Editorial
Words taken from Service International Employees Union (SEIU 925) Washington State Senate Bill 5572 cannot be confirmed by any research, study or evidence yet the bill was passed out of their respective hearing committees and Ways and Means this week; meaning it can at any moment come to a floor vote in either house.
Why is the bill even viable given the $8 billion dollar deficit? Why did it even come out of the committees?
Language and testimony from experts in child care licensing, the non-profit Washington Parents for Safe Child Care, the YMCAs and other child day care center owners show the following words in the bill are false:
”Senate Bill 5572: AN ACT Relating to improving quality, access, and stability of
child care....."
Family child care providers in the state have recently been given a similar opportunity, and the results of their efforts have improved standards and quality for that segment of the child care industry.....
The legislature intends to address these problems by creating the possibility for a new relationship between child care center directors and workers and the state....”
The bill passed in 2006 for the family child care provider has resulted in family home child care providers not taking subsidy children to not be under SEIU. This current bill of $1.4 million dollars is merely for setting up another bureaucracy in the government. These bills make the government SEIU’s banker.
An email shared with the legislature from 2005 shows the research manager for the Washington State’s child care licensing agency writing about subsidy children and family providers: "we looked at the relationship between licensing complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS children........but the attached graphs were pretty striking. They show a relationship between complaints and percent of capacity filled by DSHS subsidized children for both families and centers." "Data in Washington show a correlation between facilities that have greater percentages of children receiving subsidies and the incidence of reported and confirmed licensing complaints."
Thus subsidy children are forced and will further be forced into a smaller pool of available providers if the bill passes. Children coming from difficult situations are crowded together in the fewer and fewer family homes willing to take them. This ups the risk factors.
In terms of “creating the possibility for a new relationship” the Department of Early Learning has not, is not and cannot identify which providers are in SEIU to fulfill the contract agreement to provide training to that group. Thus there is no new relationship as a result of the 2006 bill passing.
The bill states”results of their efforts have improved standards and quality”. There is no data or research to support that claim. SEIU themselves claim to only have provided some classes for 700 out of the 10,000 membership they claim.
If YMCAs, Knowledge Learning and other centers can opt out, why can’t the current centers, also, opposed to SEIU opt out?
Why has the bill passed out of committees waiting for someone to pull it to the floor for a vote? It may be as simple as money was extracted from the taxpayer to SEIU; and then some given back to the legislature to buy votes and influence. We wait to see who will not be bought.
About the author:
Margo Logan, formerly worked for state government for over 20 years, including thirteen years in child care licensing, an expert in her field she now has her own consulting firm, website and blog.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thoughts about SEIU, our country and Washington State
In following the story of the SEIU, the realization came to me of the difficulties parents have in having to work; and their commitment and desire to take care of their children comes to me. With the burdens of family life when do you get to research the behind the scenes nuances of government?
It took awhile for me to sort out the pieces, the research and the information about SEIU juxtaposed to the information I grew up with as to what unions met in the lives of workers. The two didn't match and that initially caused me dissonance. The truth will set you free goes the saying; and so it does.
SEIU and Illinois Governor Blagojevich go way back now to at least 2003. President Obama comes out of Illinois politics, he supported Blagojevich in running for governor. Looks like Blagojevich did the loopty loop. Anointed SEIU to come on in helped give $450 million of taxpayer money to contracts and $11 million of that went directly to SEIU; then SEIU gave back to Blagojevich $1.2 million dollars. $1.2 million dollars of taxpayers money.
So the loopty-loop has also happened in Washington state. Now what will President Obama do? I believe the weight of history and his words for over two years has to have a spiritual factor. That talking the talk for two years can end up walking the walk. President Obama has heavily studied President Lincoln. Much is at stake here in our country.
President Obama did go out of his way to encourage the Illinois legislature to override Blagojevich's veto on the ethics law; and they did. If there is one thing about the president's cultural heritage, I imagine, might be most compelling, is a repulsion of the idea of anyone thinking that they have bought him.
It can play out in the best interests of the citizens of this country if we can get the information out. Because of Illinois, because of Blagojevich and because of President Obama SEIU has been exposed.
