Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. (courtesy)

State lawmakers on Wednesday once again failed to amend teacher tenure laws, this time rejecting a bill that would have extended the probationary period from two to three years — even after the bill was stripped of its boldest language.

The bill, AB 934, sponsored by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, was defeated 5-2, with two senators abstaining, in the state Senate Education Committee. It drew the opposition of powerful teachers unions — the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers — and education reformers, two sides that seldom agree.

The teachers unions said the bill went too far in taking away teachers’ due process rights, while the reform advocates said the bill didn’t go far enough in making teacher tenure an earned benchmark.

The bill was conceived to address some of the concerns about the state of education in California that were raised in the landmark lawsuit Vergara v. California, which was overturned on appeal in April, and to bring about “the necessary and overdue changes that must be addressed within our education system,” a statement from Bonilla’s office said.

“It is frustrating when two opposing sides are not only unwilling to compromise, but are vehemently reluctant to work together to achieve the mutual goal of providing a high quality education for all California students,” Bonilla said in the statement.

Students Matter, which filed the Vergara lawsuit on behalf of nine students, initially had supported the bill, but the version that was voted on by the committee was heavily amended and Students Matter withdrew its support last week.

Ben Austin, the group’s policy and advocacy director, called the bill “watered down and gutted beyond recognition.”

The issue of teacher tenure was the crux of the Vergara lawsuit. Plaintiff attorneys argued that teacher protection laws perpetuate a cycle of keeping ineffective teachers in low-income classrooms.

Bonilla, a former high school English teacher, said the amendments to the bill, AB 934, were needed to give it a chance of passage.

Other provisions in the bill included more training for new administrators and an additional year of coaching and mentoring for teachers in their third year of teaching.

The bill would have also authorized school districts and local unions to negotiate dismissal procedures.

Bonilla said the current dismissal process takes about seven months and typically costs districts $100,000 to $200,000.

“No one can claim that the current system is working when it costs that amount of money,” she told the committee.

Her bill had “endured an onslaught of unreasonable scrutiny and criticism,” Bonilla said in a statement after the vote.

About 20 speakers addressed the senate committee to oppose the bill, including teachers, parents and students.

The California State PTA, Association of California School Administrators and California School Boards Association supported the bill.

Many of its supporters characterized the bill as a “good first step.”

The original bill would have also reduced the reliance on seniority in determining teacher layoffs and would have taken teacher performance into account, amending the “last in, first out” laws that determine layoffs, which was another issue raised in the Vergara lawsuit. That section was removed from the final version of the bill.

Senators Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, and Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, were the only votes in favor of the bill, saying they wanted to continue the discussion.

“I know that this bill is far from perfect,” said Liu, who chairs the committee.

“It will keep this conversation going with a little pressure on people,” Hancock said. “In the 14 years that I have sat on this committee, we have never had anything other than a banal, stereotyped confrontation on any of this issue.”

One senator told Bonilla she needed buy-in to move the bill forward successfully.

“I, too, have been seeking buy-in, but we’re in a situation that is so deeply polarized and so deeply political that the children are being lost. The children are being overlooked,” Bonilla said.

Those who opposed the bill said Bonilla was trying to take away teachers’ due process rights and that extending the probationary period would deter young people from entering the profession. Critics said extending the amount of time when new teachers can be fired without cause or explanation would create instability.

“Not only is this bill an erosion of teacher rights, but is an assault on California’s ability to attract new teachers into the profession,” said Jeff Freitas, secretary treasurer of the CFT. “This bill, if enacted, would ensure that California’s teacher shortage will become more severe.”

LA Unified teacher Bootsie Battle-Holt, who teaches at Marina Del Rey Middle School and is an elected member of UTLA, testified against the bill and called it “teacher policy without teacher voice.”

The bill is “not even an echo of what teachers think and say about the issues at hand,” she said.

Other people who spoke in opposition of the bill included Austin, students who are plaintiffs in the Vergara case, Bill Lucia, president and CEO of EdVoice, and Mike Stryer, California executive director of Teach Plus. Like Students Matter, Teach Plus also initially supported Bonilla’s bill.

“This bill is not fully baked even though it’s over 100 degrees outside,” Lucia said.

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board wrote this week in support of the initial version of the bill: “The changes to AB934 are disappointing, but it’s still worth fighting to pass this bill. Although many school districts may choose not to negotiate a new dismissal process with their local unions, some will. When they’re successful, and the sky over public education doesn’t fall, it will be easier for reform advocates to return to the state Legislature with a stronger bill.”

In an interview after the hearing, Austin said it was unfortunate that his group had to oppose the bill.

“But at the end of the day, while we very much appreciate the good faith effort on Assemblywoman Bonilla’s part, the final product was a poster child for the kind of transactional inside baseball politics that voters all across the country are rejecting in real time,” he said.

Passage of the bill would have created an “illusion of change,” Austin said, and might have taken pressure off the state Supreme Court to take up the Vergara appeal, a decision that must be made by the end of August.

Austin said he was hopeful that future legislation would address these issues. He said he saw an “emerging bipartisan consensus” among the committee members that “the status quo is unacceptable.”

“The debate laid the groundwork for a future debate in a future legislature to take up this issue in earnest and address these issues in a way where they will have a real, not symbolic, but a real impact on low-income kids and students of color,” he said.

Also Wednesday, the committee approved a school accountability bill, AB 2548, by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, that will now head to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill, which Students Matter supports, seeks to define school and district expectations for student success and close the achievement gap.

The lawsuit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, challenges the right of states to require public sector employees to pay compulsory dues to unions doing collective bargaining on their behalf. Even employees who are not union members must pay these fees, although they are allowed to opt-out of a portion of the fees that go directly toward political activities.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of California teachers who seek to overturn the court’s previous ruling on the issue, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 case.

