Skip to content

Navigation

User login

Bear Flag League


The Bear Flag League

These are fellow California bloggers and many of them are well worth your time to visit!

What Are They Thinking?

June 30, 2008 by dave

As I read news stories about the latest happenings in Sacramento, I often ask myself the question, "What are they thinking?" This Flashreport opinion piece by Assembly Republican Caucus Chairman Bob Huff is no exception. In his smackdown of democratic education priorities, Assemblyman Huff points out the opposition to SB 1105 Margett, which would "revoke the teaching credentials of those convicted of sex offenses, drug crimes and other violent crimes if they plead guilty or no contest." He goes on to talk of the opposition to the bill by CTA:

    I was surprised to hear representatives of the California Teachers Association testify in opposition. Keeping sex offenders and other dangerous individuals out of our schools should be something we can all agree upon. It is just plain wrong to put both students and teachers at risk in our schools just to keep more dues-paying union members on the payroll.

I verified on their site that they oppose the bill and according to Assemblyman Huff apparently testified against the bill. I just don't get it. I'd love to hear their justification for opposing the bill. It seems like a no-brainer.

The education code already requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to revoke the credential of any teacher or administrator:

  • who has been convicted of any sex offense defined under Education Code Section 44010
  • who has been convicted of any narcotics offense defined under Education Code Section 44011
  • who has been convicted of any crime listed in Education Code section 44424, or
  • who has been found to be insane by a federal or state court
  • who has been judicially determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender under the law.

This measure simply adds pleas of no-contest to this process. From reading the bill's legislative analysis, it appears that a no-contest plea wasn't considered a "conviction" under this process. That's a pretty big loophole. I'd love to CTA's excuse for opposing this bill. I've searched their site, but I haven't been able to find it. If you can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://friendsofdave.org/trackback/1124

Comments

Is it too broad to be fair?

July 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 29 weeks ago
Comment id: 51

I don't know any more about this than what you've said here, but I know that any discussion referring generically to sex and drug offenses is probably too broad. My understanding is that mooning can sometimes be enough to get you labeled as a sex offender, or dating a 16 year old when you're 18. Perhaps they're complaining that the new law paints everyone with the same brush?

Or perhaps the point of view is that, as educators, we supposedly believe in helping students improve...should we not also believe that someone who has fulfilled their punishment/rehabilitation has improved back to acceptable society standards? I'm not defending our country's current approach to punishment/rehabilitation, just asking if we believe in the idea of rehabilitation.

AdaptiveThemes