132 replies to this topic

[SCA]

2Aces, I can only deal with the facts presented to me. At every meeting the board accepts notices of retirement. In my two years never have I asked an employee if he/she really wants to retire.

[2 Aces]

Sarah, this was different and you know that.

I am disappointed that you were afraid to address the elephant in the room. Deep down, you know that. Shame.

[SCA]

You're welcome, FolsomTrails. I appreciate thoughtful, respectful dialogues like these. As I've said multiple times, the point of an election is to evaluate candidates and vote for those who most align with your values. The past three school board elections (2016, 2014, 2012) have been uncontested. In other words, you get what you get.

[verdadcajero]

Another thought on this - why didn't this teacher fight the school board?  the teacher's union would have probably supplied a lawyer and paid all legal expenses.  but the guy is 70 years old, certainly ready to retire.  this was an easy out for him.  He'll go home with a big fat pension, top-of-the-line medical insurance for life, and the satisfaction that he went out with a bang.  What could be better?  He's the envy of teachers everywhere.

Only if you consider Medicare top-of-line medical insurance. He didn't need the money. He taught because it was his passion.

[SCA]

2Aces, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. One of the things that's difficult to understand is the role of the board versus the superintendent. You may have heard the saying that a school board only has one employee which is the superintendent, or a city council only has one employee which is the city manager. Personnel decisions are the responsibility of the superintendent. That probably sounds like passing the buck but the fastest way to a dysfunctional district is to have the board second guessing the superintendent at every turn. If the board has a problem with the superintendent's day to day running of the district, including personnel decisions, we take it up with the superintendent and it is reflected in annual reviews, her contract, etc. Regardless of all that, the facts are still the facts and the board accepted the teacher's notice to retire. I have received some good feedback from community members as a result of all this which I do intend to share with the Superintendent and my fellow board members. As evidenced by this thread there are multiple opinions on the subject and I personally have learned a lot.

[nomad]

Too bad the school board didn't have the guts to say, "no, we don't want you to retire if you don't WANT to retire". Gutless school board, IMO.

 

The school board is in serious damage control, that's why they are gutless. Recall a couple months ago the boys that supposedly pee'd into the special needs kids water bottle? Then this same guy with the racial equality comment a few weeks ago. And now this flag thing.

 

FCUSD is tired on being on KCRA so of course they wanted this one put away quickly. That and the board room was full of angry soccer moms. 

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

SCA, could you explain the policy FCUSD has regarding the teacher's use of offensive speech while teaching course material? Would the school board attempt to distinguish between a teacher's use of this speech as a personal opinion or as a vehicle to relate course material in a unique way? If this teacher had not opted to retire, what action, if any, would the school board have taken?

[danholein1]

I know this issue is fairly obvious that it may offend people but where do you draw the line when in our current environment everyone can claim to be offended by something? Who gets to make the decision on when someone can or cannot be offended? We are going to continue to have these isolated incidents in schools, work,etc. 

 

FT, This teacher retiring doesn't change his views as you have noted them.  He is still free, walking around able to offend again. How do you propose stopping these people from continuing to spew their hatred because losing their jobs doesn't resolve your underlying concern?

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

I know this issue is fairly obvious that it may offend people but where do you draw the line when in our current environment everyone can claim to be offended by something? Who gets to make the decision on when someone can or cannot be offended? We are going to continue to have these isolated incidents in schools, work,etc. 

 

FT, This teacher retiring doesn't change his views as you have noted them.  He is still free, walking around able to offend again. How do you propose stopping these people from continuing to spew their hatred because losing their jobs doesn't resolve your underlying concern?

 

danholein1, Offensive speech will never go away.  As stated before, there is no provision in the Bill of Rights that prohibits offensive speech.  And the 1st amendment is very clear that the government cannot limit or prohibit free speech of any kind (there are a very few exceptions, tho).  If people choose, they can be in a perpetual state of "offended" if they want. 

[Rich_T]

I know this issue is fairly obvious that it may offend people but where do you draw the line when in our current environment everyone can claim to be offended by something? Who gets to make the decision on when someone can or cannot be offended? We are going to continue to have these isolated incidents in schools, work,etc. 

 

FT, This teacher retiring doesn't change his views as you have noted them.  He is still free, walking around able to offend again. How do you propose stopping these people from continuing to spew their hatred because losing their jobs doesn't resolve your underlying concern?

 

 

Give it a rest, dude.  Mr. Rowe does not "spew hatred".  Stop inventing a caricature of the man, so that you can feel smug about attacking him.

 

I also love the "able to offend again", and the idea that it must be stopped somehow.  Geez.

[ducky]

 

 

Give it a rest, dude.  Mr. Rowe does not "spew hatred".  Stop inventing a caricature of the man, so that you can feel smug about attacking him.

 

I also love the "able to offend again", and the idea that it must be stopped somehow.  Geez.

 

Mr. Rowe?

[SCA]

SCA, could you explain the policy FCUSD has regarding the teacher's use of offensive speech while teaching course material? Would the school board attempt to distinguish between a teacher's use of this speech as a personal opinion or as a vehicle to relate course material in a unique way? If this teacher had not opted to retire, what action, if any, would the school board have taken?

[SCA]

In my opinion the teacher used a poor analogy in November to try to explain a difficult concept in the constitution. I can't speculate on what would have happened if the teacher had not chosen to retire.

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

In my opinion the teacher used a poor analogy in November to try to explain a difficult concept in the constitution. I can't speculate on what would have happened if the teacher had not chosen to retire.

 

OK,  what about the initial question?  Could you explain the policy FCUSD has regarding the teacher's use of offensive speech while teaching course material?  Is there a policy?