“The current fair share system is a good compromise and common sense solution, and that’s part of the argument we presented to the Supreme Court Justices today,” said CTA President Eric C. Heins, who attended the arguments, according to a CTA press release. “This case is about our students, our public schools and our country’s economic future. Providing a quality public education for every student starts with educators having the ability to come together and make decisions for their students, as well as negotiating fair wages that attract the brightest minds into our profession. Undermining the collective bargaining process undermines the middle class.”

Last week, lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, outlined their side of the case with reporter, insisting that forcing employees to pay dues to a union infringed on their rights to free speech.

“We think Abood was incorrectly decided from the beginning … but in addition to that, one thing that has changed which has brought the issue into more sort of a clearer focus is that unions have become more and more political, and it is becoming more and more clear that even the things they negotiate for in collective bargaining have a direct connection to political disputes,” Pell said on the call.

California’s teacher unions and their national affiliates have painted the case as an attempt to crush unions and their collective bargaining power.

“Make no mistake about it, this case is an attempt to shift the balance away from workers and in the favor of corporate interests,” said Heins. “That’s apparent by the wealthy special interests funding the lawsuit. This case has nothing to do with what’s good for students or working families. It only hurts the middle class at a time when working Americans are finding it harder to get by. For our students and our future, we hope the Supreme Court upholds the current law.”

The show had filmed for three seasons outside of the state before being lured to LA as one of the first 11 projects to receive allocations under the new credit program.

“We are fighting back against runaway production, and this tax credit is delivering results for the heart and soul of the film and television industry — the people who swing hammers, run cable and serve food on set so they can pay he bills and contribute to our economy,” Garcetti said in a statement. “Our film and television industry is the lifeblood of Los Angeles’ middle class, and now production is coming back to where it belongs.”

Garcetti’s promotional stop comes somewhat ironically for LA Unified, considering Superintendent Ramon Cortines‘ move to shut down all productions on district campuses in the wake of an NBC Los Angeles report that accused the district of lacking proper oversight. (LA School Report has its own opinion on this and questioned the accusations in the story. Click here to read our commentary.)

Entertainment productions on district campuses have reportedly brought around $10 million to the district over the last five years. According to Garcetti’s office, a total of 22 projects have received tax credits in the first two application periods, and based on data the projects will generate an estimated $1.07 billion in direct in-state spending, which includes $387 million in wages for below-the-line crew members.

National Kale Day at LAUSD

No one can accuse LA Unified of not going all in for National Kale Day, which was Oct. 7. The district ordered up more than five tons of the vegetable from a local farm in Ventura County and served an estimated 350,000 kale-and-cranberry salads, according to LAUSD Daily.

Kale is one of those “superfoods” your doctor has probably told you to eat more of, as it is high in vitamins and nutrients. The salads were a hit, LAUSD said.

“I love kale,” said Ozzie, an eighth-grade student. “They should serve this everyday.”

It seems the kale experiment worked, and it sounds as if there should be more kale to come.

“Right now, we’re trying it once a month. If we get a lot of positive feedback, we may serve it more frequently,” Laura Benavidez, interim co-director of the district’s Food Services Division, said in a statement. “Kale is one of the ways we are introducing new items, healthy items to our students.”

Friedrichs v. CTA Supreme Court Case heating up

The Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case is set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall and has gigantic implications for unions, as a victory by the plaintiffs would reverse a decades-old precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that requires non-union members to pay dues under a “fair share” rationale that non-members derive the same benefits as a members.

The case involves a group of teachers, including some from LA Unified, suing the CTA over the dues. Several supporters of the teachers have recently filed amicus briefs with the court, including Gloria Romero, a former state senator who is active in various reform movements.

“The denial of these First Amendment rights for teachers simultaneously denies the civil rights of predominantly poor and minority children in America,” Romero said in a press release. “Virtually every reform we fight for are obstructed by the all-powerful CTA—even when rank and file teachers support our reforms.  By denying teachers their rights, our kids suffer the consequences by being denied a quality education.”

Click here to view Romero’s amicus brief.

A group of education experts and organizations supporting the state’s two largest teacher unions’ appeal of the Vergara lawsuit have filed amici curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs with the California Court of Appeals while former California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in with their own briefs opposing the unions.

The deadline for any amici curiae filings was yesterday.

Nothing less than the future of California’s teacher employment laws surrounding tenure, seniority and dismissal hang in the balance of the Vergara v. California ruling after Judge Rolf Treu struck down the current laws after ruling in favor of a group of California students. They had contended that the laws deprived them of a quality education by keeping bad teachers in the classrooms. His ruling was stayed pending the appeal, and should it stand would require state lawmakers to draft completely new teacher employment laws.

With so much at stake, powerful entities have lined up on both sides with friend of the court briefs submitted by individuals or organizations that are not party to a lawsuit but have an interest in its outcome.

Parties filing in support of the two teacher unions, the California Association of Teachers (CTA) and California Federation of Teachers (CFT), and the state, which are all co-defendants, were Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Equal Justice Society, Education Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Advancing Justice-LA, according to a press release from CTA. Individuals who filed briefs in support of the unions included education scholars Diane Ravitch, Richard Ingersoll and Eva Baker, as well as 2012 National Teacher of the Year, Rebecca Mieliwocki, and 2014 California Teacher of the Year Timothy Smith.

A group of legal scholars that included Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk of UC Irvine Law School, Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, and Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School wrote, “In this case, the trial court substituted its judgment about desirable education policy and the best way to improve education for students without regard to the harms its policy choice might cause and without regard to the evidence or the law about the cause of educational inequities and the likelihood that the court’s injunction would redress it. The trial court exceeded its role in our constitutional system and its ruling must be reversed.”

