Well, we are in a New Year and we need to close up our 2008 SAUSD corruption thread before it becomes overwhelmed with comments. Consider this to be our new 2009 SAUSD corruption thread.
Click here to read our 2008 thread. And here are links to all our previous SAUSD corruption threads:
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2008 Comments
- SAUSD-Temporary Thread (Migration 5/16/2008) Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2007 Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2006 Comments
The results of last year’s SAUSD School Board elections were disappointing. The incumbents were re-elected. Shame on the teacher’s union for supporting them! And the one new Trustee, Roman Reyna, is not likely to make a difference.
The SAUSD budget is a mess and our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, appears primed to make it worse. So this is going to be a very tough year. As always, this forum will be here to allow you to vent about what is going on at the SAUSD!
Al Mijares is long gone, but the corruption at the SAUSD continues unabated…
When the district warned people that they needed to have the CLAD or they would be let go, then some people got it and some people didn’t bother getting it. What I want to know is…why was it okay for some to not have it and be allowed to continue year after year without it on emergency status??????? I didn’t see them getting a RIF notice. A few people asked that at the RIF meeting and no one could really answer why those people were allowed to continue teaching ELD students without the CLAD. Yes, the rule may have changed NOW, but this definitely was the rule that ALL teachers who taught EL students MUST have this. SAUSD made exceptions year after year and that is something a lawyer should look into.
Why did the district hire so many teachers who were not fully credentialed in the first place?????? hmmmm
#299 Yes, I am getting an oops page is not found as well all of a sudden. Here is a cached version…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.sausd.us+%2BAdministrative+Regulations+%26+Board+Policies&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
#303
Thanks. It didn’t work either, but thanks for trying. Those are handy to have and be familiar with. I’ve won more than one grievance just by reading those AR’s and BR’s. They used to be in every school break room, but magically vanished during Mijares tenure.
#297
Aren’t you the contranian one.
Since you are blogging, I presume you have access to the internet. You do know what the internet is, don’t you? Well, take the initiative and search the California Dept of Ed website and all your questions will be answered.
Education is a life-long journey. Enjoy!
#305
I’m not trying to be contrary at all. I presume you are the same anon that wrote # 296 stating that the district was complying with the Ed Code even though some teachers here seem to believe the district is not. Personally I don’t know but since you seemed to I only asked you to cite the Ed Code section (et. sec) that you were making reference to. If you can’t or won’t then that’s fine. I’ll take your prior comment as an opinion rather than fact.
As a trained lawyer, I think I can explain the confusion regarding the Ed. Code. The Ed. Code is actually silent as to whether seniority lists should be prepared by date of hire or date of credential. Traditionally, districts have gone by date of credential.
However, in the “Bakersfield Case,” which was brought by CTA on behalf of emergency credentialed teachers in Bakersfield who were not given a RIF hearing, but rather released without a hearing, the court concluded that emergency credentialed teachers should have been entitled to a RIF hearing because their true classification is “probationary,” not “temporary.” The court concluded that only teachers who were replacing teachers on leave or hired for limited categorical purposes could be classified as temporary. This was an interpretation of vague and ambiguous provisions of the Ed. Code, which may or may not be agreed with by other courts. SAEA and its attorney want to argue that the Bakersfield decision is binding on school districts, but it is not. School districts are still free to prepare seniority lists in accordance with their own policies.
Therefore, when SAUSD, with the advice of a competent educational attorney, prepared the seniority list last year, it did follow its own policy, which was to RIF by date of credential. Certainly, SAUSD and all school districts favor to RIF that way if for no other reason than they are able to RIF more highly paid teachers and save the additional salary. (Example, a teacher hired in 1998 but uncredentialed until 2003 would have gotten yearly raises, but would still get a RIF notice if RIFfing goes by date of credential.)
When SAUSD initially prepared the RIF list its traditional way last year, SAEA threatened that it would argue to the administrative law judge, based on the Bakersfield case, that the list was prepared incorrectly, and that no RIFfing at all could occur. (David Barton proudly acknowledges this in his May 28, 2008 President’s letter.) This surprised and scared the **** out of the district, which is why it redid the list two or three days before the hearing. There is no way to predict whether the administrative law judge would have agreed with the Bakersfield case or not, and SAEA, unlike teachers hired with credentials, was organized and ready to fight for the teachers hired with emergency credentials. The district chose the path of least resistance when it adjusted the list. Sure, it made plenty of teachers mad, but they weren’t organized and didn’t really understand what was happening and why.
This also explains, in response to #298 above, why the district is violating its own policy and not following its own interpretation of the Ed. Code. It is afraid of what SAEA might do. Clearly, SAEA and its attorney have a huge conflict of interest because they are pressuring the district to violate its own policy in order to favor one faction of teachers (those hired with emergency credentials) over another (those hired with full credentials.) The teachers hired with full credentials, if they want to have any success this year, will need to organize themselves before the RIF hearing. They need to get an attorney or, better yet, force SAEA to provide them with an attorney who will argue to the administrative law judge that the district should have followed its own policy and that they should be removed from the list if there are any teachers who received the same credential later than they did who are not on the RIF list. Good luck to them. The whole thing is a mess.
Caveat: This is just my personal opinion based on my legal training. It is not legal advice to any specific individual or individuals, and should not be construed as such. Anybody seeking legal advice needs to consult with an active and practicing attorney.
