This afternoon, the Anaheim Elementary Education Association (AEEA) is hosting a “Parent Information Meeting” for parents of Palm Lane Elementary students, in a public meeting room at the Euclid Branch of the Anaheim Public Library. AEEA is the affiliate of the powerful California Teachers Association (CTA) union that represents teachers at Palm Lane Elementary and throughout the Anaheim City School District.
Starting at 11:00 a.m. this morning, Palm Lane Elementary parents were called by someone named Juan Alvarez, who identified himself as a fellow Palm Lane parent; some parents reported he identified himself as “Julio.”
I don’t know whether or not Mr. Alvarez is a Palm Lane parent. I do know he is a math teacher at South Junior High School in the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), and is one of three teachers union representatives at that school site – for the Anaheim Secondary Teachers Association (ASTA).
Another AUHSD teacher and ASTA union activist is Ryan Ruelas, who was elected to the ACSD Board of Education last year and will be voting soon on the Palm Lane parents charter school petition. Ruelas is ASTA’s representative on the State Council of the CTA.
To my knowledge, neither Palm Lane Elementary nor the school district are supposed to give out the phone numbers of parents. And yet, Mr. Alvarez had those phone numbers and was calling Palm Lane parents during the school day.
I tried calling Mr. Alvarez at the number reported by parents, but went to voice mail. I also sent him an e-mail on the matter of how he secured the phone numbers of Palm Lane parents.
Former Senator Gloria Romero e-mailed ACSD Superintendent Linda Wagner regarding these calls:
Superintendent Wagner,
We have been receiving reports today from parents who signed petitions that beginning around 11 a.m. today, they received calls from a man who identified himself as “Julio”. He said he is a parent of Palm Lane students, but no one recognized him as such. His number appears on telephones as 714-944-8224. When that number is called, the voicemail identifies the person at that number as “Juan Alvarez”. I called the number myself, but it went into voicemail. No one named Juan Alvarez signed the petition.
The person who identifies himself as “Julio” has been inviting petitioners to a meeting at 2:30 today at the public library on Euclid Street where the teachers and their union held a meeting on January 16. The library has confirmed to me that the community room where this meeting is taking place was reserved under the Anaheim Elementary Educators Association. Once again, Palm Lane parents are agitated and upset about receiving these calls. Do you know anything about them? Parents have asked us how “Julio” obtained their telephone numbers. Who gave them to “Julio”? What role is the teachers union paling in this, since they reserved the room? We do not know. Do you?
First, if “Julio” is acting under the control or knowledge of your office, please direct him to stop calling and to call off his meeting. The number of reasons why his conduct is improper should be obvious to you. If this is a part of the School District’s attempt to verify signatures, there are ways to do it that do not invade petitioners’’ privacy and that are not harassing and intimidating. As I said in my letter yesterday, the lead petitioners stand ready to assist.
Second, if “Julio” is not acting under your control, please do what you can to put a stop to his invasion of privacy and harassment of Palm Lane parents. Palm Lane parents do not provide their personal contact information to the School District so that it can be handed over to “Julio” so that he can invade their privacy and harass them. It is the School District’s responsibility to find out which employees are releasing that information, plug the hole in its security, and discipline the employees who are committing the wrongful acts. The Palm Lane Parents deserve your protection.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. As always, I stand ready to help.
Sincerely,
Sen. Gloria Romero (Ret.)
Strategic Planner -Founder
California Center for Parent Empowerment
Wagner’s response:
Greetings, Ms. Romero,
I appreciate you informing me of this situation. I am not aware of a meeting today, and am not acquainted with a person named Julio.
In response to your question, we have not released phone numbers or contact information for Palm Lane parents.
Thank you for this information.
Linda Wagner
Can we expect Superintendent Wagner to send a letter to Palm Lane parents about these calls from teachers union reps, assuring them that in no way did the ACSD provide or otherwise allow the union to secure the contact information for Palm Lane parents – similar to the alarmist, misleading letter to parents Wagner sent out in December repeating false accusations about Parent Trigger petition circulators (which led to a complaint being filed with the District Attorney)?