Joining a list of education chiefs from around the nation, student groups, business organizations and others who filed briefs supporting the student plaintiffs was Schwarzenegger and Wilson, who wrote, “At stake in this case is not only the future of California’s students, but also the future of California,” said the former California governors, both Republicans. “As students who learn from grossly ineffective teachers face lifelong setbacks, by extension, California’s future economic and social success is similarly impacted.”

A ruling on the appeal is expected sometime in 2016.

Corrects spelling of two names, Erwin Chemerinsky and Eva Baker. They were misspelled in an earlier version.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a 2013 case with huge implications for unions’ nationwide in their ability to collect dues, the Los Angeles teachers union, UTLA, is gearing up for whatever the justices decide.

A victory by the plaintiffs would reverse a decades-old precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that requires non-union members to pay dues under a “fair share” rationale that non-members derive the same benefits as a members.

Friedrichs is challenging California’s largest teachers union on First Amendment grounds, arguing, in part, that mandatory union dues deny individual members the right of free speech through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions that don’t necessarily comport with the views of all union members.

But either way Friedrichs goes, UTLA will be prepared, said Jeff Good, the union’s Executive Director.

“There’s been a concentrated effort and an on-going effort to turn UTLA into an organizing union and an organizing culture,” he told LA School Report, pointing to the union’s mission to bolster a closer, “two-way relationship” with members of the community.

By actively working to improve representation for union members and to strengthen relationships with the community, Good said he hopes teachers would feel more invested in UTLA’s efforts, then join as a member.

In this scenario, he said, there would be fewer people in the “fair share” category, which means even if the Supreme Court rules against CTA, there would be less money lost in the fallout.

There’s a reason the “fair share” law has been in place since 1977, Good said, arguing that there should be no “free riders” when it comes to union support. By law, UTLA is obligated to represent non-members when it comes to matters of their employment, he said, so it’s only reasonable that those individuals contribute financially.

“Even if someone is not going to be a member, they’re going to benefit from those victories,” he said.

Good declined to say how much UTLA spends each year on political lobbying. According to the UTLA website, the largest portion of dues, 40.9 percent, goes toward state and local affiliate organizations that receive a fixed payment from the union. The second largest amount, 28.5 percent, goes toward member services and organizing — such as arbitration and professional development.

The website also says that UTLA’s dues have remained flat since 1970, an annual rate of $689.04, which makes them the lowest dues of any teachers union in the state.

The Friedrichs case, Good said, is funded by the “same type of millionaires and billionaires” who back the political figures that try to bust unions and create “right-to-work” states. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is just “one more concentrated effort to cut off the knees of the working class in this country,” he said.

“I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in revisiting this issue,” Good said. “This is about trying to destroy unions.”

David Goldberg (credit: CTA)

* UPDATED

LA Unified elementary school teacher David Goldberg has been elected as secretary-treasurer of the California Teachers Association.

Goldberg, 43, spent most of his 19 years at Murchison Elementary, where he is a bilingual teacher who is fluent in Spanish and American Sign Language.

He was one of dozens of educators who spent a night in jail in 2011 after participating in civil disobedience at the State Capitol. That demonstration was part of the CTA’s State of Emergency actions to protest funding cuts.

He joins the leadership team representing 325,000 educators statewide, along with Pittsburg elementary teacher Eric C. Heins as president and Cal State Northridge professor Theresa Montaño as vice president.

“What excites me the most about taking on my new role are the opportunities before me to give back to all those students and educators who have made an impact in my life,” Heins said at his induction ceremony on June 26.

“Working together with my fellow officers and colleagues we will focus on what matters most, and that is ensuring that every student has the quality education they need and deserve, and that educators are working with parents and our communities to lead education change in California.”

In the past, Goldberg worked on the budget committee for the State Council of Education and served as a liaison to the Teacher Evaluation and Academic Freedom committee. He leads the CTA Strategic Planning Workgroup, and plans to work with the CTA Budget Committee and State Council to make sure that the fiscal priorities match up with the organization’s strategic plan.

Activism is part of Goldberg’s family history. His aunt is former Los Angeles City Council member and state assembly representative Jackie Goldberg, who also served as chair of the state Assembly Education Committee and as president of the LA Unified school board. As one of the first members of UTLA, his grandmother participated in a strike that helped give birth to the union in the 1970s.

His wife is Karla Alvarado-Goldberg, an LAUSD middle school psychiatric social worker and a member of the State Council of Education.

After a short stint as a professional basketball player, Goldberg earned his teaching credential through an LAUSD intern program. He earned a bachelor’s degree in community studies from University of California, Santa Cruz. He lives with his wife and three children in Echo Park, his home for most of his life.

*Updated to reflect Goldberg was elected to the position, not appointed

The findings were somewhat of a surprise in that the poll, conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research for Teach Plus, a national nonprofit that focuses on professional development for teachers, sought responses from only full-time district public school teachers, omitting charter school teachers, private school teachers and part-time teachers.

Under California law, all full-time district public school teachers must be members of the union or pay an agency fee to the union.

The defendants in Vergara — the state, along with its two big public school teachers unions, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) — have appealed the ruling. If the lower court ruling stands, the legislature would be compelled to rewrite the laws struck down — on tenure, dismissal and layoffs.

While the 500-plus teachers surveyed were not asked directly about the Vergara ruling, they were polled about their feelings on those three issues.

Among the key findings of the survey are:

• 72 percent of teachers believe that 18 months is not enough time for an administrator to make tenure determinations.