We want honesty and integrity in all our pubic servants whether they are elected or are in the bureaucracy of government. We want Democrats, Republicans and Independents working together for the greater good. People are basically good; and will rise to that goodness when encouraged.
From my take senators and representatives love to hear from. and have their constituents drop by; much more than they like to hear from special interests.
It took awhile for me to sort out the pieces, the research and the information about SEIU juxtaposed to the information I grew up with as to what unions met in the lives of workers. The two didn't match and that initially caused me dissonance. The truth will set you free goes the saying; and so it does.
SEIU and Illinois Governor Blagojevich go way back now to at least 2003. President Obama comes out of Illinois politics, he supported Blagojevich in running for governor. Looks like Blagojevich did the loopty loop. Anointed SEIU to come on in helped give $450 million of taxpayer money to contracts and $11 million of that went directly to SEIU; then SEIU gave back to Blagojevich $1.2 million dollars. $1.2 million dollars of taxpayers money.
So the loopty-loop has also happened in Washington state. Now what will President Obama do? I believe the weight of history and his words for over two years has to have a spiritual factor. That talking the talk for two years can end up walking the walk. President Obama has heavily studied President Lincoln. Much is at stake here in our country.
President Obama did go out of his way to encourage the Illinois legislature to override Blagojevich's veto on the ethics law; and they did. If there is one thing about the president's cultural heritage, I imagine, might be most compelling, is a repulsion of the idea of anyone thinking that they have bought him.
It can play out in the best interests of the citizens of this country if we can get the information out. Because of Illinois, because of Blagojevich and because of President Obama SEIU has been exposed.
We want honesty and integrity in all our pubic servants whether they are elected or are in the bureaucracy of government. We want Democrats, Republicans and Independents working together for the greater good. People are basically good; and will rise to that goodness when encouraged.
From my take senators and representatives love to hear from. and have their constituents drop by; much more than they like to hear from special interests.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
February 11, 2009 Testimony I sent to the Washington State Senators
Dear Senator Kohl-Welles,
During my testimony yesterday you indicated that I wasn't addressing the bill. I apologize for being inarticulate and not well spoken. To make amends and provide clarity as well as identify other pertinent pieces of information I submit this as further testimony on Senate Bill 5572:
I copied below in italics relative portions of the bill for which I provide testimony based on being an expert in child care licensing and having been a child care licensor for 13 years.
Senate Bill 5572: AN ACT Relating to improving quality, access, and stability of
child care....."
Family child care providers in the state have recently been given a similar opportunity, and the results of their efforts have improved standards and quality for that segment of the child care industry.....
The legislature intends to address these problems by creating the possibility for a new relationship between child care center directors and workers and the state...."
My testimony was and is that there is no data to support these words in the bill.
The 10 hour requirement of annual training was taken out of the family home WAC in 2004. SEIU while sitting on the WAC revision committee for the last two years did not request an emergency WAC be adopted to return that training requirement to WAC. I calculated a possible loss of 16,000 hours of training in the last four years.
The SEIU contract called for DEL to provide training on licensing WACs for all the SEIU members covered under the contract during the period of the agreement (which ends June 30, 2009). That hasn't been done and will not be done. I called a DEL manager yesterday; and DEL doesn't even have a list of which providers are covered by the contract to comply with that agreement. I calculated a possible loss of another 8,000 hours of training. Total the two and you get a possible loss of 24,000 hours of training.
SEIU requested to meet with Washington Parents for Safe Child Care. That meeting happened February 4, 2009 at SEIU offices. I participated in that meeting. Kurstyn and Karen Hart were polite and courteous. They are not experts in child care.
SEIU claims they provided training for 700 out of 10,000 providers. 300 of those were "in-home" meaning for example, a grandmother, who is taking care of her grandchildren. Those 300 got paid $600.00 for taking 10 hours of training. They could not tell us who gave the trainings provided, although, from Nancy Gerber's testimony she is giving some of the trainings. There is no training link on SEIU's website.
To summarize SEIU claims to have trained 700 out of 10,000. With the loss of the annual 10 hour training requirement, as well as, DEL and SEIU not putting together the training on the Licensing WACS 4000 out of 10,000 providers could have received training; and they did not.