SAUSD ought to hire ‘retired lawyer’. The best way to break a union and so drive your labor costs down is to get your employees fighting among one another. Nothing personal, Ret-L, I’m sure you’re being up-front, but Woody Guthrie provides the best advice for teachers trying to build up young Americans.
Ret. Lawyer
Thank you for putting the confusion into some sort of logical sense. I’ve now read a synopsis of the 5th courts decision including the legal ref to the various Ed Codes involved.
http://www.lcwlegal.com/newspublications/PDFs/SB_2007-01_BakersfieldCitySchoolDistrict.pdf
Although it makes no difference to me because I am credentialed in math (and a math teacher)and have been in the district over 20 years, I taught with an emergency credential for my first two years and the district is using my credential date, not my hire date to determine my seniority. I know this for certain because they list the start date (two years before I started in the district) on the seniority list.
I meant two years after………sorry.
Welcome to our discussions, Retired Lawyer.
You wrote, “Clearly, SAEA and its attorney have a huge conflict of interest because they are pressuring the district to violate its own policy in order to favor one faction of teachers (those hired with emergency credentials) over another (those hired with full credentials.)”
Why do you suppose that the union would be favoring one particular group of teachers like that? What is the advantage for the union to promote teachers with emergency credentials over those who have clear credentials? Your charge seems counter intutitive. Thanks for any further insights.
another anon teacher,
Your union representative should have a large packet of papers that lists seniority status. That list will show hire date. You might want to have a look. Based on what Retired Lawyer is saying, it seems like there might be two lists going on?
BTW, in a message dated March 12, David Barton will be retiring this year from his SAEA post and his teaching post. He did not mention how his last year as president would be filled. He will be missed by many and especially those who have worked the hardest on behalf of teachers’ rights expected from management.
There have been recent discussions about parent involvement and rights on this thread. They have a good description of a similar problem/issue to be resolved in the SFSchools list serve and I wanted to share it in its entirety for the parents who visit this particular SAUSD thread site.
Please visit the Related news/links thread here:
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/02/sausd-related-news-links/#comment-84015
Discussions on School District Transparency and Parent Rights by the SFSchools list serve. To subscribe, please request at this email:
sfschools@yahoogroups.com
Subject: District Fails Transparency Test
Why is transparency with the community important? Because transparency is always about honesty and integrity, as the financial meltdown has shown us with its hidden trillions in derivatives. The district has refused to allow the public its legal right to review how the school planning is going. It has invoked an exemption from public disclosure provided in the Public Records Act. Not only is this hypocritical given the Strategic Plan’s emphasis on transparency, but the exemption cited is invalid.
After this brief intro I have pasted a letter below, which I wrote to the District explaining the public record request issue in greater detail.
The District has staked its future on a new plan centered around the Balance Scorecard. It is a plan that is supposed to bring all the stakeholders into the process of transforming the District’s schools. But is this new community effort for real or just talk? Consider this.
Each school is in the planning process. Some schools are doing better than others. If you want to know about your plan you might be able to find out by asking your principal. But if you want to know how the District is doing on a whole this is not information that is available. In fact, not until after all the scorecards are due on May 1 is the District going to divulge any of that information. This creates two problems.
1. The District is unwilling to allow the public a chance to see how the process is unfolding across the District. This secrecy raises the specter of problems. Are there problems with the BSC and what are they, if any? Can they be identified and resolved?
2. How can schools learn from each other if they write their plans in isolation. Is this a smart strategy? The District wants this “learning” to take place later, even though they post bits and pieces of BSCs on the Beyond the Talk website. This policy of isolation is counter to very core of the Strategic Plan. Is the District testing the know-how of its principals by making them work independently? And if so, why do they allow the posts on the website?
In the meantime, the District is doing everything it can not to let me see other school drafts. But as you will read below, they already released them. They believe I would write a damaging account of their process so far. So they are trying to do preemptive damage control, in my opinion. But they would say that is not the case- they are simply trying to protect the integrity of the process by allowing schools to work without interference. So is reporting on the process interference or feedback? Is the community entitled to participate and inform the process or should the process by controlled entirely by the District without community feedback?
Here is the letter I wrote.
Thank you for the response to my records request of March 6, 2009.
I ask you to reconsider your denial of my request based on the following:
The exemption cited in 6255 of the Government Code and/or the deliberative process privilege, was waived when the District released BSC drafts to various members of the public, many of which I have in my possession. Please refer specifically to Section 6254.5 below in the postscript, which basically says that if you give drafts to one member of the public outside the agency you cannot withhold it from other members of the public. It is a disappointment that the District is acting under a veil of secrecy despite the context of a policy of transparency expressed in the Strategic Plan. It was not my intention to act as the spoiler even if I could.
I am aware that the District would like to analyze each principal’s Scorecard development without a great deal of public intervention at this stage. This would be understandable, at least in part, if I believed that the District was truly intent upon holding the schools accountable for the work they have done. I have consistently spoken out using my limited knowledge and means to address the host of problems that, in both our opinions, legal and otherwise, pervade Alamo Elementary School. But my single-handed efforts have gone without remedy, (though certainly it has been a pleasure to have made your acquaintance in the process). So I am understandably skeptical about District promises.
