ESTA UPDATE

SPECIAL ELECTION

Despite polls showing fewer than half of California’s voter favor the event, our governor is unrelenting in his pursuit of having a special election this November. The election will cost California counties some $75m, and is particularly galling in light of the fact that the next regularly-scheduled election is already set to occur some seven months afterward, in June 2006.

One assemblyman from a peninsula legislative district estimated that his county could hire 29 new sheriff’s deputies for the cost of putting on this election.

If, by some unlikely stroke of sanity, we find the special election is called off, then all propositions that are scheduled to appear on it will simply be carried forward to June. So no matter when the election is held, there will be several issues of critical importance to public school employees that will appear on the ballot.

You’re going to hear a lot about these issues between now and the election. Someone once observed that in modern American society, you have to put your message in front of an adult voter at least seven different times to have any sort of lasting impact. Gird your loins for the onslaught. Our governor has raised tens of millions of dollars at his $100,000-per-plate fundraisers in order to afford the media blitz that has already begun. Arrayed against him are educators, firefighters, nurses, police, other public sector employee groups, and numerous legislators whose message may be drowned out in the cacophony. Here is the litany of critical issues that will appear on the ballot, and CTA’s recommendations for voting.

Vote NO on Prop 74

Prop 74: “Punish New Teachers Initiative” would extend to five years the period that a credentialed teacher would have no rights of due process in dismissal proceedings. The current probationary period for California teachers is two years, which is longer than the probationary period for new employees in virtually every other industry. The hot-button buzz word here is “tenure”, which proponents of this useless initiative will wave around as if to claim that school administrators need three extra years to spot poor fledgling teachers, and that lousy veteran teachers can never be dismissed. The facts are that competent administrators ought to be able to identify ineffective teachers far sooner than five years, and veteran (permanent) teachers merely acquire legal rights to due process upon attaining permanent status. There are too many examples of teacher dismissals based on bad reasons to be comfortable with a five-year probationary period, and it is frightening to think of the effects of adding yet another reason not to become a teacher to the already long list.

Yet another troubling feature of this initiative is that it would provide for the immediate dismissal of a veteran teacher who got two consecutive bad evaluations.

Vote NO on Prop 75

Prop 75: “Paycheck Deception Initiative” would virtually silence ESTA and CTA by making it nearly impossible to use dues for political purposes. At the present time, corporations already outspend labor unions in the political arena by a factor of 20-to-1, and there is certainly no requirement that businesses obtain annual permission of their stockholders to pursue their political agendas. Prop 75, if passed, would prohibit the collection of union dues through payroll deductions for any union that spends any dues money on political activities. It would force labor unions to annually seek written permission of each dues-paying member and to contact each member, face-to-face, to request donations in furtherance of political goals.

If Prop 75 had been around ten years ago, the list of horrible consequences would be almost too great to list. ▪There would certainly not have been a Prop 98 (which assures that a minimum of 40% of the state’s budget must be directed to K-14 education).

▪We would almost certainly have vouchers diverting massive amounts of public funding into private education.

▪We would each be earning significantly less, as there would be no statutory COLA computation and no way to effectively lobby legislators with our point of view. ▪Our retirement pensions would be significantly less.

▪We would not have a school board that could have mustered the votes to “accept the resignation” of our former superintendent.

Whether you agree with everything that CTA has done in the political arena or not, it is irrefutable that both teachers and students are far better off in the wake of CTA political activities than either group would be if we were left to our individual devices.

The relentless and well-funded enemies of public education know this, and so they have put this highly charged initiative on the ballot and will try to sell the idea that they seek to restore “fairness and democratic ideals” to union members, wresting control back from the “union bosses”. These guys have our best interest at heart? That’s utter nonsense. Don’t buy it.

Vote NO on Prop 76

Prop 76: “Cut School Funding Initiative” would overturn Proposition 98, which for a dozen years has provided minimum guarantees for school funding. Even with the presence of Prop 98, California is already solidly in the bottom quartile when per-pupil funding for education is ranked by state. If passed, Prop 76 would eliminate any foundation for school funding from one year to the next, giving instead broad powers to the governor to alter funding amounts up to three times per year, with no legislative oversight. It is a terrible idea, but one upon which the governor is apparently steadfast.

HURRICANE RELIEF

My wife and I will make a donation to the American Red Cross in support of its efforts to bring aid to the millions of surviving victims of hurricane Katrina. In addition, we plan to seek out victim relief funds that will focus on our brother and sister educators in the region. It is all too easy to see images of the utter devastation and get really angry at the unbelievable lack of readiness of the federal, state, and even municipal governments to respond.