The Ongoing Teacher Union Campaign Against Charter and Education Choice
Today’s meeting is part of an ongoing battle the teachers union (and the ACSD leadership) have been waging against efforts by Palm Lane parents to exercise their rights under the state’s Parent Trigger Law. At a previous “parent information” meeting at the Euclid Branch library, union reps tried to alarm parents with misleading and inflammatory information about the Parent Trigger Law. Dollars to donuts the same is happening at today’s meeting; I also wouldn’t be surprised at attempts to confuse parents into recanting their signatures.
Consider this situation for a moment. A group of Palm Lane Elementary parents decide to utilize the state Parent Trigger Act and go door-to-door asking other parents to sign a petition to re-start Palm Lane Elementary as an independent public charter school. This was an act of parental empowerment, of parents acting to take control of their children’s education education, as is their natural, inherent right. The response from the school district and the unions?
- A letter to parents from the district superintendent alleging the petition circulators were trying to illegally bribe parents into signing the petition, and using the color of her authority to misinform these parents about what the petition would mean for Palm Lane.
- The school district called Palm Lane parents to the school site for several days of back-back, one-hour meetings between Superintendent Wagner and groups of four parents.
- Teachers union reps calling parents at home to ask them to attend “informational” meetings where they are propagandized against the charter school effort.
- At least one instance of a Palm Lane teacher telling students she would lose her job if the Parent Trigger petition succeeded.
- The teachers union instructing Palm Lane teachers on how to dissuade parents from signing the petition:
Directly telling parents to “not sign” is against the law, but it is okay to make statements such as: “If I were a parent at this school, I wouldn’t sign the petition.” or “If my child was at this school…”.
And those are just some examples.
One has to stop and wonder: why is the Anaheim public education establishment feel so threatened by a group of poor and working-class Latino parents exercising their legal right to take control of their children’s school and re-order it to provide a better education for their kids and students to come?
Does anyone know how parent trigger organizers go the parent names, home addresses, student names, and other personal information about Palm Lane parents? Several parents have claimed parent trigger organizers came to their doors with that information and were concerned where that information came from–either a current or former district employee? The union explained clearly to parents where they got their names (through parents who had voluntarily given them previously or from personal contacts through AEEA members) and offered to immediately remove anyone from their list who so wished. AEEA has been transparent about that and in fact alluded to the difficulty in reaching out to broader groups of parents in a blog post on their website because they have been meticulous about using legitimate channels (see link below). It’s ironic that there is all this objection to voluntary informational meetings for parents–exactly the type of meetings that trigger organizers avoid during the signature gathering process. What is wrong with getting parents in the room to hear what the parent trigger law does and the multiple options it allows? Anyone attending these meetings–regardless of which side of the issue they are on–would have to acknowledge that most of the parents in the room had not previously been well informed on this important issue.
http://aeea4u.org/2015/02/trigger-a-misfire-for-some-parents/
I asked the Parent Trigger petition folks that question. They had to go door-to-door in the attendance area and asked residents if they were parents of Palm Lane students. It’s not an easy process.
As for your characterization of these union meetings – the parents who’ve attended whose reactions I have heard is that the union reps are giving out the “same old anti-charter” stuff.
Why is the union so afraid of charter schools? Why is it so opposed to the district saying “yes” to these parents?
Matthew, I’m sorry if that’s the impression you’ve gotten. I can say with certainty that the union has said about charters–some are excellent, some are terrible, and the overall data shows that there is no significant achievement difference between charters and traditional public schools. What is certainly a fact that is no one can make any claims one way or the other about a “Palm Lane Charter” because no such entity exists. Parents should be informed that replacing the current school with a whole new entity is no guarantee of improvement. It could be better, it could be worse. There are those of us who believe that instead of using a petition process to replace the school with an unkown, the first step should be to work collaboratively to identiify the problems the school faces in terms of student achievement, and then work collaboratively to address them.
