The vote was 4-3 on this. The L.A. Times has recently printed stories about some of the situations the could be within the scope of the legislation proposed. This is the Board that is voting and not the legislature, and it's a recommendation not any vote that actually passes a law. So why would there be opposition to do something that would clean up the problems that the system has presented? Briefly, the Board just continues to show why, as a decision making body for the District, it has certain political agendas that supersede the education and welfare of the students. It is a dysfunctional Board. AND, this is NOT the stronger version first proposed by Board member Marlene Canter.
And consider this: when there is such a teacher retained who is drawing pay, that could be money freed up to go to the salaries of other teachers and who are IN the classrooms and actually teaching. This is what I see as evidence of the union's priorities, where it throws up obstacles to dealing with the problem, all in the name of job security- think about student security.The resolution had been withdrawn twice because of lack of support and union opposition. It originally asked that the district lobby to alter state laws to ease the firing of teachers deemed to be poor instructors, but Canter, the resolution's author, revised it to focus only on teachers accused of egregious or immoral acts.
---------------------------------
Former L.A. Daily News Editor and now blogger, Ron Kaye has expressed a similar view on the actions of the LAUSD Board, see his blog- Fire Teachers Who Molest Kids? LAUSD Needs a Committee to Study the Question , a posting from June 10, 2009, with reader comments.
Posts
