Cost to fire one Ripon teacher: 4 years and $200,000

Cost to fire one Ripon teacher: 4 years and $200,000


RIPON, CA - Since 2006, the Ripon Unified School District has been trying to fire music teacher Terry Messick -- and the battle continues.

Testimony was set to continue at a hearing Thursday and into next week at Ripon High over the district's attempt to can Messick. The superintendent said the issue is over the teacher's refusal to take training to become equipped at working with Spanish-speaking students.

"All the teachers except one got the certification. So in 2006, the board of trustees began termination proceedings against Ms. Messick," said superintendent Louise Nan.

She said because of tenure for teachers, hearings this lengthy are not unusual.

Neither Messick nor her attorney would explain Wednesday why she failed to finish that training.

Earlier, attorney Tom Driscoll of the California Teachers Association objected to News10 setting up a camera at the hearing to cover the issue.

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=83287&catid=2

English.

I'm an educator in California. I have to do all kinds of hoop-jumping I sometimes this is silly. Why not just jump the hurdle? Clearly, they have immigrant students and those working with these children would not only personally benefit from connecting to these children culturally through language, but their students, too, would benefit. I thought that's what educators were suppose to do.

It sounds like they may be asking her to get a CLAD on her credential. This isn't asking anyone to be fluent. In fact, it isn't even based on any particular language. Instead, the CLAD is understanding how to communicate and work with children who are familiar with English, but perhaps not completely fluent. A B-CLAD is being more proficient in a language.

Regardless if it's CLAD, B-CLAD or taking a course or two from Rosetta Stone, the inability to develop to meet the expectations of one's profession is inexcusable. In education, there is always change, as the population changes and people's needs change. Catch up or get out.

And, really, it can't be that big of a deal if everyone else jumped the hoop except for this one lady.

Being bi-lingual can only make you more employable, and for teachers in this economy thats critical.

Some people have trouble learning new languages. And there is simply no reason one should be required to know or speak Spanish (a) to hold public sector job in the US and (b) to teach music. If that many students are ESL that it causes a problem, it would seem a golden opportunity for the school to hire a translator. Job creation!

See reply #1.

at a public school in the US. Like I said, if it's a problem, hire a translator. They could've paid a translator for a decade or more with the amount they've spent trying to fire a person who they should not be trying to fire in the first place.

She is being asked to complete her professional development, a requirement of all teachers. Continuing professional development is part of the career we have chosen. CLAD is a part of that professional development. It is not learning a new language.

Are all the teachers in CA required by the state to "be equipped at working with Spanish-speaking students"?
If not, I don't see a problem with her choice.
It is a democracy after all.
If her students are not "equipped" to understand her, send them to an ESOL class. Having them learn English seems to be more beneficial to her students than her learning Spanish.

Most teachers do have the CLAD on their credential. I do.

State requirements change. Districts also have the right to make certain requirements based on student population and needs.

All professional educators are required to develop professionally. This is part of the career that we have chosen. This is simply professional development that is being turned into an English v. Spanish debate. CLAD isn't about Spanish. She isn't required to learn a new language. She is being asked to continue her professional development like the rest of her colleagues. She is the only one who has refused.

A CLAD is a simple class or two that teaches you how better to communicate with people who are of various fluency levels. It's not only a good skill to have as an educator, but as a human being, as well.

An educator is not just a facilitator of information. An educator is the living model of lifelong learning. For an educator to go to such extremes for refusing to learn is quite astonishingly bad modeling for her students and the school population as a whole.








ETA: From a different report, they are only asking her to get a CLAD. As an educator, I know that getting your CLAD is only two five week classes that be taken simultaneously. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/15140/

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/15121/

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/15143/


It appears she did take another course similar to the CLAD, but not the CLAD. And she only passes 2 of the 3 components of that course. Why not just take the CLAD?

I fought the CLAD off too as long as I could. My argument in the first years was that only English teachers needed to do it, and if I had to go to extra time and expense to do the thing, then everyone else should as well. Sensitivity to student's learning needs is not the sole domain of the English teacher. Now everyone has to do it, which is just. The cost of CLAD training is approximately $3,000. BTW, unless you already know everything you need to know and can take the test without prep. (difficult, not impossible, mostly because there are many "terms of art" that we never use in the classroom). Problem with the test is that in some areas it is only offered once a year, you need to sign up for it six months in advance, and you don't get results for another six months, making the process a round year long. If you received the notice to "comply or else" after the test sign up date, you're screwed for the whole year. Another issue is that districts only began termination for non-compliance this year, because of budget problems--for ten plus years it has been "you better or else" and then nothing.

What is missing from the article is the teacher's age and years of service: If I were a 30+ year vet. teacher (English or otherwise) retiring in two years I wouldn't want to pay three thousand bucks for a long term solution to short term employment either. Perhaps the teacher is a well respected and highly accomplished teacher who already does the things suggested by CLAD training. I say suggested, because there is absolutely no follow up evaluation after CLAD training or testing. Teacher can go straight back to stultifying lecture and numbing "drill and kill" techniques and never suffer a rebuke at all, at all.

