LA teachers union will challenge layoff pact

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles teachers union is promising to challenge a proposed agreement that would change how teachers are laid off in the nation's second–largest school district, while education experts hail it as a landmark that could pave the way for changes in urban districts across the nation.

The settlement, which must be approved by a judge, would shield up to 45 underperforming schools from teacher layoffs for budget reasons. It also stipulates that vacancies be filled as quickly as possible, and contains a commitment to explore incentives, such as bonuses, to recruit and retain teachers and principals at poorly performing schools, with additional incentives if the school's academic performance improves.

The agreement stems from a lawsuit by American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California over teacher layoffs at three inner–city schools. The group had filed a class–action suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District in February, saying that mandated seniority–driven layoffs led to the three schools shedding some two–thirds of their teachers, which left students largely in the hands of substitutes.

The ACLU said students were being denied their state constitutional right to a fair and adequate education. It won a temporary injunction in May that prevented more layoffs of first– and second–year teachers who form the bulk of faculties at these schools in improverished areas, which more experienced teachers tend to avoid.


Read more: http://technews.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/107805-la-teachers-union-will-challenge-layoff-pact.htm

[Frank Booth]

1. So it's the LA teachers union versus the ACLU. Who will DU support?

Anyone who lives in LA has got to side with the ACLU on this one.

The ACLU is concerned about given impoverished kids access to good education.

A.J. Duffy, who heads the teachers union, apparently thinks seniority should trump every other concern, including the kids.

[happyslug]

2. Seniority in California is mandated by LAW not Contract

That is the heart of the dispute, is this was a contractual obligation, the Courts would uphold the contract and permit last hired, first fired, but in this case that layoff method is mandated by law NOT contract.

This brings up the issue of what would have been in the Contract if the law did not already mandate seniority? Most unions would have demanded Seniority. but permit teachers to be transferred to fill stops eliminated. That should have been the solution here. The problem is the older teachers, all of whom probably started in the inner city schools, are now in schools with a better quality of students. The reason is as other teacher retired, they bid on the new open position. That is how all seniority systems work. When they is downsizing, the more senior teachers are kept, but are required to take positions held by people with less seniority. In this case that simple means teachers should be transferred back to the inner city schools.

Such a solution would also address the other state constitutional concerns in this case. The fact that 2/3rds of the teachers in some schools will have to be replaced by more senior teachers from other schools should NOT be a factor (unless such senior teachers decide NOT to take the job, then such a teacher is laid off).

Now, the ACLU sued do to the fact the above did NOT happen, instead the School Board hired substitute teachers to replaced the teachers fired. That is also not right, the School Board has to transfer teachers and apparently the school board does NOT want to. The union would (and could) have no objections to such mandated transfers, but it appears the School Board did NOT mandate such transfers (I suspect do the Board NOT wanting to hear from parents complaining that it is October, why hare the Parent's students getting new teachers, or even why has the class been canceled).

This should have been resolved over the summer, but everyone waited till after the School year hoping someone else would back down (I suspect the School Board more then the ACLU). Now, that the ACLU won an injunction (Which generally show that the Judge hearing the case believe the ACLU will prevail after a trial) but both sides are still "talking" in October AND the Union was NOT on board on the proposed solution?

Sorry, sounds like the School Board took the lazy way out and just laid people off by seniority AND then did NOT order any transfers of teachers. In fact may not even have canceled any classes. The board just laid off people and hoped for the best. That is NOT planning, that is reacting, and reacting badly. No wonder they were sued AND lost. Laying teacher's off was easy, such teachers are just people the school board does not even know. The problem is the teachers who will have to be transferred are teachers teaching some sort of "advance" class i.e. Chemistry, Calculus etc who will have to teach classes of Algebra and maybe even basic math. The students in the advance classes will complain to their parents who will complain to their friends on the School Board. The School Board did NOT want to address those complaints so avoided the AFFECT of the layoffs till they were sued. Bad Management at its worse.

[Frank Booth]

3. I agree with much of what you wrote. However, it is important to remember that UTLA

is fighting to uphold the seniority system, the system that has caused most of these problems to begin with. UTLA has vigorously fought proposed amendments to the seniority laws. Thankfully, the court agreed with the ACLU that the seniority system, at least in LA, creates problems that violate the state constitutional right to a fair and adequate education.

The system creates problems, because when many teachers get seniority, they try to get a job in Westwood, Brentwood, Hancock Park, etc. Pico-Union or Watts, on the other hand.... Most teachers with seniority do not want to face the prospect of getting transferred to a troubled school, which is a big part of the reason UTLA is opposing this so fiercely.

Supporters of UTLA need to realize that Duffy is not a good public advocate. This stand he's taking, like many others he's taken in the past, gives the impression that he's only interested in protecting the well-being of teachers with seniority, regardless of how much it hurts poor students.

[Sancho]

4. Seniority is not the only concern...

my wife was part of a suit here where the district tried to get rid of experienced teachers because they cost more in salaries and health insurance. The district lost and settled. Transfers here sometimes also have an impact on "conditions of employment" clauses. If we have to drive more than 15 miles because a change of assignment, we may get milage...and teachers who have had special training to use equipment (computerized labs) and all sorts of things missing from the new assignment show up as a grievance if a transfer is illogical. Many principals use transfer to get rid of "trouble makers" or to make a spot for friends and relatives so there has to be a process that is not arbitrary. And in an age of test scores = pay; who wants to teach kids who will do poorly? Yes, good schools attract experienced and effective teachers - but it's not simple to transfer instead of layoff. School boards and building administrators are both lazy and vindictive in many cases. In an interesting experiment here, Tampa paid big bonuses to get national board certified experienced teachers to transfer to failing schools in downtown areas. In many cases, all the anecdotal evidence was that the kids and parents were doing better and very happy to get the experienced teachers, but most of the schools high-stakes test scores didn't change much - and the conclusion was that the tests were not measuring what the kids were learning! If salary is tied to testing - who wants to transfer if you will get paid less to work with difficult kids!

[msanthrope]

5. I suspect this thread will be quietly ignored.

It is not easy to argue against the ACLU and claim you are still doing it for the kids....

[Frank Booth]

6. Looks like you hit the nail on the head.