DEL doesn't know which providers are SEIU to even pull together the licensing WAC training. Another DEL manager thought the 10 hour annual requirement still existed. After I walked her through it she said, "Well, I guess we'd better get it put back in."
I calculate that in the last four years 24,000 hours of possible trainings were lost; yet the drumbeat continues that education and training equal quality.
The SEIU website when it did announce the meeting dates for the Negotiated Rule Making Team (it is no longer there) advised that those attending could only be the selected SEIU rule making members. SEIU did not announce to their rank and file this was a public meeting and by law all could attend and speak.
I see today on their website that SEIU no longer makes the statement that they have 10,000 family child care providers. In one document dated November 2008 they report having 2,145 members.
I see further information that SEIU has violated their contract with the state. The contract reads "Issues involving licensing of providers (including but not limited to denial, compliance agreement, suspension and revocation) are not subject to the grievance process."
I see since I called them out after the last legislative session whereby they were calling for SEIU members to take concerted action against representatives and senators who weren't being subserviant (my word) to SEIU; that that statement was taken off the website.
More and more is coming out about SEIU nationally that behooves all citizens to review and research. Start "googling" and the information is there to be read.
Although, SEIU gave millions to Barack Obama, I believe, President Obama will not consider himself bought by SEIU. I believe the members of the Washington State Senate, also, will not consider themselves bought by SEIU; and will vote no on this bill.
Washington Parents for Safe Child Care's bill written by Senator Kohls-Welles' staff regarding pre-service training in licensed child care is being dropped today. That bill drafted with the assistance of a number of experts in child care area has great potential to addressing the training and quality issues; as well as safety issues.
The $1 million plus taxpayer money just to set up the needle to be inserted in the taxpayers' arms to pump money directly into the SEIU's money bag is too much ever and especially in this economic crisis, please vote no either in committee or let the bill die in the full Senate.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading my testimony.
Margo Logan
Child Care Consulting in Washington State
During my testimony yesterday you indicated that I wasn't addressing the bill. I apologize for being inarticulate and not well spoken. To make amends and provide clarity as well as identify other pertinent pieces of information I submit this as further testimony on Senate Bill 5572:
I copied below in italics relative portions of the bill for which I provide testimony based on being an expert in child care licensing and having been a child care licensor for 13 years.
Senate Bill 5572: AN ACT Relating to improving quality, access, and stability of
child care....."
Family child care providers in the state have recently been given a similar opportunity, and the results of their efforts have improved standards and quality for that segment of the child care industry.....
The legislature intends to address these problems by creating the possibility for a new relationship between child care center directors and workers and the state...."
My testimony was and is that there is no data to support these words in the bill.
The 10 hour requirement of annual training was taken out of the family home WAC in 2004. SEIU while sitting on the WAC revision committee for the last two years did not request an emergency WAC be adopted to return that training requirement to WAC. I calculated a possible loss of 16,000 hours of training in the last four years.
The SEIU contract called for DEL to provide training on licensing WACs for all the SEIU members covered under the contract during the period of the agreement (which ends June 30, 2009). That hasn't been done and will not be done. I called a DEL manager yesterday; and DEL doesn't even have a list of which providers are covered by the contract to comply with that agreement. I calculated a possible loss of another 8,000 hours of training. Total the two and you get a possible loss of 24,000 hours of training.
SEIU requested to meet with Washington Parents for Safe Child Care. That meeting happened February 4, 2009 at SEIU offices. I participated in that meeting. Kurstyn and Karen Hart were polite and courteous. They are not experts in child care.
SEIU claims they provided training for 700 out of 10,000 providers. 300 of those were "in-home" meaning for example, a grandmother, who is taking care of her grandchildren. Those 300 got paid $600.00 for taking 10 hours of training. They could not tell us who gave the trainings provided, although, from Nancy Gerber's testimony she is giving some of the trainings. There is no training link on SEIU's website.
To summarize SEIU claims to have trained 700 out of 10,000. With the loss of the annual 10 hour training requirement, as well as, DEL and SEIU not putting together the training on the Licensing WACS 4000 out of 10,000 providers could have received training; and they did not.
