Via Reuters | By Sharon Bernstein

California Governor Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a law adding “egregious misconduct” to the list of fireable offenses for public school teachers, weeks after a judge said it was too hard to fire incompetent teachers in the most populous U.S. state.

Both houses of the legislature unanimously passed the law just days after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge court ruled that laws granting tenure and other job protections to teachers were unconstitutional, leading to a denial of equal rights to children in poor neighborhoods as incompetent teachers were transferred to less desirable locations.

Read the full story here

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, vice chair of the Education Committee

After years of trying, with students’ safety hanging in the balance, the state legislature has finally passed a measure that expedites the process for dismissing teachers accused egregious behavior.

Unanimous votes of support for AB 215 in both the Senate and Assembly was not only encouraging news for children and their parents, it underscored the power of collaboration among education groups that seldom work together.

AB 215 creates a streamlined process for action against teachers accused of committing immoral acts and felonies. Last year, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a forerunner of the bill, AB 375, to the chagrin of teacher unions. Brown said it made it harder, not easier, to remove the teachers in question.

AB 215, sponsored by Joan Buchanan, a San Ramon Democrat, now awaits his signature.

Education reform advocacy group Edvoice, which opposed AB 375, and the California Teachers Association (CTA), which supported it, are two groups that often disagree on key issues, including teacher tenure, charter schools and the use of teacher evaluations. But they came together this time to draft language that everyone was able to support.

“It is rare for a bill with this much attention and historic controversy to receive unanimous support; that is unique,” Assemblywoman Kristen Olsen, a Modesto Republican and vice chair of the Assembly Education Committee, told LA School Report.

“They really negotiated the compromise that I believe became a win-win for students, parents, for teachers, for schools,” she said. “It’s not perfect, but it’s a balanced proposal that will greatly improve the process, saving districts time and money and protecting kids.”

Olsen said that this kind of agreement highlights how long overdue a solution has been to protect kids in the classroom.

“The fact that we finally came to a proposal that had a variety of groups in support of it gave the legislature the comfort for everybody to support it unanimously and with enthusiasm,” she said.

Unlike AB 375, which presented a single process for all teacher dismissal cases, AB 215 focuses largely on cases of egregious misconduct. It also offers a faster dismissal process that involves a single judge as opposed to a three-person administrative panel.

“Naturally, we would want to make sure that any teachers who have committed child abuse or sexual abuse, really egregious offenses, are dismissed as quickly as possible,” Olsen said.

AB 375 was opposed by many advocacy and reform groups like Edvoice, which claimed that it made it more difficult to enforce immediate suspensions for misconduct and to amend charges if new information was uncovered during investigations.

It also limited the number of depositions and created lengthy timelines for new processes and limited the authority of the administrative law judge hearing a case to speed up the process.

“If a person has performed an egregious act, we don’t have to deal with these layers that are cumbersome when it’s clear on issues of egregiousness alone, that they should be immediately dealt with in a way that still provides an opportunity for appeal,” Bill Lucia, President and CEO of Edvoice, told LA School Report. “It clarifies that you can actually suspend someone immediately with egregious misconduct without pay.”

AB 215 also improves a school’s ability to remove ineffective teachers by streamlining the dismissal appeal process on performance issues.

“[This is] an important first step toward the goals that the Vergara v. California decision described as imperative to ensuring equal access to a quality education for all of California’s students,” Olsen said.

Under the measure, appeals that now can take up two years to be heard, will be heard in six months and in cases of egregious misconduct, the hearings would go before an administrative law judge within 60 days.

But this time frame doesn’t sit well with the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), which opposed AB 215.

“The bill does nothing to streamline the discovery process for egregious conduct dismissals, the timeline to commence an egregious conduct hearing is completely unworkable,” Naj Alikhan, the group’s spokesman, told LA School Report.

Alikhan said the group also believes the definition of “egregious conduct” is too narrow, saying, “the definition should include allegations related to certain serious and violent felonies including moral turpitude.”

However, the group believes AB 215 is a good starting point in the effort to protect students statewide.

Joan Buchanan, Source: Ed Source

Via Ed Source | by John Fensterwald

Signaling the resolution of an acrimonious issue, Assembly Education Committee Chairwoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, introduced a bill Friday to make dismissing teachers charged with severe misconduct quicker, easier and cheaper.

“I want to thank the education community for its willingness to continue to work on this critical issue,” Buchanan said in a statement. “We share a common goal of keeping our children safe and providing a fair and efficient process.”

