RUSD 9/6 Board meeting: Video showing Rocklin Teachers’ Union ‘Bad Teachers’

Some folks in our community feel that parents should not have the right to know what public schools are teaching their children and the PRESIDENT of the ROCKLIN teacher’s union is one of them.

Video from RUSD 9/6 Board Meeting: Why should any employee, especially Rocklin Teachers Association President Travis, get to talk like this to their manager/employer/customers? (Parents)?

Next video from the RUSD 9/6 Board Meeting: Placer County Teacher’s Union President Mike Patterson threatens RUSD Board- why?

‘O’n 9/6/23 the Rocklin Unified School District teachers’ union president and the Placer County teachers’ union president both attended a Rocklin Unified School Board meeting and declared that the teachers they represent are OK keeping information from parents. Additionally, the Rocklin Unified School District teachers’ union president stated that he would lead his union to sue the board before Rocklin Unified School District teachers’ would follow the Rocklin School Board policy. (shared above)

In Rocklin, the annual education bill is about $150 Million a year and that pays for about 12,000 students to be taught by about 900 teachers.

The Rocklin teacher’s association president clearly states to his elected leadership that he will not follow their policy. Is that ok? Should voters in Rocklin care? Should the City Council care?

School boards were created to represent the people who send their children to public schools. Voters, tax payers, adults make provision for the community’s children and we do that because we care about every child.

Today, sports, drama, iPhones, bullying, self-esteem, peer groups, sex education, homosexuality and transgender issues are now mixed in with subjects such as language, science, mathematics, history, geography, and a variety of electives. Those are just some of the things local school boards have to manage. The Rocklin Unified School District Board is no exception and took on the issue of parents rights. It appears that they listened to their constituents and despite the pressure that the teachers are putting on them, 4 members of the RUSD Board chose to have open communications with the district’s customers: Parents. Our community needs to thank RUSD Trustees Counter, Saathoff, Price and Hupp for listening to the folks that elected them.

Parents produce and raise children, and those children tend to attend public schools. Taxpayers (parents) fund those schools because we care about the kids and want them to grow up in a way that gives the kids a hope for a good/better life.

For some reason- the city’s teachers’ union president and the county’s teachers’ union president made a choice to come and threaten the Rocklin School Board because the Rocklin School Board wants to keep parents informed. Why would the teachers think they could make this threat?

Why is it now necessary for school boards to create policies guaranteeing parents the right to know what’s going on in the schools they pay to support?

While the Federal Laws concerning the relationship between the parent, the child and a school district employee did not change, the state of California’s laws on these issues did change, a little. While the teachers’ union representatives would suggest that California has laws that allow a district employee to choose not to share any issue with a parent, federal law does not.

It’s important to remember that with all laws, they really are not established until they have been seasoned via court challenges. This has not really happened with these new fangled California Laws.

Federal Law as a Guiding Precept: Amid the drama, it is essential to remember that Federal law is the guiding law in many matters and transcends state boundaries and regulations. Especially if the Federal government budgets and shares collected tax revenue with you.

The teachers’ union is challenging RUSD’s policy via ‘new’ California state laws that have not been really tested in court. The RUSD Board (and parents) defense finds its roots in the landscape of Federal laws regarding students’ rights and parental involvement in their child’s life. These Federal laws have been well seasoned with many trips to court over the last 200 years.

While WUP has collected some of policies, laws and court orders that should be considered by the community, and the teachers’, before they attack the RUSD Board (see end of the article) an important legal plank that anchors the actions that the RUSD (and the Dry Creek Joint Union Elementary School District) took can be easily understood by reviewing an argument that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s made in his court order against the Escondido Union School District a few weeks ago (Summer 2023).

Judge Benitez points out that the school staff, and the student, lose their claim that a student should be able to keep their conversations private if the school allows a child to change their name (or change their identity) once its openly discussed at school. IF the name change/sex change/other is being discussed openly at school – the item in question cannot be expected to be a private one.

You can read Judge Benitez’ Federal Court Order here:

There are MANY other arguments that establish parent’s right to be a parent and do not allow a school employee to assume that role- some of the case laws are listed below. The idea that a school employee could shield any issue that would be openly discussed at the school from that child’s parent is a crazy line of reasoning.

Why would a community allow a teacher to grab that kind of power without some court hearing or review? No one can take rights from a person unless the court orders it.

Most schools have made anti-bullying a policy. Apparently, the two Teachers’ Union Presidents didn’t read the policy memo on bullying. I think members of the community have read the memo and we need to reach out to the following groups to let them know that we will not support teachers, or their union.

As always, we think that if you see this as an important issue we ask that you call the local paper and ask them to cover the issue, in a complete way.

You can reach them below. (Be polite but firm.)

However– we also think that it’s VITAL that the Rocklin teachers’ union hears from the community. If you think the teachers are right, tell us (and them). On the other hand if you think they are wrong (or silly), POLITELY call the RUSD and share your thoughts.

The Gold Country Media Group – they own the city papers in Auburn, Rocklin, Roseville, Loomis, and Lincoln.

John Love, Publisher – General Manager

Phone: 916-774-7939

Email: johnl@goldcountrymedia.com

Rocklin Unified School District can be reached at (916) 624-2428- we are assuming you can leave a message for the silly teachers union with the district.

NOTE: We at WUP are just starting out on this journey of microblogging/news papering/other.

As we create articles – a goal of ours is to seek feedback from our readers.

We welcome your comments – please send us an email at: wakeupplacer@gmail.com

(On this issue – if you are jerky, we will be jerky back)

Collection of SOME policies/laws that need to be included in complete review of parents’ rights/student privacy issues listed below.

If you think we should add more- please send them in to us.

State Laws:

1. California Education Code Section 49063: This section outlines parental rights to access their child’s school records.

State Education Code:

1. California Education Code Section 220: This section prohibits discrimination in public education on the basis of various characteristics, including gender and gender identity.
2. California Education Code Section 201: This section deals with parental rights and responsibilities in the education of their children.

Federal Laws:

1. Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution): Establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land, overriding state laws when they conflict.
2. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA): A federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.
3. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Guarantees freedom of speech and religion, which are relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
4. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and activities, including issues related to gender identity.

Federal Case Law:

1. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (555 U.S. 7, 2008): Establishes the criteria for granting preliminary injunctions, including the likelihood of success on the merits.
2. Baird v. Bonta (2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23760): Provides guidance on how a finding of likely success on constitutional claims impacts other factors in a preliminary injunction analysis.
3. Elrod v. Burns (427 U.S. 347, 1976): Established that the deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury.
4. Nken v. Holder (556 U.S. 418, 2009): Addresses the merging of factors in preliminary injunction analysis when the nonmovant is the government.
5. Riley’s Am. Heritage Farms v. Elsasser (32 F.4th 707, 2022): Emphasizes that preventing the violation of constitutional rights is always in the public interest.

+++