DEL doesn't know which providers are SEIU to even pull together the licensing WAC training. Another DEL manager thought the 10 hour annual requirement still existed. After I walked her through it she said, "Well, I guess we'd better get it put back in."
I calculate that in the last four years 24,000 hours of possible trainings were lost; yet the drumbeat continues that education and training equal quality.
The SEIU website when it did announce the meeting dates for the Negotiated Rule Making Team (it is no longer there) advised that those attending could only be the selected SEIU rule making members. SEIU did not announce to their rank and file this was a public meeting and by law all could attend and speak.
I see today on their website that SEIU no longer makes the statement that they have 10,000 family child care providers. In one document dated November 2008 they report having 2,145 members.
I see further information that SEIU has violated their contract with the state. The contract reads "Issues involving licensing of providers (including but not limited to denial, compliance agreement, suspension and revocation) are not subject to the grievance process."
I see since I called them out after the last legislative session whereby they were calling for SEIU members to take concerted action against representatives and senators who weren't being subserviant (my word) to SEIU; that that statement was taken off the website.
More and more is coming out about SEIU nationally that behooves all citizens to review and research. Start "googling" and the information is there to be read.
Although, SEIU gave millions to Barack Obama, I believe, President Obama will not consider himself bought by SEIU. I believe the members of the Washington State Senate, also, will not consider themselves bought by SEIU; and will vote no on this bill.
Washington Parents for Safe Child Care's bill written by Senator Kohls-Welles' staff regarding pre-service training in licensed child care is being dropped today. That bill drafted with the assistance of a number of experts in child care area has great potential to addressing the training and quality issues; as well as safety issues.
The $1 million plus taxpayer money just to set up the needle to be inserted in the taxpayers' arms to pump money directly into the SEIU's money bag is too much ever and especially in this economic crisis, please vote no either in committee or let the bill die in the full Senate.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading my testimony.
Margo Logan
Child Care Consulting in Washington State
Monday, January 26, 2009
The 2009 Legislative Session has Begun
Dear Parents in Washington State,
What the new president promises and what we will witness is a high standard of ethics and transparency in government. That all parties will work together for the greater good of the citizens of this country.
That is what we expect to witness. We support all the senators and representatives who also hold in their hearts and in their actions that high standard of ethics and transparency in government.
House Bill 1329 (Commerce and Labor Committee) will take public testimony at 10 am on January 27, 2009 in Olympia in the John L. O'Brien Building.
It is an SEIU bill. Service Employees International Union. The SEIU named the bill "collective bargaining". In my research and opinion it is not collective bargaining. It is not a bill for parents nor for the protection of their children in licensed day care.
From my research and read...through these types of bills... SEIU has amassed great amounts of taxpayer money which in turn is contributed to elected officials and the two parties to put pressure on them to vote the way SEIU wants.
The Family Home Child Care Provider bill that SEIU got passed in 2006 resulted in only about 2000 out of 10,000 in-home and family day care providers voting that they wanted SEIU in their lives. But because of the bill that passed.... SEIU is in their lives whether they like it or not.
SEIU has dumped tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars back to the two parties; and the most recent go around was to the Democratic party. They dumped millions into Barack Obama's campaign. I suspect the new president will demonstrate integrity; and will not consider himself "bought" by SEIU; and if that is so I will be jumping around with delight. I didn't vote for President Obama but every ethical and transparent step he takes my heart will soar with the possibilities of what this country can honorably achieve.
I am not a scholar of the whole history of unions, but from my read in many cases the original intent of unions has changed so much I have to reflect on what is really going on.
The new president says we all will work together for the common good Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
I'll be testifying tomorrow and visiting around the Capitol to see how this legislative session is beginning.
What the new president promises and what we will witness is a high standard of ethics and transparency in government. That all parties will work together for the greater good of the citizens of this country.
That is what we expect to witness. We support all the senators and representatives who also hold in their hearts and in their actions that high standard of ethics and transparency in government.
House Bill 1329 (Commerce and Labor Committee) will take public testimony at 10 am on January 27, 2009 in Olympia in the John L. O'Brien Building.
