(Mensaje se repite en Español)
What kind of a credible and independent audit of the costs related to LAUSD's removal of allegedly bad teachers can the State of California Auditor objectively perform, when it goes into the audit without questioning anything LAUSD tells them?
While there is no question that it is an expensive proposition to keep charged teachers sitting around often for years on end, while having to pay their salaries and those of their subsitutes, the California State Auditor in their recently released audit of this practice never once mentions nor takes into consideration the fact that LAUSD actually saves a fortune in the end, when it is able to rid itself- by hook or by crook or by fabricated charges- of teachers at the top of the salary scale with expensive benefits packages and the further cost of expensive lifetime health benefits, if it doesn't move to get rid of them- one way or another- before they vest.
The State Auditor presumes from the beginning of its audit that there is an actual net cost and not a net savings achieved when LAUSD targets, removes, and ultimately fires high seniority teachers. It doesn't even consider there just might be an actual savings to LAUSD of $60,000 a year in combined salary and benefits in just the first year these teachers are gone. Simply stated, a major component of what this audit should have looked into has been completely ignored and omitted. And with this blatant omission goes any chance of this audit having any validity or those at LAUSD who continue to perpetrate this fraud being held accountable for their criminal behavior.
For only one small illustration in this flawed audit- and what can only be considered a purposeful oversight- one only need look at what is not considered here and elsewhere in the attached State audit. For example, while this audit says: "For a selection of 18 reassignments[teachers being charged], costs per case ranged from about $7,000 to nearly $315,000 during the period we reviewed." However, no information or statistics of any kind are given as to how many of these teachers- 93% of whom in unaudited reality were at the top of the salary scale- were forced out and replaced by fresh out of college "teachers" working on an emergency credential for $35,000, instead of $80,000 a year. And, of course, also with a significantly less expensive benefits packages.
If just 16 of these forced out teachers were at the top of the salary scale, the average cost of removing them was $19,687.50, while again the savings to the District was approximately $60,000, leaving a net savings to LAUSD of $40312.50. And that's in just the first year of this gift to the District that keeps on giving as long as teachers continue to be dissuaded from sticking around too long.
It is worth mentioning that both my attorney and I contacted the California State Auditor during their audit with sworn evidence to prove that LAUSD's is actuallysaving money in the long run on teachers' jail, their substitutes, and all the out of pocket costs it immediately recoups, when it forces these good high seniority teachers out. I was assured by several people in the California Auditor's office that they would look into this...
And of course, how or why could the public be concerned, if they are constantly told by media marching in lock step with LAUSD that this is about the costs of dealing with "teacher misconduct" and not a felonious scam (see Penal Code 132-134) to get rid of high seniority teachers, so the District can save money to squander elsewhere, which is why they needed to target senior teachers in the first place.
There's no way LAUSD or the California Auditor could get away with this criminal calumny without the complete cooperation of the mainstream and public media that refuses to report what is actually going on and why.
If you have any doubts, just read reporter Howard Blume's Los Angeles Times LAUSD party line article about this recent state audit that unquestioningly parrots LAUSD's position that this is only about teacher misconduct:
Do you think its a coincidence that every time the issue of teacher misconduct is mentioned that a picture of convicted pervert teacher Mark Berndt is hauled out to paint all teachers with that same pervet brush? Could that be why one element of the Rafe Esquith vs. LAUSD class action suit is defamation...and another is age discrimination?
If you or someone you know has been targeted and are in the process of being dismissed and need legal defense, get in touch:
Blogs We Love
Do you find the media and their "teachers-suck," "power to principals," "privatization is the best thing that's happened to public schools" disgusting and distasteful? The powers that be may "control" the main media but it's people like us who control the SOCIAL MEDIA. Hungry for more information about crusading educators going against the grain to do what's right for teachers, unions, communities, and children? Check out some more blogs below:
- EdWize UFT
- Protect Portelos
- Hemlock on the Rocks
- NYC Educator
- NYC Rubber Room Reporter and ATR
- MORE Caucus
- NYC Eye
- South Bronx School
- Chaz's School Daze
- With a Brooklyn Accent
- Urban Ed
- Ed in the Apple
- Jose Vilson Blog
- Raging Horse Blog
- Accountable Talk
- Ed Law FAQs
- The Assailed Teacher
- EdNotes Online