I am not resolute of opinion that the District is intent upon meeting its stated performance management goals, particularly in regard to “community engagement” – my particular area of interest. It is also quite obvious that many hardworking and creative principals will not be pleased with the idea of having to share the fruits of their labor, in regard to the Scorecards, with other principals who ought to meet the needs of their own unique communities – even if this is contrary to the ultimate goal of cross-fertilization of successful strategies, as described in the Strategic plan. This seems to be a basic conundrum of the Plan itself, something that the District has, I’m sure, considered.
Lastly, the school site council has a legally mandated role to develop and recommend a school plan and that cannot be accomplished if the BSC drafts are withheld, even under the exemption you claim, until the agenda for the SSC vote is posted, at which time the District must release the drafts. Certainly you must understand that an SSC cannot develop and recommend a plan it has never seen.
Thank you for your reconsideration.
Sincerely yours,
Don Krause
PS:
CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
534 4th St., Suite B
San Rafael, CA 94901 Q: May records be selectively disclosed to the public — to some people, but not to others?
A: No. If an agency discloses a record to a “member of the public” — a person with no particular official role or special legal entitlement to obtain it — that record cannot then be withheld from other members of the public on the basis of a permissive exemption. The agency may change its general policy and take a more restrictive line concerning a certain type of document in the future, but in all but a few situations, a particular record cannot selectively be made accessible to some members of the public and not to others. The Act states:
Section 6252. As used in this chapter: . . . (f) ‘Member of the public’ means any person, except a member, agent, officer, or employee of a federal, state, or local agency acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office, or employment.
Section 6254.5. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, whenever a state or local agency discloses a public record which is otherwise exempt from this chapter, to any member of the public, this disclosure shall constitute a waiver of the exemptions specified in Sections 6254, 6254.7, or other similar provisions of law. For purposes of this section, “agency” includes a member, agent, officer, or employee of the agency acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office, or employment.
This section, however, shall not apply to disclosures:
(a) Made pursuant to the Information Practices Act (commencing with Section 1798 of the Civil Code) or discovery proceedings.
(b) Made through other legal proceedings.
(c) Within the scope of disclosure of a statute which limits disclosure of specified writings to certain purposes.
(d) Not required by law, and prohibited by formal action of an elected legislative body of the local agency which retains the writings.
(e) Made to any governmental agency which agrees to treat the disclosed material as confidential. Only persons authorized in writing by the person in charge of the agency shall be permitted to obtain the information. Any information obtained by the agency shall only be used for purposes which are consistent with existing law.
(f) Of records relating to a financial institution or an affiliate thereof, if the disclosures are made to the financial institution or affiliate by a state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the financial institution or affiliate.
(g) Of records relating to any person that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corporations, if the disclosures are made to the person that is the subject of the records for the purpose of corrective action by that person, or if a corporation, to an officer, director, or other key personnel of the corporation for the purpose of corrective action, or to any other person to the extent necessary to obtain information from that person for the purpose of an investigation by the Department of Corporations.
With all this talk of “certificated” what about those poor Classified workers in your schools? Does anyone care about them? I only ask because no one has mentioned them. I am a parent and I am new to all this so I hope you don’t mind me asking questions on this site. I am concerned about teachers and I am also concerned for the office staff. The HS that my daughter goes to has a limited staff. Try calling the school to get her out of the nurses office and I had the person who was in attendance taking her temperature. I asked if they had a background in medical field. they said no. They had a lady at the phones who was there because they have no receptionist -I know this cause I also asked if they had a full time person on the phones. The office manager said no. When I asked why a assistant principal who heard me came up and said “budget does not allow them at this time” So I have people in a nurses office who shouldn’t be. Secretaries who are being pulled from another office to cover another postion. HS should have a full office staff. Yes I did call the district. No one called me back.
I am very upset
WHERAS, Education Code Section 44955 provides for the termination of certificated employees because of a reduction or elimination of particular kinds of services;
WHERAS, the order of termination is based on the date a teacher first rendered paid service in a probationary position in accordance with the requirements of the California Education Code;
WHERAS, as among employees who first rendered paid probationary service to the District on the same date, the law requires the Governing Board to determine the order of termination solely on the basis of the needs of the District and its students;
WHERAS, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that to meet the requirements of California Education Code Section 44955, the following criteria will be applied in the priority order indicated to determine which certificated employees meet the particular needs of the District in the event that all certificated employees with the same date of hire are not terminated. These criteria meet the particular needs of the District at the present time:
1. Special authorizations to provide critical services in order of priority to the District as follows:
A. Special education certification;
B. Cross Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD)
C. Language Development Specialist Certificate
D. Supplemental Authorization for English as a Second Language
E. Specially Designated Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
The District reserves the right based on specific service needs at the time of layoff to retain employees with special authorization to provide critical services.
2. Primary credential authorization as follows:
A. Clear
B. Preliminary
C. Intern
D. Short-term Staffing Permit (STSP)
E. Provisional Intern Permit (PIP)
F. Waiver
3. Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT)
4. Years of service to the district, prior to seniority date as follows:
A. Certificated service
1. contracted service, prioritized by credential area as listed in 2 above
2. contracted service as a Title I teacher
3. service as a long-term substitute
4. service as a day-to-day substitute
B. Classified contracted service
C. Classified long term substitute service
5. Credential plus Supplementary Authorizations, by number of authorized areas
6. Subject matter authorizations, by number of authorized areas
7. Step on the certificated salary schedule
8. College degree as follows:
A. PhD
B. EdD
C. MA/MS
D. BA/MA
9. Total number of semester credits past BA/BS with the highest number being the most senior of those with the same date
In the event that after application of the above criteria, employees are still equally situated, then seniority will be determined by a lot.