It is an SEIU bill. Service Employees International Union. The SEIU named the bill "collective bargaining". In my research and opinion it is not collective bargaining. It is not a bill for parents nor for the protection of their children in licensed day care.
From my research and read...through these types of bills... SEIU has amassed great amounts of taxpayer money which in turn is contributed to elected officials and the two parties to put pressure on them to vote the way SEIU wants.
The Family Home Child Care Provider bill that SEIU got passed in 2006 resulted in only about 2000 out of 10,000 in-home and family day care providers voting that they wanted SEIU in their lives. But because of the bill that passed.... SEIU is in their lives whether they like it or not.
SEIU has dumped tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars back to the two parties; and the most recent go around was to the Democratic party. They dumped millions into Barack Obama's campaign. I suspect the new president will demonstrate integrity; and will not consider himself "bought" by SEIU; and if that is so I will be jumping around with delight. I didn't vote for President Obama but every ethical and transparent step he takes my heart will soar with the possibilities of what this country can honorably achieve.
I am not a scholar of the whole history of unions, but from my read in many cases the original intent of unions has changed so much I have to reflect on what is really going on.
The new president says we all will work together for the common good Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
I'll be testifying tomorrow and visiting around the Capitol to see how this legislative session is beginning.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
In Memory of Gabriel Tobin - Breaking News
See the Tacoma Tribune news story in their paper today regarding the 11.8 million dollar jury verdict below for 2 year old Gabriel Tobin who drowned in July 2004 in Lake Tapps.
I will blog more about the failures by the child care licensing agency and the Attorney General's Office in this case.
This is a thank you to the jury who were reasonable and prudent in their review, analysis and assessment of the case.
As a former child care licensor, now an activist for parents and the public I testified at this trial.
I thank the citizens who sat on this jury and were the reasonable judges to hear this case.
The failures in licensing that led to Gabriel Tobin's death started from the beginning in 2001.
The Attorney General's Office in my opinion is the biggest failure in this case. Myself, licensors and the supervisors were taught again and again over the years how to license properly.
Now the Attorney General's Office in opposition to the training they gave me and others brought this to court to support the the managers who oversaw the poor and improper licensing of this day care home.
I made a public disclosure request to find out how much taxpayer money they put into defending these state bureaucrats. Mary Kay Quinlan was the supervisor out of Pierce County and the jury found her at fault in this case.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General and under her watch other children died. The Attorney General's Office in my opinion has been used as a public defender lawyer to suppport DSHS management personnel from being held accountable for their failures.
The Attorney General's Office is required to serve the citizens of the state of Washington not entrenched bureaucratic managers.
I will be writing more details in the future. I'm buried with some other social justice work at the moment.
Please leave any questions you'd like me to clarify about the state's role in this matter.
I will blog more about the failures by the child care licensing agency and the Attorney General's Office in this case.
This is a thank you to the jury who were reasonable and prudent in their review, analysis and assessment of the case.
As a former child care licensor, now an activist for parents and the public I testified at this trial.
I thank the citizens who sat on this jury and were the reasonable judges to hear this case.
The failures in licensing that led to Gabriel Tobin's death started from the beginning in 2001.
The Attorney General's Office in my opinion is the biggest failure in this case. Myself, licensors and the supervisors were taught again and again over the years how to license properly.
Now the Attorney General's Office in opposition to the training they gave me and others brought this to court to support the the managers who oversaw the poor and improper licensing of this day care home.
I made a public disclosure request to find out how much taxpayer money they put into defending these state bureaucrats. Mary Kay Quinlan was the supervisor out of Pierce County and the jury found her at fault in this case.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General and under her watch other children died. The Attorney General's Office in my opinion has been used as a public defender lawyer to suppport DSHS management personnel from being held accountable for their failures.
The Attorney General's Office is required to serve the citizens of the state of Washington not entrenched bureaucratic managers.
I will be writing more details in the future. I'm buried with some other social justice work at the moment.
Please leave any questions you'd like me to clarify about the state's role in this matter.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Why is the Teacher's Union actively supporting misconduct?
From the Yakima Herald.com Online News.
Published on Sunday, September 14, 2008
Teacher-student sex: WEA makes an unwise move
Yakima Herald-Republic
"It's not good for teachers to have sex with students in high school under any circumstances. On that we can all agree.