There will be a proper time for recriminations. But for now, I pray that each of us more fortunate Californians will dig deep to help. May I suggest that ESTA members consider also making financial donations through the National Education Association at this address:

NEA HIN/Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund
1201 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

CTA LAWSUIT

On August 8, CTA and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction filed a lawsuit against Governor Schwarzenegger seeking to force the state to pay schools their fair share of increased state tax revenues in the last fiscal year. These funds were promised in the agreement between the Education Coalition and the governor and codified in Chapter 123 of the Statutes of 2004. The amount that was promised but not paid comes to $1.8b, and then because this amount was not included in the 04/05 Prop 98 base, this year’s state budget also shorts schools an additional $1.3b. Thus, over the two years, schools have received $3.1b less than the law provides.

It is this cumulative financing component that has also prompted the governor to try to dismantle Prop 98 in his costly special election scheduled for November.

In addition to the governor, the lawsuit names Finance Director Tom Campbell and State Controller Steve Wesley as defendants. While we cannot expect immediate resolution, CTA will vigorously pursue the issue in court.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Every four or five years, the US Congress revisits the issues of federal laws pertaining to public education. What generally follows are new mandates, often underfunded by the federal government, but which still must be followed by states seeking federal dollars.

One such law is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) whose most recent incarnation was the infamous “No Child Left Behind” of 2001. This is the law mandating, among other things, that by the end of this current school year, every teacher in every core academic subject in the nation must be anointed as a Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT). The actual definition of Highly Qualified was left to the states, and California has established a set of rules that will make it relatively simple for most regular education teachers to be found HQT. The hitches that remain seem to be for Special Education Teachers and those teachers in alternative education settings. We can expect some clarification on these issues this school year, but until we get them, we’re in a bind. At the present time, the only grades that a teacher will be able to give are in subjects for which the teacher is HQT. This may be well and good for a math teacher with a math degree, but remains murky for SpEd and AltEd teachers who may be giving grades in several subjects.

Another of the federal laws that draws attention is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). This is the set of statutes that govern the area of Special Education and it’s offshoot, the so-called “Section 504” students.

What may be most noteworthy in this arena are not any new rules for the treatment of SpEd and 504 students, but school districts’ newfound zeal for compliance with existing statutes.

Those “regular ed” teachers who may think they are not affected by rules for SpEd and 504 students are in for an unpleasant surprise. For years, IDEIA and its precursors have mandated that every student with special needs must have accommodations to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. Parents and guardians of such students have become increasingly savvy about their children’s rights.

One such right is to have a team of educators construct a custom Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for SpEd students. A similar plan is due to 504 students as well. Such plans are to be periodically reviewed. Meetings to craft or alter a student’s IEP are supposed to be attended by a variety of people, including an administrator, a SpEd teacher, and a Regular Ed teacher. Our district, probably like many others, has been less than faithful in assembling this kind of group for each SpEd student who is undergoing an IEP review. That will change.

Most such meetings can be scheduled to occur within the regular work day, with substitutes assigned to the classes that attending ESTA members might miss. But on occasion, the meeting will be scheduled for some time later in the day. I have asked both the Director of Special Services and the Superintendent for a citation of any law that might trump our contract in such matters, and have yet to see any evidence that an ESTA member can be compelled to attend a meeting that falls after our contractual workday. Until I see for myself that there is a higher power than our contract, ESTA will take the position that attendance at such after-hours meetings is strictly voluntary. That is, no ESTA member – either RegEd or SpEd – can be disciplined for choosing not to attend an after-hours IEP meeting. I have oral assurance, but nothing in writing at this time, that ESTA members will be offered overtime pay (in the form a time card) to remain late for IEP meeting attendance. Another plan that has been proposed is to reduce an ESTA member’s 30-hour supervision obligation for attendance at late-day IEP meetings.

One final note. Federal law holds that children with special needs are entitled to special treatment. The teachers of SpEd and 504 students are supposed to be made aware of accommodations needed by that student in order to meet the student’s specialized plan. This notification is the responsibility of local administration. Once the teacher is made aware of the accommodations, there are some pretty major downsides if the teacher knowingly fails to provide them. Among these is the possibility of the teacher being named in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the student, and there are several examples in case law in which teachers have been held personally liable for monetary damages. In one such case, it cost a teacher $15k for ignoring the prescription.