Teacher in Santa Ana asks Obama How He Plans to Reward Teachers with Merit Pay
This letter was sent to Obama, Pelosi and Feinstein.
Please answer each question in order. I do not wish to receive a generic letter that says the
same thing to everyone. I want each question answered please.
1. I teach Kindergarten and we don’t take state tests. We take SCOE exams, but next year
those will be cut due to the budget. The only other tests that we take in Kinder will be
the district Math benchmarks. Those are not state tests. How will I be rewarded if this is the case?
2. I used to teach at a school that had high test scores, but due to declining enrollment I ended up at a school that was one of the lowest in the district. How would that affect my merit pay since it wasn’t my fault that I was moved to a lower performing school that will most likely be taken over by the state?
3. I have maybe 1 parent out of 32 that have graduated from high school. I have 2 parents
out of 32 who speak English. How can you possibly say that I am at fault if these kids do not produce?
4. How will you ensure that teachers do not cheat on state tests in order to get their reward?
Will you provide proctors (from outside of the district to come in to monitor the tests)? Do not
think for one minute that teachers will not teach to the tests if they will be rewarded with high
scores.
5. What kind of pay will teachers actually receive? Teachers do not want to have money that
they will have to use for classroom purposes. They want the money for their own families. Will the reward money have to be used in the classroom or will the teacher get it for their own personal use?
6. Teachers who teach in better neighborhoods will always be the ones who are rewarded. How
will you compare growth? You won’t be comparing the kids from Santa Ana to the kids in Irvine I hope. If you do, our teachers do not have a chance for a reward, unfortunately.
7. If you reward teachers based on test scores, the senior (more experienced teachers) will
want to be transferred to the higher performing schools leaving the new teachers in the bad areas.
Do you think rewarding teachers for performance is really a wise decision when you should be
having mandatory parenting classes, tv shows that promote learning English and how to become
a better parent?
8. I have taught for 20 years and only 7 in Santa Ana. When it comes to the Education Code in
America (it’s outdated) and harmful. Why? I am paid as a teacher with 20 years of experience, but
when it comes to the RIF process, I have 7 years of experience. They go by hire date in the particular district and not overall teaching experience. This is really unfortunate because the Bakersfield Act put teachers who didn’t even have teaching credentials ahead of me in the RIF process. I had my credential years ahead of them and they were kept over me. Please try to update the ED Code to OVERALL years in California instead of just years in that particular district. It makes it difficult to be laid off. No one wants to hire a teacher with 20 years of experience even if I won teacher of
the year. They simply want the cheaper teacher, unfortunately.
Changes in Education that I would like to see:
1. Change the Education Code in CA to honor TOTAL years of experience instead of going by hire date in a particular district.
This affects me. I have 20 years TOTAL, but when it comes to the RIF process, I am considered to be 7. <–not fair
2. Teachers in CA pay into CASTRS instead of Soc. Security. If I get laid off in CA, that makes it extremely difficult to go to another state to teach when I have 20 years in here. There is no double dipping and I would lose a huge amount of retirement by being laid off and moving to another state.
3. Rewarding teachers with test scores only would promote dishonest teachers who would teach to the tests or cheat unfortunately. Also, teachers who teach in lower socio-economic areas do not stand a chance.
4. I would like to see less teacher training and MORE parent training. I have been trained to the max. I have a Master’s Degree + and can recite most every teacher’s manual that we use. Instead, please get the parents help.
5. Parents should have to learn English and I shouldn’t have to send out everything in Spanish all the time.
6. I would like to see the hot lunch program tossed because the kids waste too much food and take advantage of the system.
7. Each school needs to hire a teacher (administrator) who does student study teams. We do not have enough help in this
area and it really is the key to parent/teacher collaboration, but an administrator needs to be present and 1 administrator at a site is not enough.
8. The RIF process is not fair. Districts change the rules as they see fit. Unions hire one lawyer and he is usually incompetent
or the cheapest one who will take all 530 of us at once. How will you make sure that the RIF process at each school is fair?
I would like to add this….in the event of a tie (1 or more teachers who were hired on the same date) had their names drawn out of a can. How would you like your entire educational career based upon having your name drawn out of a can????
Hi Red Vixen,
To answer your question, I can only speculate that because emergency credentialed teachers have paid union dues for a longer period of time, the union feels they should have priority over credentialed teachers who were hired later. Also, CTA represented the teachers who won the Bakersfield case; therefore, it may be that going by hire date to prepare seniority lists is now the official position of CTA and all of its locals. When the question is asked to SAEA and its attorney, they say that “Bakersfield is the law,” but that is not a satisfactory answer. It is true that the Bakersfield case is binding on the Bakersfield school district, but there is no way to know whether other courts will agree with it in the long run. Nobody will ever know until other districts challenge it and other appeals courts in California, and maybe the California Supreme Court, consider the same issue. The legislature could also resolve the issue if it chose to do so.
#318
Worse! I know someone this happened to: 4 all shared the same hiring date and it came down to who had the short straw.
Retired Lawyer,
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. It seems so sad to have to pit teachers against each other for jobs that are becoming so scarce. It is such a shame.