But in seeking to clarify a law making it a crime for a teacher to have sex with an 18-year-old, the Washington Education Association appears to be doing a better job of further confusing the issue.
The union has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a case involving a Grays Harbor County teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old female student. The defense challenged the statute, saying a student who is 18 is considered an adult, therefore a teacher can't be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.
WEA's contention is that the law is vague and should be clarified as to whether the intent is to cover all students or just students who are minors. Yet filing a brief on behalf of a defendant at least gives the appearance of not only taking sides, but playing a game of semantics.
The law is vague. But why doesn't WEA move to clarify it in the Legislature, rather than taking sides in a lawsuit to protect a teacher accused of serious misconduct?
The defense appealed a Grays Harbor Superior Court ruling last year that the law was clear and a student can be a victim of the crime even if he or she is 18. Oral arguments in that case were heard Tuesday by a state appeals court.
To further muddy the legal waters, last month a Benton County Superior Court judge said the law is too vague as to what constitutes a minor in such situations and dismissed the charge against a former Richland High School music teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old student.
Such conflicting court interpretations alone signal the need for a legislative remedy. But let's make no mistake what the issue is that should be clarified: No teacher should have sexual contact with any student of any age through high school. Period, no exceptions. Teachers at that level simply are in a position to impose too much influence on impressionable students.
Beyond high school it's different, and the legal age of 18 is a legitimate plateau to be treated as an adult.
A spokesman for WEA said the union does not condone teachers having inappropriate sexual relationships with students of any age.
"Filing this brief should not be construed to mean that anybody within WEA condones inappropriate sexual conduct with students," Rich Wood, a spokesman for the union told the Tri-City Herald. "... It would be an insult to suggest our 81,000 members would condone that kind of behavior. They don't."
Blog note: They might want to take a survey on that as the Seattle Times a few years ago went to court and had 159 cases of sexual misconduct by coaches in the school districts (Seattle area if I remember right) unsealed.
Back to the Yakima article: "But WEA officials, by intervening in the case, appear to be revealing a bias and rush to protect a teacher under fire rather than using common sense. The union could have come out strongly for clarification of the law without becoming part of the court proceedings.
Any teacher guilty of that kind of sexual misconduct with any student should be banned from the teaching profession. It really doesn't matter if the student involved is 17 years and 11 months old or 18. And conviction should be treated as a criminal offense.
The law should be clarified to reflect that. On that we can agree with the teachers union."
Another website states students are covered under the law to be protected:
"Last year, Hirschfelder's attorney Rob Hill argued that the case should be dismissed because the girl was not a minor. Hill questioned the state law, which says, in part, that a person is guilty of first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor if "the person is a school employee who has ... sexual intercourse with a registered student of the school who is at least 16 years old and not married to the employee ..."
Superior Court Judge David Foscue ruled that there "is no ambiguity in the text of the statute."
Hill appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, Division 2 in Tacoma to be heard on Tuesday."
Published on Sunday, September 14, 2008
Teacher-student sex: WEA makes an unwise move
Yakima Herald-Republic
"It's not good for teachers to have sex with students in high school under any circumstances. On that we can all agree.
But in seeking to clarify a law making it a crime for a teacher to have sex with an 18-year-old, the Washington Education Association appears to be doing a better job of further confusing the issue.
The union has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a case involving a Grays Harbor County teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old female student. The defense challenged the statute, saying a student who is 18 is considered an adult, therefore a teacher can't be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.
WEA's contention is that the law is vague and should be clarified as to whether the intent is to cover all students or just students who are minors. Yet filing a brief on behalf of a defendant at least gives the appearance of not only taking sides, but playing a game of semantics.
The law is vague. But why doesn't WEA move to clarify it in the Legislature, rather than taking sides in a lawsuit to protect a teacher accused of serious misconduct?
The defense appealed a Grays Harbor Superior Court ruling last year that the law was clear and a student can be a victim of the crime even if he or she is 18. Oral arguments in that case were heard Tuesday by a state appeals court.
To further muddy the legal waters, last month a Benton County Superior Court judge said the law is too vague as to what constitutes a minor in such situations and dismissed the charge against a former Richland High School music teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old student.