• 92 percent of teachers believe that they should be required to demonstrate classroom effectiveness as part of the tenure decision.

• On average, teachers want performance and seniority to have equal weight in layoff decisions.

• 71 percent of teachers think layoff decisions should be based entirely or partly on classroom performance.

• 70 percent of teachers believe that district support for an ineffective teacher should be limited to 2 years.

Friedrichs vs. CTA plaintiffs Jelena Figuerora, Karen Cuen, Rebecca Friedrichs (Credit: CIR)

In a case that has implications for millions of public employees in more than two dozen states, a group of California teachers is planning to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against the California Teachers Association (CTA) over union dues.

The case involves a state’s right to require public employees to pay dues to a union, known as “agency shop” laws. California and 25 other states currently require public employees to pay union dues. The teachers, with lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and co-plaintiff Christian Educators Association International, are arguing that agency shop laws in California violate their freedom of speech.

The plaintiffs were cleared to petition the Supreme Court following a ruling yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found in favor of CTA, based on previous Supreme Court precedent, according to the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), which is representing the plaintiffs.

CIR has worked to expedite the proceedings through District Court and the Court of Appeals by asking that they decide the case quickly without trial or oral argument. Essentially, they elected to lose the case in the lower courts and have argued that the only court with the authority to “grant them the relief they request” is the Supreme Court, CIR stated on its website. 

Were the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule in favor of the teachers, it would have major implications for unions in the states that require dues of its public employees.

CIR President Terry Pell explained on the radio show Morning in America how the case could impact public employees around the country.

“This case is about the right of teachers to decide for themselves whether they want to join a union. If we win, we will not just strike down the law in California but compulsory union due laws in other states,” Pell said. “So it would be a nationwide precedent that would make it impossible for any state to require public employees to join their union unless they want to join their union.”

Pell also explained that while teachers in California are not required to join the union, they still have to pay union dues, but can opt out of the one-third that goes toward political action. The other two-thirds goes toward collective bargaining.

“What we’re arguing in the case is those collective bargaining activities are just as political as anything else the union does, and the government can’t compel individuals to support speech by the union or by anybody else,” Pell said .

CTA has argued that compulsory dues are needed to prevent employees from gaining the benefits of union membership, including collective bargaining on their behalf, without paying for them, a term often referred to as “free riding.”

CTA explained why it is fighting the lawsuit after it won the case in District Court in 2013, saying on its website: “It’s always satisfying when the courts side with working people and the rights of their unions to protect and defend them. On a daily basis, CTA works tirelessly to represent all educators – members and non-members alike. Because non-members benefit from this work to ensure they have quality teaching and learning conditions, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it is only fair that they contribute toward these expenses.”

The case could reach the Supreme Court by spring.

Cal-Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein

The battle of the experts continued today in Vergara vs. California as an expert in labor economics and public policy called by the defense provided rationales for keeping in place the state laws governing teachers that are under challenge in the case.

Jesse Rothstein, a professor at Cal-Berkeley and a former senior economist on the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, testified that the two-year tenure statute was adequate to identify ineffective teachers and still help school districts attract new employees.

He also said a “last-in, first-out” process that favors seniority in times of staff reduction is more fair and objective than so-called “value-added” models that take into account student performance to measure teacher effectiveness.

And he said the dismissal statutes protect teachers against “arbitrary and capricious decisions of employers” who might want to get rid of certain teachers.

These three issues — tenure, dismissal and seniority — are central to the case, which began more than a month ago. The nine student-plaintiffs are trying to show that California’s laws governing the issues combine to deny public education students access to a quality education.

The state and its two big teachers unions — the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers — are trying to convince the court that the laws are fine as they are, posing none of the pernicious effects the plaintiffs claim.

Rothstein’s testimony, under direct questioning by Jim Finberg, representing the unions, was largely focused on opinions derived from his own studies and those of others that took general views on the subjects at issue in the case. Rothstein left the strong impression that he believed the laws, as they are, do not impede academic performance because of ineffective teachers.

But later, under cross examination by Marcellus McRae, the plaintiffs lead lawyer, he admitted that he knew little about how the laws play out in California and that none of his own work specifically reflected public education policies in the state.

He conceded that his familiarity with the California laws went largely so far as reading them after he was invited to be an expert witness for the defense.

As he began, Rothstein told the court that a longer tenure period would make it more difficult to attract and retain quality teachers. A two-year period, he said, helps to retain teachers because it provides a quicker path to job security.

“No one likes getting fired,” he said.

He further testified that extending the evaluation period beyond two years only has incremental benefits and that principals and school administrators have enough information to make tenure decisions by a teacher’s second year of employment.

He said the two-year evaluation period also allows school administrators to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms sooner and helps school districts avoid the higher costs associated with dismissing more senior teachers. He insisted that lengthening the tenure process distracts teachers from focusing on their job, forcing them to concentrate on their evaluation.

When Finberg asked if a longer period four-to-five years would serve as well as California’s two-year statute, Rothstein answered, “It wouldn’t.”

Later, under cross-examination, he acknowledged that in a paper he wrote last year, “Teacher Quality Policy When Supply Matters,” he said that the “optimal time” for assessing teacher performance is three years.

Finberg went on to question Rothstein about the contested dismissal statutes and their impact on attracting quality teachers. He replied that dismissal statutes enhance job security by minimizing the possibility of dismissal for arbitrary reasons.

When asked whether the dismissal statutes serve a legitimate and important governmental interest, helping school districts attract and retain quality educators — another central element to the case — Rothstein said they did.

On the California teachers’ seniority rules, Rothstein told the court that a reverse seniority system is more attractive to teachers because it provides greater job security for both senior and prospective teachers, establishing “clear and objective” criteria for layoffs.

