Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/348932
AEA Advocate x Fall 2014 35 the unintended effect of keeping ineffective new teachers in classrooms longer. • California's experience-based layoff system is fair, objective, and the most efficient way for school districts to deal with the unfortunate circumstance of layoffs due to budget cuts or declining enrollment. Current law already allows districts to consider student needs and other factors when issuing layoffs. But switching to an "effectiveness"-based system based largely on student standardized test scores, as the plaintiffs advocated would turn what is now a fairly streamlined system into a logistical nightmare. • California's due process in performance- based dismissal cases helps ensure teachers are not fired for speaking out on behalf of students, or for teaching subjects some find controversial. They allow teachers facing dismissal to present their side of a case, and to have their case heard by objective third parties. • The legislature is the place for policy decisions like this, not through court cases brought by phony front groups created by PR firms and millionaires. This week in Sacramento, lawmakers are working together to pass a bill that would streamline the dismissal process to keep students safe, while protecting the due process rights of educators. AB 215 was unanimously approved by the state Senate and is expected to be approved by the Assembly and signed by the governor. The bill prioritizes, updates and streamlines the teacher discipline and dismissal process. 2 The Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision in Lane v. Franks, concerning whether the First Amendment protects a public employee's grand jury and criminal trial testimony regarding fraud and misuse of public funds in a community college program. NEA member Edward Lane was running a Central Alabama Community College program for at-risk youth when he discovered a state legislator on his payroll—a woman who never actually showed up to work—and so he fired her. And later, when he was subpoenaed to testify about that experience at the legislator's corruption trial, he did so—and did so truthfully. After the trial, however, Lane was fired for his truthful testimony. The Alabama Education Association, NEA's state affiliate, litigated Mr. Lane's case in district court and the National Education Association joined with AEA to represent him on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The Goldstein & Russell firm handled the case in the Supreme Court with NEA filing an amicus brief in the case, arguing for a broader rule that all testimony should be protected—whether connected to job duties or not. "In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in ensuring the free speech rights of public employees by concluding that Edward Lane's testimony was speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern," said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel. "We are pleased that the Court has recognized that public employees are indeed protected by the First Amendment when they testify. Today's decision will protect public employees from job retaliation when they testify in court about public corruption. "We are disappointed the Court did not go further to establish a clear rule that sworn testimony by public employees should never be the basis for any retaliatory action by a public employer. The Court's decision was too narrow. Public employees who have the courage to stand up and speak out to improve public services and prevent corruption should be protected from retaliation. "As teachers and other education professionals, our members often must speak up on behalf of their students to ensure that their needs are being met, and that their students are being provided with all the resources to which they are entitled and need to succeed. When they do so, their speech and actions should be protected. The National Education Association is proud of our member, Edward Lane, and we stand with him in his fight for free speech for all public employees." 2 NEA member's case is an important step in ensuring free speech rights' for public employees Court Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Public Employee Testimony