You seem to know quite a bit about the negotiating process. I have read here and have heard some stories about the sometimes bitter negotiations between union and school district – and especially now that school funds are becoming so scarce. It would seem like a good idea if the school district administration issued out pink slips to a certain percentage of administration staff to show good faith bargaining and cost cutting. I don’t believe that that has actually happened. The cuts were supposed to have been far away from the classroom, but that simply does not seem to be borne out the last couple of years. Top administration has remained in place and has possibly grown in size over the last couple of hard-hit years. At least one assistant superintendent has received a substantial raise according to notes here and from the board meetings.
Capistrano issued pink slips for many, many administrators this year, according to an OC Register story that SAUSD Board Member, John Palacio sent out recently. I have not seen that kind of serious commitment from SAUSD. Do you think that SAUSD could give a little more by cutting out some of the most expensive employees, in order to save a few more on-the-line instructional jobs? Is there any thing that the SAEA/union could do to make things better during these difficult times?
Thanks, again, for your insights.
Parent Liana,
Welcome and thanks for posting.
I hope someone can answer your questions. It is good to see parents who care and want to have more accountability. Parent participation and networking is sadly lacking in SAUSD. If you want the very best for your children, this will have to change. The best schools and the best school districts have active family and community involvement. You are making good steps towards change.
No one returned your call from the district office? That is unacceptable. Jane Russo has said that failure (to even return phone calls, I would presume!) is NOT an OPTION. Please insist that they not ignore your concerns. Call them back and keep it up until you get a reasonable response. GOOD management would not tolerate obvious discourtesy of failing to return a phone call. Feel free to post names of those employees who have not yet responded to you. I am sure that Jane Russo could rectify the matter personally. Stonewalling, avoiding and non-response to parental concerns indicates a lack of principled employees who either do not understand basic telephone protocol or it is a sign of much deeper problems of no one of authority being willing/able to step up to give answers.
The next board meeting will be this coming Tuesday at 6 pm.
Anon #316 317 and 318,
Welcome and thank you for providing good posts.
Yes, it really is unfortunate that we have to basically represent ourselves and present our own defense. I am not one of the “Bakersfield” Decision people so my number got moved a couple of times unfortunately.
I started in 2002 with a Clear Credential + have a total of 19 years teaching Title 1 students. *Highly Qualified Teacher Status
I am still being Rif(ed). I need to find out the following questions if anyone has the info. How many teachers retired in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? and 2007?
2008 = 140 teachers retired
2009 = 78 teachers retired
According to the budget that I read (if they cut CSR) that eliminates 232 teachers. I should not be one of the 232 teachers eliminated based on the following:
*the # of teachers who retired between 2002-2009
*the # of emergency credentialed teachers that the district hired who did not have a clear credential between the years of 2002-2009
*the # of 1st and 2nd year teachers for 2007-2008 alone was 154 (not counting the # of 1st and 2nd year teachers who were hired between the years 2002-2009).
2008-2009 data is not out yet, but I plan to get it. Here’s more info:
2007-2008 the SAUSD had:
# of 1st year teachers = 71
# or 2nd year teachers = 83
Total = 154
139 teachers were on Emergency credentials
2006 -2006
399 teachers were hired under an emergency credential making me more qualified to teach so I am wondering why I am still being Rif(ed)????????
2005-2006
43 teachers were hired under Emergency Status
2004-2005
71 teachers were hired under emergency status
2003-2004
135 (emergency credentials)
2002-2003
288 (emergency credentials)
I didn’t even include the # of waivers in this info bulletin either.
The next question that I need to find out is: how many teachers in the SAUSD have (waivers) or emergency credentials for English Learner instruction?????? I need to call the CA Dept of Educ on that one.
A teacher who has been hired by a school district after the first day of school in 2002-2003 to teach in a Title I school, or program teaching a core academic subject should have been NCLB compliant prior to the first day of hire. All other public school teachers who are teaching core academic subjects must be NCLB compliant by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
NCLB Teacher requirements:
A teacher of core academic subjects must have:
a bachelor’s degree
a state credential or have an intern Certificate/Credential for no more than three years, and demonstrated core academic subject matter competence
How many teachers did not get their credential within 3 years would be important info to get???
The “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Act was passed by Congress in January of 2001. This legislation is federally mandated and requires that paraprofessionals who work in schools that are supported with Title I funds and provide instructional support in the classroom must meet NCLB requirements.
At its August 14, 2003 meeting, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialingvoted to phase out emergency permits and credential waivers to begin aligning California’s teacher certification process to the State Board of Education’s (SBE)recently adopted State Plan and the requirements of the federal “No Child Left Behind”(NCLB) Act.Teachers serving on emergency permits and credential waivers do not meet the definitionof “highly qualified” under the SBE State Plan or the NCLB Act; consequently teachersserving on these documents are not NCLB compliant.
I want to know why the law said that Emergency Credentials were not supposed to be given out after 2003, but many were still hired?????
All applications for emergency permits in the areas listed above for issuance effective September 1, 2003, or later, must indicate if the teacher has been assigned to a non-Title I classroom.
Based on all of the above, I should NOT be laid off period. What is going on and who can help me? Retired Lawyer…please advise. I need all the help I can get on this one since the Union seems to be favoring Bakersfield People. Yes, it’s sad that it is that way, but it definitely is.
Sick of union dues and Rif Rif, you can’t be serious? SAEA’s web page is continually updated by a full time teacher who gets paid nothing for working on it on his own time. There have been constant updates on the budget crisis and David Barton has been sending out bargaining and other updates on regular basis ever since he has been president. Additionally, Scott Miller puts out an SAEA newsletter. Our union leaders helped bring all the RIF’d teachers back last year under extremely difficult circumstances. We are living in the most difficult economic crisis since the great depression and all you can do is complain that you keep getting RIF’d. That is unfortunate. But don’t blame the organization that is trying to help you. The state of CA is in a serious budget crisis. Most districts have sent out RIFs. Not just Santa Ana. Garden Grove is one district that has not sent out any RIFs. But they are an exception. CAPO, Saddleback, Orange, Tustin, and of course Los Angeles have had to send to many RIFs.Thousands of RIFs have gone out to teachers throughout California. We are simply living in a very difficult time right now. People who work in the private sector get laid off and they have no union or help from lawyers. You need a reality check.
Most people here who do nothing but bash SAEA have no clue how hard those people work or how much they care about helping our members. With the exception of David Barton, Jennifer Isensee, and Gladys Hall-Kessler, everyone on SAEA’s Board are volunteers. These people spend hours working on their own time. I agree unions are not perfect. But as SAHS noted, without our union, we would all be on our own without any protections at all.
#325: If you think that SAEA had anything to do with teachers returning last year, you’re the one who needs a reality check. You obviously have not been riffed. If you had been riffed for the last 7 years like me, you would understand that SAEA and its attorney, Carlos Perez, do NOTHING! We came back last year only because the district’s financial situation improved. Period. SAEA had nothing to do with it. Also, just to be clear, I never “complained” about SAEA’s communications or web site. Additionally, I reiterate that if it were not for SAEA and its ridiculous rule that incompetent teachers with seniority have to be retained over competent teachers with less seniority, I would not be riffed. So you can love them as much as you want, but I hold SAEA just as responsible for my predicament as the district. Please don’t criticize me until you have walked in my shoes. You obviously know little or nothing about the rif process if you think SAEA or its attorney truly makes any effort to protect riffed teachers.
#325…you don’t have to keep telling us about the economic situations when I have lived through the RIF process for years. I am speaking up now because I am tired of what goes on behind the scenes. You haven’t walked in my shoes either. I am simply stating the facts that the Union really didn’t help me with my situation. In fact, the Union helped to move my number for the worse…so please refrain from telling me how wonderful the Union is.
Speaking of the Union…I don’t know one person who voted for the new amendment in the contract where RIF(ed) teachers who are hired back and lose their previous positon will be interviewed by a principal who has the discretion of placing them into the school. How did the Union help me on this one? I really don’t know how that vote got passed and I wonder who did the vote counting on it.
Anon #324,
You have a lot of questions that could be answered by the right people, I would think. There is a board meeting coming up on Tuesday and there will be people there who can possibly answer your questions. Have you already tried getting those stats from SAEA, for example, yet? I know that how you feel about the union, but they should have stats on Retired/Rif’ed/ hired etc…
Board Member John Palacio has been a great help to many people in the SAUSD community. He is willing to talk to and help staff, students, parents, administrators.
If you want his contact information, we could supply it.
Best of luck to you.
Anon #327,
I am not sure if you are the same or different anon as #324 but what do you teach or what level?
I heard that the elementary grades are hardest hit when it comes to the Rif process. Have you considered getting into one of the protected subjects? FWIW, I am hoping that we’ve seen the worst of this. Getting Rif’ed for the last 7 years like you have been must suck hugely. Hang in there.
What are the protected subjects? Math, Science and Special Ed or did they decide to make more exceptions at the last minute? So, if a credentialed teacher decided to get a credential in one of these areas then they would be hired before the person who is on the emergency credential who doesn’t have a credential???? Does anyone know how that works?
Anon #331,
Those are the only subjects I have heard about.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I would think that it would be based on date of hire (you have 7 years, right?).
Would you feel comfortable calling the union or HR? They would be the best ones to give you an answer.
#324- I know this may sound like I’m not taking your situation very seriously but I really don’t think you have anything to worry about. I know it sucks (it happened to me way back in the early 90’s) but there is NO POSSIBLE way the district can let go of any more than 1/2 of those RIF’d (most likely less than 1/2 due to the number of non-re-elects). They absolutely cannot have 60 kids in the classroom. If I were to estimate than I would say that those who have 3 years or less in the district are the only ones in danger. It’s just another one of the ridiculous things the district does, “RIF ’em all, and we’ll figure it out later”. It puts real people in horrible situations but it happens all of the time. The fact that CSR was not entirely eliminated by the district and the district will still get funding for classes that are between 20-30 makes me think that not as many elementary teachers will be in danger as previously thought. Just my opinion, but I’ve been in this district for 20 years.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:VisNVPKhpCIJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C043306.PDF+how+many+emergency+credentials+can+a+district+have&cd=49&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Smith v. Elk Grove Unified School District
Emily Smith held a single subject social science credential, but was hired by Elk Grove to serve as a resource specialist, for which she needed an emergency permit. After serving two years, she returned for the third year and demanded to be classified as a permanent employee. The court held that, even though she had served two complete consecutive years in a certificated position, she had not gained tenure because service under an emergency permit cannot count towards permanence. The fact that she held a regular credential was irrelevant because she had not been serving under that credential.