Having such a rule in place, he said, makes it easier to retain good teachers.

On cross examination, McRae focused on what Rothstein conceded was limited first-hand knowledge about how the contested statutes actually work in the state and his opinions about how the laws might be changed.

After pointing to the apparent discrepancy in optimal time for tenure decisions — two years or three — McRae suggested that the witness had no opinion as to whether the California dismissal statutes should be changed. Rothstein agreed.

McRae later suggested that Rothstein had no opinion on whether the last-in, first out statutes should be changed. Again, he agreed.

The cross examination continues when he returns to the witness stand tomorrow.

Previous Posts: In Vergara, a defense witness defends districts’ teacher management; Vergara plaintiffs file a response, asking that the case continues; In Vergara trial, legals positions are a universe apart.

Martha Sanchez, a parent who is ‘sick and tired of corporate interests’ in public schools.

As defendants in the Vergara trial were asking the court to dismiss the case, attorneys for the state’s two biggest teachers union met with reporters outside the courthouse to offer a preview of arguments they intend to make if the judge denies their request, and the trial resumes next month with witnesses for the defense.

Jim Finberg, lead counsel for the California Teachers Association said existing teacher tenure protections, “help school districts recruit and retain highly effective teachers.” He said the laws being challenged help keep a stable workforce in schools which is vital to student learning.

Finberg added, “Without job security, teachers would have to worry about teaching evolution or Islam.”

Pasadena teacher Christine McLaughlin, who will be testifying on behalf of the state, said plaintiffs have offered no alternatives.

McLaughlin, who was honored a teacher of the year by the county, teaches at Webster Elementary School in Pasadena Unified School District, one of the schools that has been identified as “ineffective” in the case.

“The anecdotes plaintiffs have tried to use as evidence have no connection to these laws and could have been given by students in any other state with widely different laws governing teacher employment,” she said.

Dean Vogel, president of the state’s other big teachers union, the California Teachers Association, called the lawsuit, which is financed by Students Matter, “an ideological red herring, financed by billionaires to pit parents against teachers.”

That sentiment was echoed by parent and community activist Martha Sanchez.

“I am sick and tired of private companies using parents to advance their own agenda,” she said.

Defense lawyers were expected to file their motion to dismiss this afternoon.

LA Unified Superintendent John Deasy is expected to take the stand.

Courtroom seats are being assigned by lottery – with limited press seating available. We will do our best to update our readers as the trial unfolds.

The case, Vergara vs CA is brought by a group of students who claim they have a civil right to an education and that state law that protects teachers and pushes them into lower income areas is discriminatory. The families of the plaintiffs are in full force today in the courtroom.

The case has gotten attention in editorials: Both The LA Times (Protect good teachers, fire bad ones) and The San Jose Mercury News (Teacher tenure, seniority, due process rights will get much-needed scrutiny in court) printed pieces.

A high profile team of lawyers including Ted Olson and Ted Boutrous, who successfully argued before the Supreme Court to strike down the same sex marriage ban, will argue on behalf of the students.

Defendants include the State of California and the two largest teachers unions in the state, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT).

“My guess is that there are probably some elements in there that we would embrace, but I think the process itself is flawed,” said CFT President Joshua Pechthalt. “Somehow, the women and men who are actually in the classrooms doing the day-to-day teaching were left out of the process of improving our schools. It’s just not going to work.”

The waiver request was put together by superintendents from eight school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, who received guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and other third parties. Elected school boards were not asked to sign off.

Pechthalt added: “It’s a top-down, one-size-fits-all reform.”

The CTA expressed similar objections to the waiver agreement, blaming Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

“By approving this waiver, Secretary Duncan once again demonstrates how his rhetoric that educators be actively involved in education change is just that – rhetoric,” CTA President Dean Vogel said in a statement. “Not one of the local teachers’ associations in the eight school districts was included in the discussion or signed the waiver application.”

UTLA President Warren Fletcher declined to comment.

Teachers unions had objected to the No Child Left Behind Law, which was signed by George W. Bush in 2001, and had supported California’s request for a waiver. After that waiver request was rejected, the eight districts went back to the Education Department with a waiver request of their own.

It became the first “No Child” waiver granted to districts, rather than a state.

The waiver includes provisions to measure student progress by a number of different metrics and to evaluate teachers based, in part, on student progress. One provision problematic for teachers: if a teacher is evaluated as “unsatisfactory” and fails to “improve substantially” after one year, that teacher may be fired.

“The craft of teaching is not something that you learn or change quickly,” said Pechthalt. “Rather than set one year as make-or-break, it seems to me that if an educator is showing commitment to improve, let’s continue to see progress rather than seeing if you’ve met a certain bar.”

Although the unions denounced the deal, they are not seeking to block or overturn it any way.

Previous posts: The ‘California 8′ Waiver: What it Means for Local Schools; No Child Left Behind Waiver for CA Districts Includes ‘Unique’ Oversight Panel;  ‘No Child’ Waiver OKd for LA Unified, 7 Other CA School Districts

Assemblymember Joan Buchanan

AB 375, a new bill meant to streamline teacher dismissals, could be headed for quick passage after clearing the State Assembly’s Education Committee with a 7 – 0 vote Thursday.

The bill’s chance at passing is undoubtedly aided by the announcement last week that the state’s largest teachers union, the California Teachers Association, was joining forces with Assemblymember Joan Buchanan and Senator Alex Padilla to support AB 375.

But the alliance of Padilla and Buchanan and the quick pace of action in the statehouse have left some observers confused and concerned. Is AB 375 a watered-down teacher dismissal bill? Or have the unions, legislators, and education advocates finally come to a working compromise that will help streamline the teacher dismissal process?

Edgar Zazueta, the director of government relations for LAUSD, praised AB 375 as a “step in the right direction.”

But he also expressed reservations.

“I think we’d argue that there’s more consideration to be done here. We thank [Buchanan] for moving in the right direction, but we think we could push envelope a little further,” Zazueta said.

LAUSD, StudentsFirst, EdVoice, and Democrats for Education Reform have expressed a mix of praise and concern.

To be sure, the CTA, Padilla, and Buchanan are unlikely allies.

The union vehemently opposed both of Padilla’s teacher dismissal bills (SB 10 and last year’s SB 1530), and when SB 1530 was up for vote in the Assembly last year, Buchanan helped kill the bill when she voted against it. Yet Padilla has shelved SB 10 and teamed up with Buchanan to help pass AB 375.

According to CTA spokesperson Frank Wells, the union supports AB 375 because the bill “does the things we wanted.” He cited how Buchanan’s bill leaves the final dismissal decision in the hands of a Commission on Professional Competence made up of two fellow teachers and an administrative law judge.

In SB 10, Padilla planned to limit the commission to having only an advisory role, instead giving the local school board the final decision on whether to fire a teacher. Padilla also wanted to exclude the teachers from the commission, reducing it to a lone judge. It was this plan to limit the commission to an advisory role that “was a major sticking point” for the CTA with SB 10, Wells said.

Reform-minded Gloria Romero, head of Democrats for Education Reform in California, is skeptical the bill will accomplish much. (Read her critical review of the CTA’s involvement with AB 375 in an O.C. Register column here.)

EdVoice and StudentsFirst praised Buchanan for lifting the statute of limitations on evidence that can be used against a teacher during the dismissal process. (Current law prohibits the use of evidence from more than four years ago.)

However, both groups said they are still reviewing the bill and deciding just what they think.

In a letter sent to Buchanan, EdVoice expressed specific concerns that AB 375 won’t effectively improve the dismissal process for teachers who have sexually or physically abused their students.

EdVoice CEO Bill Lucia told LA School Report that he has several issues with the bill. “There’s no question whatsoever that SB 10 was more streamlined than AB 375 in terms of dealing with people who are child predators on the payroll at taxpayers’ expense,” Lucia said.

Lucia’s main concern clashes directly with the CTA’s praise for AB 375: The bill maintains the current law that gives the Commission on Professional Competence the final dismissal decision for teachers accused of “immoral conduct” such as sexual and physical abuse.

“To maintain the same process for someone who can’t teach and for someone who is a child molester is unacceptable,” Lucia said. “That kind of behavior is criminal, not a matter of professional competence.”

Lucia also takes issue with AB 375’s revised timelines, which have been extended longer in some cases than the timelines SB 10 proposed. While SB 10 would have required hearings to begin 60 days after a teacher asked for it, AB 375 allows the hearing to start within six months; and while SB 10 required that the Commission reviewing the case to choose its three members within seven days, AB 375 extended the time to 45 days.

The CTA’s Frank Wells defended the new timelines: “Padilla’s bill may have had a shorter timeline, but it was less fair. We want to streamline process, but we also want to give people adequate time to prepare their cases.”

Both EdVoice and StudentsFirst say they’re in the process of carefully inspecting AB 375 and meeting with stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and community members, to decide whether or not AB 375 has enough force to merit their support. They expect to decide by the end of the month.

To read the full text of AB 375, go here; for SB 10, go here.

Previous posts: Lawmaker Supports Former Opponent’s Teacher Dismissal Bill; Report: Teacher Dismissals Costly, Lengthy; Commentary: Implications of a Bloom Win

The Secret to Fixing School Discipline? Change the Behavior of Adults
A sea change is coursing slowly but resolutely through this nation’s K-12 education system. More than 23,000 schools out of 132,000 nationwide have or are discarding a highly punitive approach to school discipline in favor of supportive, compassionate, and solution-oriented methods. New American Media

Poll Finds the Less You Make, the More You Like Brown’s School Finance Reform
An even 50 percent of respondents told pollsters they favored – while 39 percent opposed – the idea of having “some money diverted from middle and upper class children to low income children and English language learners.” EdSource

Lockyer Widens Request for Legal Opinion on School Bond Campaigns
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Monday expanded his request for a legal opinion to determine if some local education officials and the financial underwriters they hire are violating state law by campaigning for school bond measures. LA Times

Long Beach Middle Schools to Start Day an Hour Later
The Long Beach school board voted Monday to push start times at the district’s five middle schools from 8 to 9 a.m. — a cost-cutting move officials believe will also boost student success. LA Times

Bill Clinton Endorses Wendy Greuel for Los Angeles Mayor
Former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the Los Angeles mayoral race Monday with an endorsement for City Controller Wendy Greuel. HuffPo

Orville Wright Middle School in Westchester Reinvents Itself in Bid to Improve Enrollment
Trying to reverse a plunge in enrollment and the effects of a high-profile principal kerfuffle, Orville Wright Middle School in Westchester – currently an aerospace magnet where students learn how to use flight simulators – is trying to recast itself as a magnet school with an expanded focus. Daily Breeze

St. Genevieve High’s ‘Cabaret’ Draws Ire of Conservative Catholics
St. Genevieve High in Panorama City, which won accolades as a National School of Character, now finds itself under fire, targeted by a cadre of conservative Catholics hoping to halt the production of its spring musical, “Cabaret.” LA Daily News

Partnership Blends Science and English Proficiency
Pupils at El Verano Elementary School are learning about science as they also improve their English-language skills. Their instruction is part of a federally funded collaborative project between the 4,600-student Sonoma district and the Exploratorium, a science museum in San Francisco. EdWeek