Another "look at how terrible our teachers are" article that doesn't tell the whole story and allows us to believe that teachers don't care what happens to students. A teacher can easily learn and do all of the things required by CLAD on a daily basis without ever having opened a book or taken the test.

It's 40 hours of professional development. If everyone else did it, then it can't be that much trouble.

The two districts I have worked for would only hire people with CLAD. Any teacher who had been there before CLAD became an embedded part of the California Teacher Credential simply completed the 40 hours. And it was certainly something that was followed up on. All professional development was followed up with either teacher-led discussion or presentation. For example, I have attended extensive brain-based learning conferences, and when I return, I prepare a presentation and lead a discussion in how to implement these ideas into a classroom.

I didn't find the article accusing the teacher of not caring about the students. But she is not participating in professional development. Perhaps I've worked for the only two districts in the state that require professional development, because I don't see this as such a horrible thing to expect from a professional educator.

From the link on the CDE site, it seems like this has been in effect since at least November of 2007. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl628c.html And my interpretation seems to be that it is a requirement of the CDE. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl628c.pdf It is also clear that the CTEL may not be substituted for the CLAD, which is what this teacher is attempting to do. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/online-services/pdf/OA-CLAD.pdf http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/english-learners-FAQ.html She could have requested the district apply for an Emergency CLAD. That would have given her additional time, or, if she were near retirement, been enough to get her through the last couple of years. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl533o-CLAD-BCLAD.pdf

I feel like there is more from the teacher than is being reported. It makes no sense why a professional educator would be adverse to learning that she would put her career, her retirement and her reputation in jeopardy.

Frankly 40 hours seems excessive and costly with no mention at all that the district would pay for this. Down thread we learn it also had a test offered once per year with a six month turn around time. That is outrageous. I took SIOP training, paid for by my district which accomplished what this was supposed to accomplish and was 24 hours. And we had some follow up.

From what I read, the district was paying. And 40 hours isn't that bad. It's a huge chunk of what we have to do every five years, so you're really getting a lot of the required professional development out of the way. I can understand the frustration if she is near retiring, but I'm not sure it's worth losing one's job, retirement and reputation. I guess if I don't see the gain, then I don't see the reason in being the only one who refuses to do what everyone else in the district has done.

I guess, in the end, I just don't see the teacher's point? :shrug: Quite frankly, I've jumped plenty of silly hoops as a K-12 Independent Study Teacher. But I jumped them. It wasn't the end of the world and I tackled approximately 90% of my required professional development hours in about 18 months.

The demands on teachers who were not "grandfathered" in were excessive. There was no understanding of the cost to the teacher or the huge number of hours involved.

At least public schools have accredited teachers, which the charter and private schools are usually not required to have.

She should take the training most likely, but I am inclined to think there is more to the story.

I'm wondering if everyone was grandfathered in, but putting this off put her out of eligibility. I agree, there likely is more to this story.




I know all states are different, but in California, charter schools are public and all the teachers are credentialed. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/qandasec5mar04.asp
Q.1. What qualifications are required of charter school teachers?
California Education Code (EC) Section 47605(l) (Outside Source) states that teachers in charter schools are required to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. EC Section 47605(l) (Outside Source) also states that it is the intent of the Legislature that charter schools be given flexibility with regard to noncore, non-college preparatory courses. Currently, this flexibility is not extended to countywide benefit charter schools approved under EC Section 47605.6. (Outside Source)

Administrators and non-teaching staff in a charter school are not required to be credentialed.

Q.2 What is a “highly qualified teacher” according to the NCLB Act, and how does this requirement affect charter school teachers?
The NCLB Act applies to teachers employed by public schools, and requires that all public school teachers be highly qualified. Under the NCLB Act, a highly qualified teacher:

1. Holds appropriate state certification.
2. Holds a minimum of a bachelor’s degree.
3. Has demonstrated subject area competence in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher is assigned to teach.

NCLB defers to state law for credentialing requirements. EC Section 47605(l) (Outside Source) requires charter school teachers to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. However, this law also states that it is the intent of the Legislature that charter schools be given flexibility with regard to noncore, non-college preparatory courses (although this flexibility is not currently extended to countywide benefit charter schools approved under EC Section 47605.6) (Outside Source). Teachers of core and college preparatory courses must hold a valid credential equivalent to that which would be required of a teacher in a non-charter public school.

Therefore, for core, and college preparatory courses, the credentialing requirements are the same for charter school and traditional public school teachers.


Anyway, this thread isn't about charter schools, so I won't hijack it. I just think it wouldn't matter where she worked, if the district implements a requirement for their teaching positions, teachers are expected to follow it. :shrug: