Huff Bill

[Malerin]

Possibly coming to a state near you. This is what we're dealing with in California:

Senate Bill 955 (Huff) proposes to:

•Eliminate the March RIF (reduction in force) notice to teachers and eliminate their right to request a hearing.
•Allow districts to ignore teacher experience in the classroom when making layoff and rehiring decisions. These decisions would be based on teacher evaluations, even though many districts do not conduct them regularly as required by law.
•Eliminate teachers' due process rights in a dismissal hearing.
•Authorize assignment, reassignment, and transfer of teachers based on evaluations and subject matter needs, and without regard to experience.
http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Legislation/Alerts/20100420.aspx

That last bolded part is the killer. As it stands now, if a district wants to dismiss a teacher, said teacher can appeal to a special 3-member panel, whose decision is binding. It serves as a check on local school boards who may be unfairly dismissing teachers. Huff would make the panel's recommendation non-binding.

Privately, CTA is very worried this will pass. There's internal polling that shows the public, at least in California, really doesn't like tenure. Thank you, LAUSD. :mad:

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because it's easier to blame them. I'm solidly impressed with how many people turn off their thinking caps in cases.

[drkitten]

•Eliminate teachers' due process rights in a dismissal hearing.


Is this even legal?

If due process rights are not respected in a dismissal hearing, then that's a rather obvious grounds for appeal of any negative finding to the actual court system. I'm fairly sure that isn't what CA has in mind.

Actually I suspect that's not even what CA wrote in the bill.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually I suspect that's not even what CA wrote in the bill.

Given who's interpreting the bill, I think this is a safe bet.

[Malerin]

5. Requires the decision of the CPC to be advisory to the
governing board and requires the final decision
regarding the discipline of the employee to be
determined by action of the governing board of the
school district.

...

11.Adds conditions in which a governing board may deviate
from the order of seniority by authorizing a school
district to "skip" on the basis of:

A. Performance evaluations whereby employees with
superior evaluations are retained over those with
inferior evaluations.

B. Employees assigned to a school site that has been
selected by the governing board for exemption from
certificated reductions in force, based upon the
needs of the educational program.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_955_cfa_20100505_101028_sen_floor.html

I'll walk a couple of you through this. As it stands now (abbreviated version):

1. Principal Smith and I don't get along.
2. Principal Smith gives me a bad evaluation.
3. AnyTown School Board votes to dismiss me.
4. I demand a hearing by a CPC panel.
5. CPC panel rules in my favor.
6. I continue my teaching career.

The Huff Bill:

Same as above, except change (6) to:
6. School Board ignores CPC panel and fires me.

Also, if the district is laying off teachers, it can lay off a 30 yr veteran in favor of a 2 yr probationary.

What will be interesting is if a teacher can invoke their Weingarten Rights during an evaluation, in order to have a union rep present. But that's getting a little wonky.

[Dancing David]

Given who's interpreting the bill, I think this is a safe bet.

Maybe you want to read the law?

I think this is the section that Malerin is referencing although I am not sure, it regard RIF:

15. Existing law requires the superintendent of the district, prior
to March 15 and before an employee is given the described notice, to
give written notice to the governing board and the employee that it
has been recommended that the notice be given to the employee, and
stating the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes an employee who
is given this notice to request a hearing to determine if there is
cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing year.

This bill would eliminate this notice requirement and the
authority of an employee to request a hearing.
Existing law provides that when employees are terminated pursuant
to a reduction in workforce, that a school district is required to
terminate the employees in order of seniority. Existing law provides
certain exceptions to this rule.
This bill would provide additional exceptions, including
authorizing school districts to terminate employees on the basis of
performance evaluations, as specified, and on the basis that the
employee is assigned to a schoolsite that has been selected by the
governing board from certificated reductions in force, based upon the
needs of the educational program.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_955_bill_20100413_amended_sen_v98.html