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.
6 comments:
I read the bill as well and could really find no relevance to the CTA's notion that the bill goes against gays and lesbians.
This is quite disgusting.
The NEA/CTA really needs to change its 21st Century strategy. We have the Internet now, and so everything they do is far more transparent.
They're beginning to look even worse than they ever have before. It's clear that they continue to protect 'bad' teachers. Perhaps their focus on homosexual teachers has something to do with the amount of homosexual teachers who are possibly charged with these types of crimes...ya think?
That data is probably impossible to access from the CTA, but its a thought.
I'm confused, the bill didn't seem to have the words "gay" or "lesbian" in it. These descriptions were only listed under CTA's argument.
But, then again, why does it matter? A sex offender is a sex offender, and they shouldn't be anywhere near our classrooms.
Should we allow any criminals in the classroom? This is what background checks are for. If we don't start making our good teachers great, we're going to keep losing students to homeschoolings.
Sexual and violent criminals are in a special category relative to children, a category entirely different from a DUI or shoplifting. IMHO.
I don't see the gay & lesbian connection. Point is to elimate the posibilty of sexual criminals from entering our classrooms and preying on innocent or not-so-innocent children. If your not gulity you don't have anything to worry about.
Post a Comment