practice Charges*; District Urges Board to Dismiss Union’s Unfair Practice Charge

Superintendent Deasy

The LA Unified school board voted, again, to delay its final decision on crafting and approving the $113 million Common Core budget for at least another week. The money comes from the state and is intended to help school districts transition over the next two years to the new curriculum.

It appeared to be a poke in the eye to Superintendent John Deasy, who had presented the Common Core budget at last month’s Board meeting, with roughly 75 percent of it allocated for teacher training. With input from board members, Deasy’s staff radically altered the plan to give individual schools greater control over the money — under the new version of the budget, each school would receive $70 per student.

“The feedback we got from last board meeting was a desire to have more school-based allocation,” said Deputy Superintendent Jaime Aquino.

But Board members weren’t pleased with this new proposal either. Marguerite LaMotte, for example, was upset that money for parent training was eliminated from the new version.

Bennett Kayser had a number of questions and eventually suggested that the issue be postponed so that it could be discussed in a committee “so that board members can make a more educated vote.” The idea was immediately seconded by Monica Ratliff — sending Deasy back to try again, with the promise of even more questions from board members.

Both Monica Garcia and Tamar Galatzan, Deasy’s staunchest allies on the board, objected to delaying the vote, with Galatzan saying it would be a “great disservice” and suggesting that questions should have been asked prior to the Board meeting.

“I think we have a duty to come prepared to these meetings,” Garcia said.

UTLA President Warren Fletcher objected to the creation of 171 new positions to be filled by current teachers who would train other teachers in the new curriculum, as the proposal outlined. Fletcher argued that the new classifications would have to be the subject of collective bargaining.

The union recently filed an unfair practice claim in the Public Employee Relations Board over a similar matter. Kayser said he had similar objections, as did Ratliff: “My two cents is I think we should move the $24.4 million for local advisors into local control,” she said, referring to money allocated for “teacher advisors.”

Deasy said the board was welcome to amend the budget however members wanted –“Just tell us what you desire,” he said — although he couldn’t resist a shot against Kayser, saying: “If the board’s desire is to not elevate teachers to leadership decisions, we should know that now.”

After more than an hour of discussion, the Board voted, 5-2, with Galatzan and Garcia dissenting, to postpone discussion over the Common Core budget for another week. The Board will convene a special meeting at noon next Tuesday to resume the debate. It will only have around two hours, since Steve Zimmer‘s Committee of the Whole is set to meet at 2 p.m.

Previous posts: LA Unified Getting $113 Million for Common Core Transition*; Deasy, Board Plunging Back into Turbulent Budget Waters; School Board Meeting Wrap Up: More Discussion Than Votes*

In addition to the legal action, the union has distributed letters for teachers to give to their principals, expressing opposition to the new evaluations and the use of standardized test scores in setting objectives for teachers in initial planning conferences.

Superintendent John Deasy said he hadn’t seen the letter but had heard about it.

“I don’t even know what to make of it,” said Deasy. “I’m sad and disappointed. We’ve been trying to implement a balanced and multiple-measured evaluation system for years now. It seems we’ve been blocked at every turn to provide teachers with meaningful feedback.”

UTLA President Warren Fletcher was not available for comment.

The dispute over teacher evaluations dates back to a 2011 lawsuit filed by seven unnamed parents and a charter school operator named Alice Callaghan against LAUSD and Deasy. The suit alleged that the district was violating the 1971 Stull Act by not using an objective measure of “pupil progress” to evaluate its teachers.

In June of last year, Supreme Court Judge James Chalfant agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered the district, UTLA and the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the administrators union, to develop new evaluations based in part on student progress. In November, UTLA and the district signed a seemingly historic agreement, in which test scores would be included in the evaluation of teachers and principals.

But Deasy announced in February that “student achievement,” as a mix of test scores, graduation rates and other data, would count for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, the union cried foul. Fletcher told LA School Report in February, “If the superintendent wants to advise principals, that’s an appropriate role. But we negotiated an agreement that made sure weighting would be determined in real life classrooms. If specific numeric requirements are being created, that would be a violation of the agreement.”

Both sides have since been negotiating. But in May, the district rolled out its new evaluation — the Teacher Growth & Development Cycle, a 30-page performance review that includes, according to the Daily News, “classroom observation, parent and student feedback, community contributions and student test scores.”

On its website, the union said the district was “arbitrarily” imposing the new evaluation “without negotiating it with UTLA.” It has advised teachers to tell principals about their objections by returning the letter, but not to refuse to participate in the new evaluation process.

“It has consistently been the position of UTLA that applying cookie-cutter rules and procedures to the teacher evaluation process is counterproductive for both teachers and administrators,” reads the letter in part. “It is unfortunate that central Beaudry management is attempting to unilaterally implement these changes to the evaluation process.”

“I’m still looking for a partner to help advance and celebrate good teaching,” said Deasy, referring to UTLA leadership. “I live in optimism that that partnership will be there eventually. In the meantime, we follow the law and the Stull Act.”

Administrations union President Judith Perez said she sympathized with the teachers’ predicament.

“Evaluation is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining,” she said.

Perez also said that she has asked the district’s general counsel what principals should do if they receive the letter objecting to the new evaluations. She hasn’t heard back yet, she said.

“Our principals are stuck in the middle,” she said. “Hopefully this will not alienate people form each other.”

* Correction: An earlier version of the story said the complaint was filed this week. It was filed in June.

Previous posts: Teacher Evaluations Still a Work in Progress;  Revamp Teacher Evaluation Plan, Says LA Times; Union Tells Teachers How to Protest Evaluations; Teachers & Principals Question Deasy Teacher Evaluation Plan