Ed Code Section 44911
http://www.tcoe.k12.ca.us/HR/PersonnelCommittee/Attachments/050506/Attach02.pdf
44911. Service by a person under a provisional credential shall not be included in computing the service required as a prerequisite to attainment of, or eligibility to, classification as a permanent employee of a school district.
This section shall not be applicable to teachers granted a one-year emergency credential under the conditions specified in
subdivision (b) of Section 44252 and subdivision (h) of Section
44830.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=6941808584+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
The time a teacher works under a provisional credit will not be counted toward attaining permanent status — unless he or she is credentialed in another state and passes the CBEST.
A teacher sued the Windsor Unified School District demanding it employ her as a permanent certificated teacher. Relying on Education Code section 44911, the District argued that the two years plaintiff had spent teaching under emergency permits could not be counted toward time necessary for her to attain permanent status. The trial court issued the writ in favor of the teacher.
The appellate court reversed. Under Education Code section 44911, time spent teaching under an emergency teaching credential may not be counted in computing an employee’s progress toward permanent status — unless the employee is credentialed in another state and passes a basic skills proficiency test (CBEST). Both requirements must be satisfied — not one or the other.
Summerfield v. Windsor Unified School District (1st Dist., Div. 3, January 31, 2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1026 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 233].
#333
With almost 200 credentialed teachers in non teaching positions at the district who are heading back to the classroom as well as McFadden who is cutting both its science and social studies to a semester *and* all the other rif’d teachers I think you have a optomistic estimate of how many will be invited back.
Rif Rif. Have you ever volunteered at SAEA? I suggest you spend some time over there. You may want to help them put together packets for 532 RIF’d teachers. Watch them answer the phones that ring of the hook nonstop. Help those teachers who come to the office. I think your opinion may change if you spent some time over there.
You are also blaming SAEA for the seniority process. This is the only fair way to RIF teachers. It’s in Ed Code. Not our contract. RIFs go by hire date. You are blaming the teachers’ union for something that is in California ED. Code.
Seniority by hire date is also really the fairest way to RIF teachers. When you eventually have 20 years in the District, you won’t want someone who only spent 7 years to go ahead of you now, would you? We all put in our time. Many of us have been RIF’d and displaced sometime in our career. When you say that incompetent teachers get to stay while good newer teachers get RIF’d, can I ask you who will determine who is a great teacher and who is incompetent? SAEA has to represent all members. You may think you are a great teacher, and I’m sure you are. But what should we do? RIF teachers who are considered lousy by administrators who in essence may be lousy administrators? Seniority status builds up as one teaches more years. Eventually, your seniority will get better as well. Incompetent teachers need to be dealt with by their administrators. If they are really horrible teachers, then they should be fired. And there is a process for that.
The reality is that we are in a major budget crisis. That is the problem. SAUSD decides how many employees need to be RIF’d. They have to answer to the County Dept. of Ed. I don’t believe they needed to RIF over 500 teachers. But at the same time, I am not a SAUSD trustee. They have a responsibility to remain financially solvent.
I am sorry that you have been RIF’d so many times. I came very close to getting a RIF and displaced last year and I have many friends who got RIF’d. Chances are your RIF will be rescinded if your number is high on that list.
As for SAEA communications, I was referring the “Sick of Union Dues” writer. I didn’t mean to lump the both of you together. He wrote the web site is never updated and that David Barton hasn’t sent out a bargaining update since Dec. 2008. In fact, we have received updates in Jan, Feb, and just recently in March. I would also suggest that he take a look at their web page sometime before he write something that he is completely wrong about.
Good luck and I hope your RIF is rescinded.
I guess we will see, I am in no way saying that you are wrong, this is just my opinion. I’d just like to know where they are going to get all of the extra math teachers. Oh yeah, this is Santa Ana, they’ll trade credentialed teachers in for emergency credentialed teachers or let anyone teach math.
Exactly. My chances of getting rescinded will be slim and none after the Reading Coaches take their pick of all the prime positions. We wouldn’t accept anything less from them now would we? All the Ed Codes in the world won’t save teachers who were Rif(ed) this year.
Yes, I am sure there’s a lot of hard working Union people (I am not questioning that at all). I am simply looking out for my own interests this year and hiring my own lawyer. I have been Rif(ed) enough to know that if I am not pro-active and sit back and watch the show, that teachers who have TOTAL years of experience (outside the district in California) will not be helped. If you had your name drawn from a can you would know what it’s like after you have been working for the California School System for 20 years only to have people with Emergency Credentials stay over you. I don’t care if it’s Ed Code or not…it’s OUTDATED!
Teachers,
If you want to be miserable until you are ready to retire, continue to teach at SAUSD. They aren’t going to change. Other school districts also have tight budgets, but they don’t put people on an emotional roller coaster. The problem is that no one will address the corruption at the top. Keep talking about those problems…. and you still won’t get a solution now, will you?
All parents and employees should not expect any return phone calls from SAUSD.
SAUSD does that as a stall tactic, hoping they will never have to talk to you. And guess what, they never will call you back, so you will have to go there in person. Then they will screen who they see, and of course they are out of the office and unavailable.
Unless you do something very drastic in a united way, they just won’t notice or care about any of you.
If everyone kept their students home from school for a couple of days, do you think they would notice you then? One thing is for sure, they won’t change what they are doing until you change how you confront the district and their dishonest superintendant.
#343 What do you suggest that we do to address the corruption at the top???? I noticed someone else in one of the above also stated something similar that the SAUSD is breaching contracts. Please advise and direct us in what we need to do. Spell it out.