Enough is enough. The district and teachers union along with the classified union need to leave us alone. It is obvious that Palm Lane School has not been a good school for many years. I am tiered of my daughter participating in district competitions and our school being one of the first schools to be taken out of the competition. The district has neglected our school and has never held the teachers nor empe
Accountable for how our children are doing. On the contrary the teachers pass on our children’s failure to someone else. We want accountability and we want our children to have a better future. The district has to let the school go and let it be. Our children will do better when palm lane becomes a charter vs keeping the school under its bad administration. Teachers union you should look closely and see What the teachers of the district are doing before putting your hands on fire for them. We want our children to have a bright future and our school has failed as part of the ACSD. I’m just talking about academic performance but there are many stories from the way teachers acted with our children. Let it be we want Palm Lane to be a Charter. We are looking forward and we are excited of the change. Change is always good.
This is much ado about nothing. AEEA has confirmed with Mr. Alvarez that he clearly identified himself as Juan or Juan Alvarez. Since there was nothing secret about this meeting there would be no rational reason to give a phony name–but as usual, trigger promoters are looking for “facts” that fit their anti-union narrative. We acknowledge it is quite possible that one of the recipients of Mr. Alvarez’s calls misremembered the name given at the beginning of that call when they reported back to Ms. Romero (this seems quite likely–how many of us can remember the first name of the person last phone call we got from a stranger–a telemarketer, for example?).
And here is the irony of all this. While making phone calls yesterday, Mr. Alvarez received a call from a woman who first identified herself as a Palm Lane parent who was asking questions about the meeting. The woman could not identify her child’s name, grade level, or teacher. When pressed, she identified herself as a” Palm Lane grandmother.” Mr. Alvarez was not comfortable continuing the conversation because it seemed “off.” that this woman could provide nothing that lent credibility to her claim of who she was. Shortly thereafter Mr. Alvarez received a voicemail from that same number. That voicemail came from…..Gloria Romero. We will not publish that number here (as has been done to Mr. Alvarez) but we do have the phone logs and voicemails to confirm this.
As to Senator Romero’s complaint to the school district, it clearly an (obviously successful) attempt to use her position to get earned media. Who was conducting the meeting yesterday was no secret and she had already confirmed it was AEEA with the library. She knows that the school district has no authority over how the union conducts business like this. Yet she wrote the letter knowing there was nothing the district could, would, or should do, and then passed it on to the press.
AEEA is bending over backward to be transparent throughout this process. They are not trying to “confuse” parents at all. In fact, it is clear the only parents who are confused are those who have not fully understood the parent trigger process and the implications of the petitions they mayhave been asked to sign. As educators and union representatives, we believe that parents should be fully informed throughout this process. We do not understand the objections to this and attempts to mischaracterize our actions.
Mr. Wells, parents are demanding to know how your CTA union organization, or union member “Julio” aka Juan Alvarez, obtained parents’ private information. Maybe you/ your CTA organization physically assaulted the district too, in order to get that private information…an act of identity theft? Or, did the district violate privacy policies?
Please explain: “how was private, personal information confiscated/ leaked!?”
We have been able to confirm that “Julio” is none other than Juan Alvarez, a member of the teacher’s union and who, somehow, obtained the phone numbers of parents inviting them to a “Parent Informational” meeting at the public library. Once again, the public was denied entrance at that meeting–the cost for hosting the meeting absorbed by taxpayers, which is contrary to the reason why public libraries exist. The union which reserved the room did not pay for a private rental–confirmed by the local librarian.
