Janus will likely invalidate these provisions . Specifically , the Court ruled that compelling agency fees or union dues is unconstitutional , resulting in the maintenance of membership provisions that require nonunion members to remit payment to a union unconstitutional . Your CBA probably includes a “ severability ” clause that maintains all valid provisions if one or more terms is declared invalid or unlawful .
Q : If employees ask us questions whether they can opt out of their union and the effects of doing so ( i . e ., whether they are still covered by the CBA ), what do we tell them / can we tell them ?
A : Districts may continue to answer questions from individual employees , including telling employees they have the right to join or not to join a union . Under SB 866 , the district must mutually agree with the unions about the contents and dissemination of any mass communications – a communication to multiple employees . If individual employees ask whether they are still covered by a CBA , the answer is yes . If an employee has completed an authorization for deduction of union dues and wishes to revoke that authorization , under SB 866 the district must direct them to their union . Districts should also be mindful of the prohibition against deterring or discouraging applicants for employment or employees from becoming or remaining union members .
Q : If an employee does not pay dues , what level of representation are they entitled to ?
A : With regard to disciplinary matters , the Court noted that there are less restrictive means than agency fees to mitigate the risk of non-members who seek representation in disciplinary proceedings or altogether deny representation . The level of representation afforded to non-paying employees will therefore depend on the specific maintenance of membership provisions in a CBA to the extent those provisions remain in force after the Janus ruling . Some provisions provide for “ reasonable costs ” to be paid by an employee who is not a union member but who uses the grievance or arbitration provisions of a CBA . Districts and their unions may need to renegotiate these provisions in light of Janus .
Q : If an employee does not pay dues , does the union contract apply to them ?
A : Yes , a CBA applies to all classifications that are part of a bargaining unit . If an employee ’ s classification is within the bargaining unit represented by a union , then the CBA applies to that employee .
Q : Unions have expressed concerns about anti-union organizations attempting to contact members of their bargaining unit . What are our obligations if we are contacted by one of these organizations ?
A : If anti-union organizations ask the district to distribute any communications to employees , the district should proceed with caution . Districts must not - under existing law - deter or discourage applicants for employment or employees from becoming or remaining union members . SB 866 requires a district to meet and confer with the unions concerning the contents of any mass communication . Districts have no other obligations if contacted by an antiunion organization .
Q : Does SB 866 impact union access to new employer orientations ?
A : Yes . Many districts have completed negotiating union access to new employee orientations as required by AB 119 . SB 866 amends the law to prohibit the disclosure of the date , time , and place of the orientation to anyone other than the employees , exclusive representative , or a vendor that is contracted to provide a service for purposes of the orientation .
Q : How do we comply with a Public Records Request for information on the employee orientation ?
A : Because SB 866 prohibits disclosure of the information , districts must redact the date , time , and place of the orientation from any public record request . It is advisable to keep a record of the response to such a request to demonstrate that this information was not disclosed . The prohibition on disclosure applies only to employers ; nothing prevents employees themselves from publicizing this information .
July 30 , 2018 EDCAL 3
DeVos issues approval for California ’ s ESSA plan
State Board of Education President Michael Kirst and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson announced on July 12 that U . S . Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has approved California ’ s Every Student Succeeds Act plan .
This announcement was welcome news , since California ’ s ESSA plan was developed over two years with input from thousands of Californians .
“ I am pleased to approve Utah and California ’ s plans , both of which comply with the requirements of the law ,” DeVos said . “ I look forward to seeing how these states utilize the flexibilities afforded in ESSA to rethink education and to improve outcomes for all students .”
The approval was not unexpected as representatives of DeVos ’ office had already indicated they would recommend approval with the latest changes California had made to the state plan .
“ Given the differences between federal and state law , the plan approved by Secretary DeVos represents the best possible outcome of our discussions with U . S . Department of Education staff ,” Kirst said .
JANUS
Continued from page 1
“ California is a national leader in supporting students with extra needs , providing local control over spending , encouraging community participation in schools , and releasing critical information on measures that indicate student success . Our ESSA plan allows that work to continue .”
“ California has the most ambitious plan in the nation to give additional resources to students with the greatest needs as we prepare all students for college and 21st century careers ,” Torlakson said . “ The ESSA plan approved will support those efforts .
“ We disagreed with the federal government on some issues and interpretations of federal laws . But we are pleased that the federal government has approved our plan .”
Signed by President Obama in 2015 , ESSA requires every state that receives federal money for low-income students and English learners to submit and receive approval of a plan for managing and using the funds .
ESSA replaced No Child Left Behind and differs from its predecessor by giving states more flexibility to use accountability systems that reflect local values and goals on multiple measures of student outcomes . California ’ s accountability system is focused on improving teaching and learning for all students and especially those that need extra help in achieving success .
The state ’ s new California School Dashboard evaluates schools and districts on multiple data points and by performance of student groups such as English learners , foster youth , and students with disabilities .
Grounded on the Local Control Funding Formula statutory requirements , California ’ s focus is on supporting districts – rather than individual schools – and differs from the federal model . Districts will continue to be evaluated on their students ’ performance on the state and local indicators embedded in the California School Dashboard .