Rockers Help Students Roll on Toward Understanding
Members of Ozomatli visit Hawthorne High for a discussion of immigration reform, capitalism, equal rights and community development. A teacher had set the Bill of Rights to one of the group’s melodies. LA Times

Charters Adjusting to Common-Core Demands
Charter schools throughout the country are coping with myriad challenges in preparing for the Common Core State Standards, an effort that could force them to make adjustments from how they train their teachers to the types of curriculum they use to the technology they need to administer online tests. EdWeek

Union Membership Falls to 11.3%, Lowest Level Since 1930s
Teachers unions were among the hardest hit, with the ranks of public school teachers and educators falling sharply. AP

Years After Bond’s Passage, No Start on New Sierra Madre School
The middle school, slated to benefit from a $350-million bond approved in 2008, has been operating out of trailers since the old campus’ demolition in 2010. LA Times

Despite Budget Woes, Superintendents’ Pay Rises
Los Angeles Unified pays Superintendent John Deasy $384,948 a year, about five times the salary of the average teacher. Bay Citizen

Azusa Elementary School Found Lunch After Recess Improves Diet and Concentration
For years, students at Murray Elementary School were like most others, they saw lunch as an easy obstacle to overcome to get to the important part of the school day: recess. KPCC

Head Start Requirement Boosts College Degrees for Early Childhood Educators
Through a concerted effort over the past five years, California is on track to meet a national requirement that 50 percent of Head Start lead classroom teachers hold a bachelor’s degree by the end of September. EdSource

For L.A. Schools, Stories of Modern-Day Martin Luther Kings
On Thursday night, I have the honor of joining students from the RFK Community Schools in Los Angeles for a special theatrical performance of Ariel Dorfman’s play, Speak Truth To Power: Voices from Beyond the Dark, which will raise money to bring our human rights curriculum and the stories of these defenders into schools throughout the city. Huffington Post Op-Ed

Watch: Inside the Mind of a Bilingual Child
Bilingual immersion programs are growing in popularity all over California, but are there actual benefits to programs that teach multiple languages at the elementary level? KPCC

“California has the most union-friendly bargaining laws in the nation,” according to the report.  “The state requires collective bargaining in education, lets its unions automatically deduct agency fees from non-member teachers, and permits teacher strikes. Further, of the twenty-one items examined in this metric, California mandates that eleven are bargained (only Nevada requires more). The remaining ten provisions are implicitly within the scope of bargaining, as state law is silent on them.”

Written by a New York City advocacy group and a Washington DC think tank, the new report ranks state teachers union according to membership, revenues, scope of bargaining, and other measures of influence. While some union officials have mocked the report’s findings, union watchdog Mike Antonucci describes it as extremely useful.

CTA’s Big Push, Winning Hearts and Minds, One Voter at a Time
Instead of meeting in Los Angeles, as they usually do this time of year, the 800 state council delegates of the California Teachers Association, along with hundreds of others, mobilized over the weekend in their local districts, making phone calls and house calls urging voters to say yes on Proposition 30 and no on Proposition 32 by capitalizing on what they consider their best asset: themselves. Ed Source

‘Choices’ Opens New Doors for Students at Failing LAUSD Schools
Most of the parents who sign up for LAUSD’s Choices program hope to send their child to a specialty magnet – a performing arts program for an aspiring actor, perhaps, or a medical academy for a would-be doctor. Daily News

Jerry Brown Accuses Anti-Tax Group of Illegal Money Laundering
Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday accused opponents of his Nov. 6 ballot measure to raise taxes of illegal money laundering, saying the committee that accepted an $11 million donation from an out-of-state group is shielding the identities of its donors because it is ashamed of them. Sac Bee

Charter School Not Entitled to Choose Its Location
The Los Angeles Unified School District did not violate the charter schools initiative by offering to locate a charter school in adjoining classrooms at Belmont High School, contrary to the wishes of the charter school’s directors, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled.  Met News 

Cities, Low on Cash, Hope Ballot Measures Change Their Fortunes
Local governments and school districts across California, struggling to pay for essentials, are asking voters to approve tax and bond measures — and, in one case, a hopefully alluring new name. LA Times

On the strength of his research, he’s been published in the Wall Street Journal, Education Next, and quoted as an expert in a long list of mainstream publications.  (Even when he’s not quoted by name, you can be reasonably sure that a reporter writing about union spending spent heaps of time talking to Antonucci.)

The main problem with following campaign spending is that there’s no simple answer to the questions that reporters and public officials have, according to Antonucci.

“Everybody wants to write a story that says the unions spend $6m on political campaigns,” he says.  “But we’re constantly challenged on the numbers.”

For most parts of California, the best place for information on campaign spending is the Secretary of State’s website, SOS.CA.GOV, according to Antonucci  There you can find union spending on candidates and on issues, as well as on general funds.And, since most political spending on candidates comes from the state teachers union to locals – most locals don’t have their own PACs — the SOS site can tell you who’s being funded and how much.

But there are three different kinds of campaign spending going on, and so anyone following the money has to follow different strands. The first are candidate PACs, which are perhaps the most familiar kind of campaign donation organization.  The second are “issue” PACs which are “just like candidate PACs except they are devoted to ballot initiatives and referenda,” according to Antonucci.  Last but not least are independent expenditures (IEs), which contain “all other political spending by the union not coordinated with a candidate or ballot measure campaign.”

