California Teachers Association Opposes ‘No Contest’ Sex Offender Loophole
I read Darren’s writeup about the CTA’s opposition to a fairly sensible bill - it closes a loophole that allows ‘no contest’ sex offenders to continue teaching.
A quick reminder: mixing criminals and children is a bad idea.
I was surprised that his post didn’t attract more attention. Then again, some of the most contentious, difficult, embarrassing issues in education tend to cause temporary blindness.
What’s this all about? From the bill itself:
A recent Associated Press (AP) study found that roughly 25% of all disciplinary actions against teachers involve sexual misconduct. In a study of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the AP found 2,570 educators nationwide whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered, or sanctioned following allegations of sexual misconduct. The study revealed that between 2001 and 2005, 313 California educators had their credential suspended or revoked for sexual misconduct. The study noted that while California law requires educators who plead guilty to, or are convicted of, specified sex, controlled substance, and violent felony offenses lose their credential, existing law allows educators who are convicted following a plea of “no contest” to those same crimes to undergo a discretionary review by the CTC to determine disposition of their credential instead of losing their credential automatically.
The CTA, which represents about 300,000 members in California, has a tagline of “Every child deserves a chance to learn and no child succeeds alone.” I’d say that sex offenders make it tougher to learn, but the CTA apparently wouldn’t agree. After all, no child succeeds alone.
The CTA’s argument rests on discrimination toward gays and lesbians [page 3-4 of this short PDF], but I don’t see how. Read the bill - if it’s there, I don’t see it. CTA Eileen and her union have done a miserable job explaining their case. If Eileen et. al. had done a tenth as good a job explaining the discrimination example as they’ve done whining about funding and praising Barack Obama, we [including the puzzled baby pictured at the top left] wouldn’t be nearly as confused.
Here’s Darren’s post in full - pop a Pepcid and go forth.
Keeping Sex Offenders Out of the Classroom
Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Well, the no-brainers at CTA oppose SB1105, which closes a loophole that currently lets certain sex offending teachers keep their credentials and continue teaching children.
Why does CTA oppose this bill? Because, they claim, it’s discriminatory against gays and lesbians. I found nothing in the bill that even hints at that (see first link above), but have since learned that there are more stringent penalties for pulling a Larry Craig than for pulling an Eliot Spitzer (hence the gay discrimination angle). The CTA is significantly overstating this case, though, in the 2nd link above.
Let’s look at who supports and opposes this bill-again, directly from the state web site above:
Support
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Sponsor)
Association of California School Administrators
California District Attorneys Association
California School Boards Association
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Saddleback Valley Unified School District
San Francisco Unified School District
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Teachers Association
Equality California
I might agree that the penalties for sex crimes should be more consistent, but that’s not enough for me to oppose this legislation. Perfection is the enemy of the “good enough”.
Apparently the CTA thinks keeping gay and lesbian sex offenders employed is more important than keeping children away from sex offenders-and that’s all you really need to know about the CTA.
most sex offenders are not gay. also most sex offenders are related or already known to the victim. also sex offenders re offend at a lower rate then other offenses. research at the dept. of justice. don’t fall for the feel good laws of your politician. next there will be gov. controlled web site for domestic violence where everyone is groped as a wife beater!
Me, I don’t understand the point of your comment. Do you think California should close the “sex offender loophole” or not? If not, why not?
Darren,
I didn’t have a clue what “me”‘s comment meant, either.