While the ESSA plan was approved , much of the focus at the state and local level will now shift to the implementation of the components of the plan . Starting this fall , CDE will be tasked with identifying the state ’ s lowest-performing five percent of Title 1 schools to receive comprehensive and targeted support . The state recognizes that the challenges of individual schools are often related to wider systemic problems . As a result , there will likely be discussions on how schools will receive support given the state ’ s focus on supporting districts .
California receives $ 1.8 billion in Title 1 funds through ESSA . The funds represent about 2 percent of California ’ s total $ 78 billion K-12 budget , which includes $ 10.1 billion in resources for low-income students , foster youth , and English learners through the groundbreaking Local Control Funding Formula . A small percentage of these Title 1 allocations can be leveraged to provide additional resources to the state ’ s lowest-performing five percent of Title 1 schools . The state has not determined how these set-asides will be distributed , but will likely be a point of discussion in the 2018- 19 fiscal year .
For questions on the implementation of the ESSA plan , and what this means for California ’ s students , please contact Martha Alvarez , ACSA Legislative Advocate at malvarez @ acsa . org .
CTC examines intern option , child development permits
ACSA CTC Liaison Doug Gephart reported on the following actions taken by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing .
Intern program early completion
option
Currently , candidates may apply for entry into the Early Completion Option ( ECO ) pathway by passing the National Evaluation Series Assessment of Professional Knowledge . Once an ECO candidate has passed all portions of the Teacher Performance Assessment and the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment ( RICA ) they can be recommended for a preliminary teaching credential . Successful completion of the entry requirements for the ECO Option allows a candidate to waive the preparation program coursework , however , they must still be supervised and supported in their fieldwork . The Commission assumes all ECO candidates are ready and able to perform successful teaching responsibilities by virtue of qualifying for the ECO .
All ECO candidates are required by law to meet the following entry requirements :
• Hold a bachelor ’ s degree or higher .
• Meet Basic Skills requirement .
• Meet Subject Matter requirement .
• Demonstrate knowledge of the U . S . Constitution .
• Demonstrate professional fitness ( fingerprinting ).
• Take and pass the appropriate Assessment of Professional Knowledge .
• Complete 120 hours of intern preservice .
Update on work related to the Child
Development Permit
In October 2017 , staff presented a sixstep work plan for continuing the work of updating and strengthening the preparation of the early care and education workforce . In addition , the Commission ’ s Child Development Advisory Panel made several recommendations to reduce and consolidate the Permit from six to four levels , and to better identify and define the content of preparation . During the interim , CTC staff have completed a draft set of performance expectations focused on the four essential job levels performed by the ECE workforce : Assisting , Teaching , Mentoring , and Administrating
It is around these four key job focuses that the Teaching and the Administrator Performance Expectations have been developed to identify and describe the full set of knowledge , skills , and experiences that should form the basis for preparation of candidates for the Permit . The work to define performance expectations as the basis for ECE candidate preparation represents a significant shift in approach from the current system . Bringing these two processes closer together has been an ongoing learning experience for both Commission staff and the ECE field . Next steps include the following :
1 . Commission staff will continue efforts to collaborate with the field regarding the work relating to the Child Development Permit , and will present their analysis of a statewide survey to the Commission .
2 . Inform the field about “ early adopter ” opportunities to receive technical assistance and proceed with modifying coursework to address Performance Expectations for Teaching and / or Administration .
3 . Work with “ early adopters ” to seek funding for program and course development , provide technical assistance and collect feedback regarding the Teacher or Administrator Performance Expectations .
Initial institutional approval – Stage
2 : Hollister School District Hollister ’ s induction program will be based on a theory of action developed around “ why ” ( the program ’ s purpose ), “ what ” ( proficiencies that students and candidates must achieve ) and “ how ” ( how the candidates in the program will progress towards mastery of the California Standards of the Teaching Profession .
Hollister School District ’ s mission is to empower first- and second-year teachers by building strong relationships with mentors who will engage with them in focused goal setting , formative assessment , inquiry , individualized job-embedded support , and professional development that will facilitate the development of best practices through a structured system based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession .
Their vision is to create a responsive and dynamic induction program to serve and retain new teachers enabling all students to achieve their fullest potential . The district mission and vision statement is consistent with California ’ s philosophy and approach to education and reflects the district ’ s commitment to California state standards and frameworks for TK-12 students .
Through a memorandum of understanding with the Santa Cruz / Silicon Valley New Teacher Project Hollister School District
See CTC , page 7
Q : What other steps do you recommend we take ?
A : Districts should review their CBAs , in particular their specific maintenance of membership provisions . If these provisions or any part of them are declared unconstitutional by the Court , districts should be prepared to negotiate new provisions that comply with the Court ’ s ruling and SB 866 .
Additional reference points and information districts should consider compiling as you navigate the post-Janus landscape are :
• How many employees does the district have ?
• How many different union groups are in your district ?
• How many employees are in each group ?
• What are the average annual individual union dues ?
• How many employees in the district have already opted out of union membership and only pay agency fees ?
• Is income taxed before or after dues deduction ?
• Are pensionable ( STRS / PERS ) earnings calculated before or after union dues deductions ?
ACSA will keep members informed as developments in this issue develop . To learn more about our legal partners , visit www . acsa . org / partner4purpose .