Buchanan praised the compromise that was reached, and said that Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed her version of the bill last year, would sign it. Brown spokesman Jim Evans confirmed in an email, “As introduced, the Administration supports Assemblymember Buchanan’s approach.”

In a further sign of movement, Bill Lucia, CEO of EdVoice, an advocacy organization, said he would withdraw a proposed ballot measure dealing with teacher dismissals if the bill, as proposed, becomes law by mid-June. In an unusual alliance, Lucia and the California Teachers Association, who have clashed over teacher evaluations, charter schools and, until now, teacher discipline and dismissals, issued a joint statement praising the compromise and each other’s efforts.

Read full story here.

Assembly member Joan Buchanan, left, and State Senator Alex Padilla, right

Governor Jerry Brown’s veto of AB 375, a bill that would have amended California’s teacher dismissal process, doesn’t mean the effort is dead.

“The governor still wants to do something,” LA Unified’s chief lobbyist, Edgar Zazueta, told LA School Report. “I do see there will be one, if not several, efforts to do this next year. Hopefully we’re able to find somewhere in the middle, where more stakeholders can embrace final product.”

Zazueta added that Brown “always wants to make sure that all the stakeholders are on board. With 375, it was unbalanced. None of the folks who do dismissals were part of process.”

Gloria Romero, who just left California Democrats for Education Reform to start her own organization, the Foundation for Parent Empowerment, also sees a pathway forward, even if it remains uncertain who’s leading the effort.

“The stars are aligned,” she said. “There will be a very bright public spotlight on this. The legislature will have to act. The question is, who carries it this time?”

Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, the East Bay Democrat who sponsored the measure, has not decided whether she will go forward with a reconfigured approach or defer to someone else on the issue. One possibility is State Senator Alex Padilla, who authored a bill, SB 10, that would have made it easier to fire teachers accused of harming a student.

That bill died in committee after an intense lobbying blitz from the California Teachers Association.

This year, Padilla declined to take the lead on the new version of the bill – perhaps because he’s running for California Secretary of State and doesn’t want to antagonize the teachers unions. Buchanan’s bill was supported by teacher unions but widely attacked reform groups and newspaper editorial boards statewide.

“I still strongly believe that the discipline appeal process is broken,” Buchanan said in an email. “It takes too long and costs too much money. However, I agree that the path forward is uncertain.”

The question then, is there a compromise to made?

Romero also said that if the legislature doesn’t act, there could be a move by outside groups to write a ballot initiative. “There’ve been discussions, believe me, about which way to go forward,” she said.

A ballot initiative could pressure the legislature into acting. But the real pressure might come from Vergara v. California, the lawsuit filed by Students Matter aimed at tearing up many of the laws that govern the teacher dismissal process. That trial is set to being on January 27 – and could have an enormous impact on how teachers in California are fired.

Students Matter spokesperson Danielle Kelton said that Brown’s veto “definitely highlights the failure of the legislature to address the problem.”

*This update includes a comment from Buchanan. An early version of the post mistakenly identified the Vergara plaintiffs as Students First.

Previous posts: John Deasy on AB 375 Veto: ‘Wise Decision’; BREAKING NEWS: Brown Vetoes Weak Teacher Dismissal Bill; Brown Facing Pressure to Veto ‘Flawed’ Teacher Dismissal Bill; Unions Ask Court to Dismiss ‘Bad Teacher’ Suit

Mark Berndt, teacher accused of abusing children

Opposition to a teacher dismissal bill that was weakened through compromises in the California legislature is gathering steam as it awaits the signature of Gov. Jerry Brown.

Today Gloria Romero, former state senator and head of California Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), is urging Brown to veto the bill. In an article published in the Orange County Register she argues that the bill, AB 375, “makes it harder for districts to protect children.” (read article here).

Last week, The California School Board Association issued an ‘action alert’ urging members to write Brown to veto the bill, saying it’s a “good bill for bad teachers”.

Meanwhile on the grassroots side, a parent activist in San Diego posted a petition asking Brown to “protect schoolchildren from predators,” joining grassroots group Edvoice which last week called the bill  “unsafe for children.”

Larry Sand, president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network, cites even more opposition to the bill in a commentary here.

*Adds reference to Larry Sand commentary.

Previous Posts: Teacher Dismissal Bill: No Added Concern for Predators, LA Unified Blames ‘Cumbersome’ Law for Dismissal Delay

Assembly member Joan Buchanan

The teacher dismissal bill awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown‘s signature includes no specific language for streamlining the process of removing teachers for sexual and physical abuse, which had been the focus of earlier bills. The final version simply creates protocols to govern any dismissal case.

Brown has until Oct. 13 to sign it.

Assembly Bill 375, which passed both houses of the legislature last week, grew out of other bills, more narrowly written, that focused on teachers who posed threats to children. Those efforts, opposed by teachers unions, evolved into a wider bill that creates overall procedures with deadlines when none were in place before, prompting some lawmakers were characterizing as too long, too expensive and too cumbersome.

Sponsored by Joan Buchanan, a northern California Democrat and new chair of the Assembly’s education committee, the final version has the strong support of the unions, in part, for maintaining a three-member panel that decides a case — two teachers and an administrative law judge — and for loosening the eligibility requirements for teachers to serve on the panel.

But critics of the bill before Brown argue that it betrays the purpose of the original legislation, denying districts an explicit pathway to removing teachers accused of immoral and illegal behavior.

“For me, I see no benefit in the bill,” John Deasy, the LA Unified superintendent, told LA School Report, referring AB 375. “It neither strengthened nor weakened the current law. In other words it does not help. I look for legislation that makes it easier for districts to dismiss teaches who harm students quickly and cost effectively.”

Bill Lucia, CEO of Ed Voice, a grassroots nonprofit group, is urging Brown to veto the new law, calling it “unsafe for children” and saying it would increase “the likelihood that perpetrators will negotiate a buyout and a hall pass to inflict child abuse again in another California public school.”

Buchanan’s bill evolved from SB 1530, which was introduced last year and never made it out of an Assembly committee, thanks to a two Democrats voting against it and four abstaining — as well as heavy lobbying by the California Teachers Association.

The bill would have given school boards the authority to suspend without pay a teacher or administrator who is notified of dismissal for conduct involving sex abuse, drugs or violence toward children. It would also have given school boards, not a panel — the final authority over dismissals.

One Assembly member who abstained from the voting was Betsy Butler, who was narrowly defeated last year by Richard Bloom, the former mayor of Santa Monica.

Running as an underdog, Bloom had blasted Butler’s abstention, telling LA School Report last year: “I’ve never done that in 13 years of being a public official. I think it’s our responsibility as elected officials to register our opinions and have discourse on them. That’s what public discourse is about.”

But this time, Assemblyman Bloom abstained from AB 375, which had been held up in committee, only to resurface and reach the Assembly floor last week in the final legislative session, a time lawmakers usually scramble to approve bills before the deadline.

“AB 375 was significantly amended and passed out of one committee, then moved on to another committee where, a day before the Assembly and Senate votes, it received a favorable vote,” said Bloom. “While advocates for the measure were certainly prepared, there was virtually no time for school boards, community activists, or anyone other than insiders to evaluate and comment on the reformulated bill.”

Bloom said he scrambled to do his own research and found mixed assessments, with some calling the measure a “modest step forward,” while others told him that “limits on depositions, time constraints on investigations and other factors, would make it harder, not easier, to discipline those accused of heinous acts like child molestation.”

In the end, Bloom simply didn’t feel comfortable voting one way or the other.

“Given that neither I nor my staff had the time to independently evaluate these conflicting views I decided that I could not support the bill, but was not comfortable, at that point, in voting “No'” he said. “My abstention had the same effect as a “no” vote.

“I remain concerned that the legislature has unwittingly passed a bill that would make it more difficult to discipline a teacher like Mark Berndt.  I think that result, if accurate, is unconscionable.“

Berndt is a former third grade teacher who is awaiting trial on charges that he molested more than 20 students over five years.

 0-0

The bill awaiting Brown’s signature has unambiguously good news for a certain category of teachers in California public schools: It codifies compliance with a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that being a member of the Communist party cannot be grounds for dismissal.

Previous posts: Richard Bloom Criticizes Betsy Butler For SB 1530 Vote; Assemblymember Bloom Opposes Teacher Dismissal Bill; Teacher Dismissal Bill Blocked Over Seven-Month Time Limit

Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon)

After nine months of hearings and amendments, legislation aimed to quicken and streamline teacher dismissal procedures failed to pass in the Senate Education Committee by one vote.

The Chair of the Senate Education Committee Carol Liu (D-Glendale) — the only LA-area lawmaker on the committee — decided not to vote for or against the bill because of district administrators and attorneys’ concerns. Many other lawmakers followed suit.

Liu did grant the bill reconsideration, however, but it now will not be reconsidered until at least January.

Unless the process is changed at the state-level, bill sponsor State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon) says LAUSD and other districts will continue to wade through onerous dismissal procedures that can last 18 months or longer.

However,  Edgar Zazueta, the director of government relations for LAUSD, said that while Buchanan’s bill would be a great improvement to the current law there are some serious flaws that could damage the district if the bill passed as is.

The Buchanan legislation has been supported by the teachers union, among others.

Assembly Bill 357 was expected to pass with strong support from teachers’ unions and student advocacy groups.  It would have made it easier for districts to suspend and fire teachers for serious offenses, an especially pertinent issue given the continuous slew of child molestation and teacher misconduct cases that continue to crop up throughout LA Unified.

First reported by EdSource Today, the failure of the Buchanan legislation was a repeat of the failure of similar legislation in 2012.

Last year, Buchanan voted against the legislation, SB 1530, which was championed by Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima).  This year, she developed her own legislation and was joined by Padilla, but was met with similar push back by the state Senate.

What is really holding the bill back, from perspective of LAUSD, is the proposed seven-month time frame for dismissing teachers accused of misdeeds in the classroom.

“This bill says that if the seven months pass without a resolution, a district gets another 30 days,” Zazueta explained. “But ultimately that time period may lapse, and the bill states that the district would have to refile the case. That’s a big concern for us.”

“It doesn’t make sense for us to have to start from scratch, put people back on the stand and do the whole thing over,” he added.

District lawyers warned that Office of Administrative Hearings, where the dismissal cases are heard, has a difficult time putting these on the calendar from the get go, according to Zazueta. To district administrators, a seven month dismissal resolution seems like a long shot.

“What our lawyers told us is that the Office of Administrative Hearings (where the dismissal cases are heard) has a difficult time putting these on the calendar from the get go,” said Zazueta. “Just because we say it will happen in seven months, will it actually happen?”

Buchanan disagrees with this assessment, saying that most dismissal hearings actually take days or a week once they are scheduled at the Office of Administrative Hearings because their deadlines are written into statues, and that forces the OAH to make sure cases are concluded.

“It works,” said Buchanan. “So to say you cannot get it done in seven months’ time, I don’t believe is correct, since these cases are not part of judicial branch.”

United Teachers of Los Angeles President Warren Fletcher said the union will continue to support the bill despite the recent setbacks. The administrators’ union also said they support the bill, though they also have concerns about the hard-set time deadline, among other details.

“Yes the process should be faster, but I think [the bill’s sponsors] tried to make it faster than would be possible,” said AALA President Judith Perez.

Perez said that she was concerned at the speed teachers could be dismissed if the bill passed and explained that putting such a specific length of time could backfire for school districts.

Buchanan acknowledges that’s what prevented the bill from passing.

“The bill stalling really hinged on one law firm who testified and said the process cannot be completed in seven months so cases will get dismissed and end up costing districts more money,” said Buchanan.

Depending on the severity of the charges in a teacher dismissal case, the process can drag on for a year or more, costing districts money they don’t have.

Buchanan says the biggest problem facing schools is actually not the sexual abuse and misconduct cases like Miramonte, but the dismissals for unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory performance which are less cut-and-dry, harder to prove, “drag on for extended periods of time” and often costs districts hundreds of thousands of dollars.

On this issue, Buchanan and LAUSD agree.

“Sometimes cases last over a year,” said Zazueta. “Some cases have even dragged on for multiple years.”

These delayed dismissal cases can cost LAUSD anywhere from $150,000 – $300,000 for one case, he said. If the district loses a case once it finally gets to trial, Zazueta says the district has to pay the two panelists it finds to sit in for the hearing about $7,000-$9,500.

Under Supt. Deasy’s administration, Zazueta says the district has tried to “be more aggressive to see which employees should be in the classroom,” which can result in more teacher dismissal cases.

With months until the January consideration, Buchanan says she will do whatever it takes to get the bill ready to pass.

“I need to sit down individually with every member of the Senate Committee on Education to make sure they truly understand what the bill really does,” she said. “If we need to amend it we will.”

Previous posts: Mixed Reactions to New Teacher Dismissal Bill; Deasy Wants Stronger Teacher Dismissal Bill; State Teachers Union Rejects Criticism of Teacher Dismissal Bill; Deasy Requests Changes to Teacher Dismissal Bill