Palm Lane parents are tired of all the excuses from their officials, and lawfully, chose to use California’s Parent Empowerment Act to transform a school identified as underperforming since 2003–12 years ago! There have been multiple efforts to deceive and disempower the union of parents–to no success. Yesterday’s phony meeting at the library ended when, according to rank and file parents of children who attend Palm Lane, questioned the union reps hosting the meeting, causing the union to call them “hostile”. In other words, the parents were knowledgeable, empowered, and pushed back against the mystery man known as “Julio” and the other union reps, including the union President (according to parents who attended). Isn’t it ironic that when parents don’t swallow the propaganda and are emboldened to question, they are called “hostile”.
The bottom line is that this union of parents is strong–that’s why the word got out immediately once “Julio” started calling parents claiming to be a parent. Later, we found out he is employed by the District, gets a salary, and is a union rep–he should have just told parents that.
The law says that 50% plus one need to sign the Parent Trigger petition to begin transformation of the school. On January 14th, 332 signatures representing 490 mostly low income, Latino children were submitted–almost 67% of the students at the school. That’s called organization–rank and file parents calling each other and giving us “Julio’s” phone number so that we could identify who this mystery man was. That’s called dedication. That’s called a civil rights fight these parents understand, and won’t be disempowered any longer.
Once again, I congratulate the parents who understood that education is the key to the American Dream, and have remained committed–despite all the tactics thrown against them by district officials, employees and others–and have stayed strong. This is history in the making, and si se puede!
PS–I wonder if the “Frank” above is the same Frank who assaulted a state employee at the same library a few weeks ago attempting to physically keep him out of a public library. Not legal, not right, but evidence was turned over to the Anaheim police and its in their hands now.
I am also curious as to why this law has such a low threshold to implement, 50%+1. I can’t help but wonder how this can be very divisive for the community. I believe this will pit parents against parents within the community. What happens to those who would not sign the petition, will they have a voice or a choice as you so often speak about it.
An interesting question, “John.” As a strong advocate of unions, perhaps you can explain why the National Labor Relations Act has such a low vote threshold to organize workers into a union – just 50%+1. I can’t help but wonder how this can be very divisive for the workplace community. If 49.9% vote against unionizing, isn’t that unfair to them? Doesn’t this pit worker against worker within the workplace?
One can change jobs, many of these parents can’t move due to the financial constraints or don’t want to change schools. Many parents feel perhaps that their child is doing very well, and they want to continue to attend their community school. One should perhaps check into their local school and ask for tutoring, after school support and the like.
I know for me that these test scores or only a snapshot, and you need to look at the development of the child over time. Where did they start at in September? Have they made progress?
I have good friend who went through a divorce, and it hurt the kids in so many ways. It showed in their performance during that school year, and things have since got back to the “new” normal of splitting time between parents. There was an emotional toll this took on their children, and an economic one as they had to move and learn to live with less due to alimony and the like. This would only show up on the test as the student scored lower on the test, year over year. But there were so many factors that effected that years scores and grades.
People need to get that. Many of these students in the lower performing areas have similar challenges. That is not to say they cannot overcome them, but they are dealing with many other variables that affect their school performance. We are ignoring the causes of these less than desirable scores due to social and economic factors.
Has the minimum wage gone up over the last 5 years? Sure, there is a lower unemployment rate, but income is not keeping pace with inflation and most of the jobs created now are in the service sector and are very low paying.
The unions have provisions to divert money to other people, like a charity if you don’t want it to go directly to the union. But one receives the benefits of collective bargaining, so some cash should go to the cause. We are also dealing with adults who can make choices. They will also benefit in many ways, whether it be breaks, lunch, holiday and sick time to name a few. I don’t disagree with the people who don’t want their money to go to political causes. Change that, but they benefit again from the actions of the unions.
I don’t know the answers, but I wonder if you do? What is the average salary of a charter school teacher? Do they all have credentials, and how much experience do they have? What is the retention rate of the teachers in these schools, because I have read that in public schools almost 50% leave teaching within 3-5 years.
Imagine if the union would have helped you keep your previous gig, that after a post in poor taste, in essence cost you the job. I would think that maybe a union would have supported you, and helped you keep the job, because it was not necessarily indicative of how you really view things. IT was in poor taste, but should you have lost that job?
“John” for a guy who admits he doesn’t know the answers, you exhibit an amazing level of certainty that charter schools are bad and that parents exercising their legal rights under the Parent Trigger Law to gain control over their children’s school are being “divisive.”
Mr. Wells, parents are demanding to know how “Julio” aka Juan Alvarez obtained their private information. Maybe you physically assaulted the district too, in order to get that private information aka an act of identity theft? Or, did the district violate privacy policies?
Please explain: “how was private, personal information confiscated/ leaked!?”
Edited for clarification:
Mr. Wells, parents are demanding to know how your CTA union organization, or union member “Julio” aka Juan Alvarez, obtained parents’ private information. Maybe you/ your CTA organization physically assaulted the district too, in order to get that private information…an act of identity theft? Or, did the district violate privacy policies?
Please explain: “how was private, personal information confiscated/ leaked!?”
Who is the mysterious “Julio”? How did “he” get public phone numbers and public addresses? This is just another smokescreen meant to keep parents, who have been previously misinformed, from learning the truth about the Parent Trigger Law. Where are the Trigger advocate’s legitimate arguments against the informational campaign on the impact of the law that has been ongoing since January? You know the answer-they don’t have any. Yes, AEEA has invited parents to meetings in accordance with public library policies, been respectful in following protocol, and despite rude and unprofessional behavior on the part of a former member of Senator Huff’s staff, has conducted itself with the seriousness that this occasion dictates.
In conversations with parents what has surfaced is not the story an organic groundswell of concern by the community, but rather a desperate and cloying attempt on the part of a former legislator to advertise the “signature legislative achievement” of her tenure- and with the help of free media and silicon valley billionaires she is still trying to do so. Throw in a disgruntled administrator removed for cause at PL, and what’s left? And what a shame if that law were proven destructive and divisive in yet another neighborhood that, let’s not forget, already owns the school. I think there are better questions for the Palm Lane community to be asking, for example:
If the “Parent Trigger” is such a great law, then why is it that the only cheerleaders are the person who wrote it and the privatizers who make millions taking over those community schools?
If you call the parents of Adelanto just up the freeway and ask if they were to do it all over, would they turn their public school over to a private operator?
How will these charter operators react when evidence shows that signature-gatherers were openly deceptive during the process?
Where will the Palm Lane staff go if/when the restart model is instituted?
It’s obvious that the privatizers and their allies have no interest in an honest debate as they attempt to subvert the democratic process in Anaheim- remember only the signers get to vote on the conversion, everyone else in the Palm Lane community has no legal standing to influence the new charter school.
Mr. Ed,
Perhaps you can answer for Mr. Wells:
Mr. Wells, parents are demanding to know how your CTA union organization, or union member “Julio” aka Juan Alvarez, obtained parents’ private information. Maybe you/ your CTA organization physically assaulted the district too, in order to get that private information…an act of identity theft? Or, did the district violate privacy policies?
Please explain: “how was private, personal information confiscated/ leaked!?”
Please, do not change the topic.
Ed,
Well said! I find it interesting to have such a low threshold to get the “trigger pulled.” 50% +1, really? So 49+% could disagree and have now say? So this is a republic? So why do we have an Electoral College?
Why can’t we have discussion, discourse, compromise. Why do we need the nuclear option? Why do people like Mr. Huff pander to the hispanic vote?
He won’t help these people become citizens, but he will let them get a license. He will let them pay sales tax, and other fees, but won’t let them vote.
My father was an immigrant from Italy who spent 4 years in Venezuela, got sponsored, worked and paid his debt and eventually became a citizen. He loved this country as I do. We NEED immigration, we Need these people to have a voice, but the way they are being used by the “right” and wall street is deplorable.
The democrats are not far behind the republicans in my opinion.
We need to have discussions, and we need to have dialogue and we need to listen to both sides. We need to have compromise. We need to have a living wages and YES, we do need UNIONS. The bottom 95% need a voice.
Come on John. That is a ridiculous comment.
So you profess you support democracy, then oppose the vote of the majority.
If two people are on a ballot, the victor gets 50%+1…..they are required not to get any more votes in order to take office.
You point to the ELECTORAL COLLEGE as an example of a higher vote requirement to elect someone to office. Well, yes, but the president of the United States is the ONLY office needing an ELECTORAL COLLEGE combination of individual votes and states.
Are you suggesting that candidates should only get elected if they receive a 66.7% of the vote?
Laws pass everyday in the state legislature that only receive 50%+1 vote.
Democracy can be an inconvenient thing. Particularly if you oppose the will of the majority of the voters or in this case oppose the will of the majority of the parents.
My question is how gloria and her parent trigger advocates are explaining the numerous number of parents that are coming forward to district personnel stating that they are afraid that they are one of the signers and do not want to be. They claim they were coerced into signing under the guise of receiving free tutoring, free ipads and that they were bullied by the signature collectors who would keep coming to their homes even when told no until out of frustration parents signed thinking this would get them to leave them alone. Parents have even complain about being followed and hassles while grocery shopping. This is about money and politics and not what is best for our students. How can parents be so upset about past practices when they gave brand new leadership and about 3/4 of the teachers are new to palm lane?
This is the umpteenth time some anonymous commenter (probably a union activist) has made these same baseless accusations. I have asked for evidence; for one person to come forward by name and say, yes this happened to me. And the response is always silence.
How about in order to prove that this is a baseless claim…contact each person who signed and offer them the opportunity to rescind if they wish.
“D” – I’m guessing that is one of the purposes for which your union, the Anaheim Elementary Education Association (AEEA), has been organizing these “information meetings.”
Perhaps the AEEA could provide a demonstration of this technique and refute the claim that a significant number of AEEA members do not want to be members: you and your fellow AEEA officers could contact each AEEA member and offer to help them quit the union and keep their dues money, along with a promise of no retaliation if they choose rescind their membership. What do you think?
Finally, as you are no doubt aware, the courts have ruled that signatures cannot be rescinded once the Parent Trigger petition has been turned in.
Funny how that law works to support trigger law coersion strategies…seems parents in other schools also were unaware of what they were signing..so much for upfront honesty and being 100% sure you are really doing what the parents want and not just what gloria and huff want. And as for unions doing the same thing..nice deflection but irrevelant since we don’t have a group of 15 members trying to pursuade the other 600 to opt out.
“D” – since we both know who you are, might you do the readers the courtesy of using your real name?
Again, allegations are easy to make, and your union has been quite free in making them (and the superintendent in disseminating them). But not a single concrete example.
Nearly 70% of Palm Lane parents signed the Parent Trigger petition. They were not tricked or bribed into doing so. The response from you and other teachers union leaders has been to question the judgment, intelligence and motives of these parents. Nice.
Why would you not allow them to take their signature off of a petition that they signed if they feel they were misinformed or coerced or just changed their minds after some consideration?
Seems to make sense. But if it doesn’t make them dollars, than it won’t make sense.
Who, “John”? You and “D” from the AEEA and other union people keep talking about all these parents who want their names removed from the petition? Who? How many? Where are they? It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion other than you are just making it up.
If we are making it up then prove it by providing the opportunity to rescind
Matt- they are asking you to change the state law. I don’t think that you have that power.
This law was passed to provide parents this right.
The rules for the parent trigger were set in the legislation.
This law passed the State Assembly and the State Senate and was signed into law by the Governor. Democrats and Republicans both supported it.
Now, those who wish to deny the parents’ this legal right – are asking for the rules to be changed.