And the rationale behind the campaign donations may not be simple to follow, either.  A funding request may come from the local, or come from the senior members at CTA who are concerned about a particular race.  Sometimes, as in the case of the referendum on gay marriage, a caucus within CTA will push the union to donate to a campaign or referendum that’s not directly related to education. The money is sent to the candidate PAC or passed through the local. There’s no formula. (For larger districts like UTLA, there are local PACs, and also funding from the AFT, to which UTLA formally belongs.)

And the SOS site lacks any detailed accounting of what’s done with each block of cash that’s shifted around, he says.  For example, member communications:  “There’s a whole another section of money spent to communicate with their members about politics that doesn’t show up anywhere,” says Antonucci.  This is a common complaint among those fighting against union campaigns — that some or all of the effort is not captured by disclosure rules, especially around communications, events, and get out the vote efforts.

In theory, this isn’t true in places like LA, where member communication has been written into the local disclosure laws. (Los Angeles requires 24 hour disclosure, including member communications, though the amounts show up underneath the candidate who’s being opposed.)

However, Antonucci isn’t buying it.  “I doubt [the LA County ethics site] can comprehensively cover all relevant member communications from UTLA, CTA, CFT, NEA and AFT and determine what is reportable and what is not,” he says.  “My guess is that the unions are self-policing, and any agency fee-payer will tell you they are not to be trusted to judge what is “political” and what is not.”

Previous posts: Memo to Voters: Attack Ads on the Horizon, Latest Fundraising Numbers, Dark Money Dominates LAUSD Elections.

Calif. Poised to Spotlight ELLs Stalled in Schools EdWeek: California is poised to become the first state to unmask the extent to which English-language learners languish in public schools for years without ever reaching fluency.

Teacher Evaluations At Center Of Chicago Strike NPR: In California, after the state legislature mandated the use of student progress benchmarks to rate teachers, an education reform group sued the Los Angeles Unified School District to force the issue.

Segregation Prominent in Schools, Study Finds New York Times: Across the country, 43 percent of Latinos and 38 percent of blacks attend schools where fewer than 10 percent of their classmates are white, according to the report, released on Wednesday by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Skeptical unions pose challenge to districts’ Race to the Top Ed Source: Nearly 900 districts nationwide, including 76 districts and charter schools in California, have told the federal government that they plan to compete for the final $400 million Race to the Top district competition. But with local unions having in effect a veto over their districts’ application, that number could dwindle.

Governor Signs CTA Bill to Help Laid-off Educators Retrain for Hard-to-Staff Fields CTA Blog: Teachers laid off because of California’s bruising education funding cuts will be able to collect unemployment benefits while retraining to fill other teaching positions in California’s shortage fields because of Gov. Jerry Brown’s signing of a CTA-backed bill.

Brown kills bill establishing study committee on school finance EdSource: Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have created a task force to explore options for school finance reform, thus ensuring that his own weighted student formula won’t be drowned out in a marketplace of ideas when the Legislature convenes in January.

Most adults don’t think social isolation is bullying: poll KPCC: And only 56 percent of parents believe social exclusion of a student, which may be linked to school violence and teen suicide, merits school intervention.

CSU board OKs tuition increase — good only if Prop. 30 fails LA Times: Trustees vote 11 to 3 for the 5% tuition hike that would raise $58 million in 2012-13. If the Prop. 30 tax-increase measure fails, CSU faces a $250-million loss.

Board Member Steve Zimmer

Just about everyone who watches LAUSD is scratching their heads wondering just what board member Steve Zimmer is doing — lately more than ever.

He’s introduced two incredibly polarizing motions recently– one to reject the use of Academic Growth Over Time in teacher evaluations, and one to provide greater oversight for charter schools and, more importantly, place a moratorium on new charters. (See: Big Moves From Zimmer)

“I’ve know Steve for 20 years,” says David Tokofsky, a former LAUSD board member and current strategist for Associated Administrators Los Angeles. “He’s always trying to bring people together to discuss issues, and somehow, he’s gotten both the unions and the charters to issue fatwas against him.”

At last week’s board meeting, Zimmer sheepishly announced that he would postpone both proposals and revise them before the next meeting, which is on October 9. It’s unclear what changes he will make to them, or how he will go about satisfying two sides that are growing increasingly frustrated with him.

The ed reform community feels that Zimmer’s westside school board seat is, by all rights, their’s, made up, as it is, largely of middle class and upper middle class white voters. Education reformers are said to be searching for the perfect candidate to run against Zimmer, and are gearing up to spend a lot of money to defeat him in March.

With the charter school proposal it seemed like he was simply doing UTLA’s bidding. But UTLA members weren’t exactly rushing to defend the proposal.  In fact, UTLA leadership was at the same meeting to speak out against Proposition 32, and didn’t speak about Zimmer’s motion.  There were no t-shirted teachers or community members brought to speak out for the need for greater charter oversight.

“Zimmer will drive you crazy because you never know where he stands,” says Tokofsky. Indeed, at school board meetings, Zimmer looks an Atlas-ian figure, his face a locked in a permanently pained expression. “But he’s very heartfelt about it.”

That leaves UTLA with some intriguing choices. They could (a) run their own candidate against Zimmer, hoping for a more reliable supporter; (b) simply stay out of the race and not support any candidate, letting ZImmer fight it out on his own; or (c) vigorously support Zimmer, figuring that he’s better than the ed reform candidate.

Whatever they decide, it will likely to be a reaction to whatever challenger the ed reformers come up with.  (More on that to come — send contenders/recommendations to info at laschoolreport.com.)

In the meantime, divisions within the board may be distracting everyone from larger, more immediate issues.

“The tragedy of the whole thing,” says Tokofsky, referring to a ballot measure that LAUSD needs to avoid further cuts, “is that every single one of them should be thinking about Prop 30.”