Such conflicting court interpretations alone signal the need for a legislative remedy. But let's make no mistake what the issue is that should be clarified: No teacher should have sexual contact with any student of any age through high school. Period, no exceptions. Teachers at that level simply are in a position to impose too much influence on impressionable students.
Beyond high school it's different, and the legal age of 18 is a legitimate plateau to be treated as an adult.
A spokesman for WEA said the union does not condone teachers having inappropriate sexual relationships with students of any age.
"Filing this brief should not be construed to mean that anybody within WEA condones inappropriate sexual conduct with students," Rich Wood, a spokesman for the union told the Tri-City Herald. "... It would be an insult to suggest our 81,000 members would condone that kind of behavior. They don't."
Blog note: They might want to take a survey on that as the Seattle Times a few years ago went to court and had 159 cases of sexual misconduct by coaches in the school districts (Seattle area if I remember right) unsealed.
Back to the Yakima article: "But WEA officials, by intervening in the case, appear to be revealing a bias and rush to protect a teacher under fire rather than using common sense. The union could have come out strongly for clarification of the law without becoming part of the court proceedings.
Any teacher guilty of that kind of sexual misconduct with any student should be banned from the teaching profession. It really doesn't matter if the student involved is 17 years and 11 months old or 18. And conviction should be treated as a criminal offense.
The law should be clarified to reflect that. On that we can agree with the teachers union."
Another website states students are covered under the law to be protected:
"Last year, Hirschfelder's attorney Rob Hill argued that the case should be dismissed because the girl was not a minor. Hill questioned the state law, which says, in part, that a person is guilty of first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor if "the person is a school employee who has ... sexual intercourse with a registered student of the school who is at least 16 years old and not married to the employee ..."
Superior Court Judge David Foscue ruled that there "is no ambiguity in the text of the statute."
Hill appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, Division 2 in Tacoma to be heard on Tuesday."
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The WASL and children's learning in our public education system
The Columbian newspaper in August had an article about the WASL (Washington's Assessment of Student Learning) and reportedly reporting on how well the kids did. As it turns out the real issue is on how well the adults did.
I googled the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to see what I could research on this subject.
For "Writing", the OSPI on-line example had the 10th grade kids respond to this question:
"If your home was threatened by fire and you could safely retrieve one or two items before you leave for a secure place what you choose?" (and why?)
There goes all the fire safety training to keep our kids safe.
The ones OSPI liked least were the kids who directly answered the immediate question.
The first one wrote: "If my house were threatened by fire I would try and put the fire out and save everything but since you won't let me."
Another wrote she'd grab the cell phone to call people and a book to read to take her mind off what happened to her home.
The writings OSPI liked best were greater in length, descriptive and sentimental about the importance of various items to their families.
As a 10th grade kid who experienced a fire in her house I would have written very pragmatically myself: “I would call the fire department, grab nothing, and get everyone out. As the Fire Marshall tells us a house can fill with black smoke and be consumed by fire withing 90 seconds."
The adult who wrote this question needs to go to "critical thinking school" and the taxpayers/parents would absolutely be right to assess the public education system continues to fail our kids.
I googled the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to see what I could research on this subject.
For "Writing", the OSPI on-line example had the 10th grade kids respond to this question:
"If your home was threatened by fire and you could safely retrieve one or two items before you leave for a secure place what you choose?" (and why?)
There goes all the fire safety training to keep our kids safe.
The ones OSPI liked least were the kids who directly answered the immediate question.
The first one wrote: "If my house were threatened by fire I would try and put the fire out and save everything but since you won't let me."
Another wrote she'd grab the cell phone to call people and a book to read to take her mind off what happened to her home.
The writings OSPI liked best were greater in length, descriptive and sentimental about the importance of various items to their families.
As a 10th grade kid who experienced a fire in her house I would have written very pragmatically myself: “I would call the fire department, grab nothing, and get everyone out. As the Fire Marshall tells us a house can fill with black smoke and be consumed by fire withing 90 seconds."
The adult who wrote this question needs to go to "critical thinking school" and the taxpayers/parents would absolutely be right to assess the public education system continues to fail our kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)