Enough with that! Follow the law and let these parents have the positive impact they seek on their children’s education!
From a Palm Lane parent, about the petitioners, as reported in today’s OC Register article, Parent Irma Andazola, who has a kindergartner, said organizers came to her apartment four times to seek her signature, which she refused. She said she has talked to other parents who were unaware what their signatures meant. Others didn’t know about the petition at all.
“They (organizers) just said, ‘Everything is going to be better if you sign.’ … But they didn’t say exactly that it was going to change into a charter school,” Andazola said. “I don’t think the school needs to be a charter to be successful.”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-651417-parents-petition.html
“This is about money and politics and not what is best for our students.”
Honestly, it is laughable to hear a teachers union officer accuse anyone or anything of being about “money and politics, and not what is best for students,” when the teachers unions are entirely about money and politics. Your union spends tens of millions of dollars on campaigns and political contributions aimed at extracting tens of millions more from taxpayers.
And when did the teachers union begin representing students? I’d prefer an unvarnished and open opposition to converting Palm Lane to charter school status than unbelievable declamations that it is the teachers union that is unconcerned with money and politics.
Matthew who am I? Teacher unions involve themselves in politics that effect education and education deformers or reformers as you call yourselves. I’m sorry I didn’t realize that you or gloria or huff or tom Wagner had degrees in child development or education. You are right better politicians who know nothing make laws and decisions regarding education than the union. How dare we want lower class sizes, adequate funding, nurses, counselors and a decent living wage since we are college educated professionals.
And how dare parents organize to assert control over their children’s education? Who do they think they are, anyway? I mean, what do parent know about kids?
And you’re Debbie Resnick from AEEA.
The CTA also spends its members dues money on issues like an initiative to impose a single-payer, government-run health care system, on traditional v same-sex marriage, and abortion. What do those have to do with class sizes?
Parents are tiered of the district employees making up lies. The district needs a change and it should be by getting rid of the superintendent. Union employees need to have respect in the choices we want for our children even if it is converting our school into a charter. Stop telling parents that charters schools don’t work, instead work on educating the students. There are many schools that need improvement, worry about those schools and respect the choice we have made.
Wow Matthew I’m impressed that you know who I am. Sadly we wont know the effects of becoming a charter until it is done…unfortunately charters under parent trigger are run by professional charter companies and not the parents. I hope parents realize that once a charter they can hand pick the students who attend and students with special needs, low test scores and behavior issues will no longer be palm lane students…if this statement is incorrectbtgen please show me the paperwork that guarantees all parents within palm lanes area are guaranteed admittance.
“… once a charter they can hand pick the students…”
Another teacher union lie. Here is the text of the bill:
“…an existing public school converting partially or entirely to a charter school under this part shall adopt and maintain a policy giving admission preference to pupils who reside within the former attendance area of that public school.”
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=47001-48000&file=47605-47608
And yes you are correct about cta dues supporting civil rights issues because we believe in supporting all our members and students even if they are women or govt…and any member who does not support these issues is able yo donate their dues to the charity of their choice rather than political issues.
Glbt…I hate auto correct
Like the “civil right” of Mark “Tasting Game” Berndt to get paid $40,000 to quit. Teachers unions will defend children once children start paying union dues.
Wow…I”m wondering what the affected kids would think if they read the adults on this thread. Lots of attacking people for who they are, what group they’re with, etc instead of addressing ideas. What in the world does a child molester in LAUSD have to do with the parent trigger process? Here’s an idea–change this law so that it requires an election that includes all parents AFTER a petition threshold is met and all parents are officially notified what’s going on. Have open meetings, let the parents who want to make the change make their case, let the school/school district make its case, let parents debate it among themselves, and keep the paid outsiders out of it. That would eliminate a lot of this nonsense. Regardless of which side you’re on, there is no denying that parents are in many cases only hearing one side and people seem genuinely pissed off when the opposing side takes an opportunity to make its case.