Now I really don’t care to do all this, but when it comes to my bread & butter, one must find out all of the legal issues and not just sit back and let it all happen.
I have a few questions that I really need answered before the hearing if anyone out there can answer them. I sent a letter to David Barton and to a few other people who may know the answers, but I am not holding my breath.
How many emergency permits or waivers does the Santa Ana Unified School District have for the 2009 school-year?
I need to know this because I am a credentialed teacher who received a RIF notice and I may qualify to teach before someone who is in one of those positions who doesn’t have a credential.
I have a K-12 Multiple Subj Credential + Clad so can I teach in an area of need if the district is employing someone now who isn’t credentialed? I will sign up to take classes for Special Ed if necessary.
How many teachers retired in the following years Santa Ana Unified School District?
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Currently what I have is:
2008 140 teachers retired.
2009 78 (John Palacio told me and my principal)
How many 1st and 2nd year teachers are there currently in the district for the year 2009?
My records indicate that there were 154 1st and 2nd year teachers in the 2007-2008 school year.
This info is important for a lawyer to know how accurate my number is.
How many teachers in the district are currently teaching without a CLAD or are not qualified to teach EL students?
What areas did the district protect and not RIF? Were any of these teachers not fully credentialed?
In the event that many teachers were hired on the same date, what is the tie breaker rule?
Can they legally draw names from a hat (teachers with same hire date)?
I really need this information because it is important to my case.
Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you!
The teachers who are in a worse position on the list because of Bakersfield should organize themselves before the hearing. If we don’t Carlos is just going to ignore us like he did last year and the hearing will be the same farce it was last year.
#345
If you have to ask it is too late for you. There are thousands of words written right here on this thread, written over several years, about the corruption including where it is and has been. If you don’t know and are just now realizing it because your job is on the line, it’s too late. No one is really that naïve I hope. Per chance you are not what you appear to be.
In the matter of the teachers being riffed, the best advice so far is from “Retired Lawyer”. In other words consult an attorney who specializes in law pertaining to education. Of course there are no guarantees. The legal decisions cited above are proof of that. Courts seem to contradict each other, appellate courts the same, and if you have enough money to take it up to the 9th circuit be sure to wear a flower in your hair and beads.
The second best piece of advice I have read is to find another district to work in. Capo unified was mentioned above as another district that had to make cuts. They cut alright, starting with the superintendent. You can read the 54 page board decision allegation by allegation at the OC Register at. http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/education/Decision%201%20of%209.pdf
“Pretty in Pink” demonstrations are nice “feel-good” gestures but the results will always be the same. No money, no jobs. Where is that money? Look around and you will find it. It is in the pockets of administrators, in new buildings you really didn’t need or could have done without until this budget mess was under control. It is in remodeled offices for the building services assistant superintendent, police chief and staff. Of course you will be told the money for buildings can’t be used for salaries, but I’ve seen it done. Remember. Garden Grove did not have to cut 1 teacher.
# 346 is a great example of why the teachers are in trouble. He/she is going TO A BLOG for help. Spend $100 and go talk to a lawyer who knows what they are doing. This is a blog for Christ sake where no one is who they appear to be including sneaky administrators and union hacks trying to get information from the restless crowd. Right #345?
Rif-Rif you are learning fast.
#348 you don’t have to be so nasty.
In fact, why haven’t YOU done anything about the corruption if you’re so smart?
Why are you still working at the SAUSD? Oh and trust me, many people are definitely consulting private lawyers this year. Don’t let this blog fool ya.
Anonplus is right. If you think that you’re going to reform this district and make it right, you are mistaken. Year after year, there have been pretty substantial school district problems written to OJ threads. I tend to be optimistic, so I tend to think things have improved a bit. Others who post here regularly don’t see it that way at all. No matter how optimistic/pessimistic you are, you can still see that SAUSD under Jane Russo’s leadership for about 3 years, still will not return a parent phone call of concern. SAUSD has rif’ed no administrator and has in fact Over-rifed the teaching workforce more than any other local school district. Those are just the current complaints and I am not going to detail the scores of other problems that seem to be unique to this ill-managed organization. Jane Russo was booed at Tuesday’s Town hall at the OC fairgrounds when Obama pointed her out. It’s no secret why that was.
I am a bit confused because several posters have had multiple year rif’s, yet are still alive and kicking to be able to protest this year’s rif. What makes you think you will not be hired back, as in years past?
Anonplus has said what needs to be said: If you were naive and got a job at SAUSD thinking that you’d be treated as a valuable professional, you were wrong. You will need to do what so many others have done and that is to get a job in a better school district. There are many better places in the county. SAUSD will thank you because if you have a few years under your belt and leave, it will save them money and they can hire uncredentialed, much less experienced and green teachers. SAUSD is not committed to the community it serves and staff will always be seen as a liability in the accounting column. Unless you enjoy the drama of mismanagement, I suggest you get plans in action to get out. Maybe some day the state or feds will do a clean sweep of management to improve things, but that idea is fairly far-fetched, imo.
Beg your principal to intervene on your behalf. Go to the union. Go to an attorney. Go to the board meetings. Network.
Anonplus, fwiw, the jury is still out on Retired Lawyer. I saw that they wanted people to instigate things at the union level and they have not yet returned to answer some questions that I posed, so heads up on that particular poster at this time…. as you said, anonymous posters are a plenty here.