Vallas Will Fight Judge’s Order to Go

July 10, 2013 //

In response to a judge’s ruling that he lacks the proper credentials to be a superintendent in Connecticut, Paul Vallas will fight for the job. The attorney for the city will lodge an immediate appeal. The governor says it is a local issue, but says that if he ran Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans, he must be qualified even if he doesn’t meet the demands of the law.

Categories Vallas, Paul

27 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Linda says:

July 10, 2013 at 11:04 pm

The judge is certified. She ruled. This is now on Malloy and Pryor.

They wrote the law, signed it and now they want special deals.

Bottom line:

They wrote a law just for Vallas
It was part of Malloy’s bill
It passed and Malloy signed it
It took effect July 1, 2012
He needed simply to take a 13 month school leadership program
He didn’t even try until February of 2013
He took an independent study
He didn’t even register as a student
He broke the law
Pryor broke the law
He lost
The judge rulled he cannot continue
We are the constitution state
No one is above the law
Including all friends of Stefan, Dannel and Arne
The “elite” are not free to break the law
And we are drawing the line
No more

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  July 10, 2013 at 11:05 pm
  
  Typo…ruled.
  
  Reply
  - Harlem Music Teacher says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 12:03 am
    
    Michelle Rhee broke the law…and apparently she is “above” the law…
George Buzzetti says:

July 10, 2013 at 11:07 pm

Lay it out Linda. Bye, Bye Vallas. Listen to the Judge. Let them appeal. So what, they will lose. Let they scream. I hope they feel better as they lose.

Reply
Sherman Dorn (@shermandorn) says:

July 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm

While it may not be contempt of court, Vallas’s half-hearted stab at a single course looks pretty contemptuous. I think the general rule of thumb is that a judge will rule against you if you make clear by your actions you think the court is a fool.

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  July 10, 2013 at 11:19 pm
  
  Yes, it’s silly for him to follow a law….he is the reformiest rock star of of all reformy stars.
  
  He says:
  
  “Measuring effectiveness by seat time is a little silly,” Vallas said. “What am I supposed to do, run Bridgeport and sit in a class for 13 months?”
  
  Vallas said he expects to run the district until sometime in the next school, which will require him to negotiate the next collective bargaining agreement. After that?
  
  “I go in, fix the system, I move on to something else.”
  
  Would that something else be the financially broke state of Illinois, where Vallas still has a home, and where he ran for governor in 2002?
  
  “Let’s just say I’m still registered to vote (there),” he said.
  
  Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Paul-Vallas–213999671.html#ixzz2YhfqjJla
  
  Reply
M says:

July 10, 2013 at 11:52 pm

Does his arrogance have any end? Next he’s going to be saying it was an activist judge and that Bridgeport (and the other few hundred towns in CT that somehow get by with simple non-rockstar certified superintendents) absolutely NEEDS him.

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  July 11, 2013 at 12:00 am
  
  Actually he already said something similar. When asked about the status of Chicago, Philly and NOLA and how is reforms were not sustainable, he said, “Maybe it’s because I am not there anymore.”
  
  Reply
Lehrer says:

July 11, 2013 at 5:28 am

Hmmm…let’s imagine for a minute that a teacher is hired in CT under an emergency provision and given a year to complete coursework needed for certification. At the end of that year, that teacher had not fulfilled the requirements for certification. The teacher loses the position. I can’t even imagine the political hay that would be made if that teacher went to the CEA and fought for his or her job. As DINO Dan Malloy so infamously told us, we teachers only have to show up for work to get tenure. He would publicly cite this issue as another reason why CT teachers need closer scrutiny and greater accountability.

Reply
- Cosmic Tinkerer says:
  
  July 11, 2013 at 6:02 am
  
  Yes, and especially if that same teacher tried to use the excuse Vallas provided –that he was too busy doing his job to be able to sit in a classroom for 13 months. When it’s this evident that education “reformers” scorn education themselves, it’s time to cut the cord.
  
  Reply
Galton says:

July 11, 2013 at 7:32 am

My how things can change. So very sad to see the tennasippification of Connecticut and North Carolina 😦

Reply
Bill Morrison says:

July 11, 2013 at 8:19 am

Malloy’s comparison with Chicago is disingenuous. Even if Vallas was qualified there, he still isn’t qualified under CT law. Each of us knows this as does Malloy.

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  July 11, 2013 at 8:22 am
  
  And as Karen Lewis reports he wasn’t a Superintendent in Chicago; his title was CEO.
  
  Reply
  - Chi-Town Res says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 9:36 am
    
    Exactly. Neither Vallas nor Duncan were qualified to work in any other school district in Illinois, nor would they be permitted to do so today, because the state has extensive education, experience and certification requirements for administrative and teaching positions.
    
    The only reason why they were able to oversee the Chicago Public Schools was because the mayor of Chicago asked the state legislature to amend the School Code as it applies to Chicago (for populations over 500,00), in order to permit mayoral control in 1995, which includes mayoral appointment of a CEO of schools.
  - Yvonne Siu-Runyan says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    
    Like Duncan was CEO…no credentials at all!
Linda says:

July 11, 2013 at 8:23 am

Mercedes, what was his title in NOLA?

Reply
Middle school teacher says:

July 11, 2013 at 9:17 am

http://nhregister.com/articles/2013/07/10/news/doc51dd79c459801185986180.txt?mobredir=false

Here is more Connecticut news: Gov. Malloy now wants “flexibility” with respect to his new reformy programs (see the link above). There are 2 components: (1) Districts could choose to administer the new Smarter Balanced CCSS tests or the traditional Connecticut standardized tests (CMTs and CAPT). (2) Districts could decide to use student test scores as a part of teacher evaluations (as set forth in Malloy’s new legislation piloted last school year) or hold off and do traditional evaluations.

I live in a district that piloted the new teacher evaluation program; it was an infuriating, time-wasting mess. However, our local school board is dominated by members who think all this reformy baloney is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they just LOVE the idea of weeding out all the Bad Teachers with Low Expectations who are Failing our Children. (They already spent God knows how much money on time clocks. Next year we all have to punch in and out.) I fully expect my district to exercise “flexibility” by choosing to administer the new Smarter Balanced tests AND counting them for teacher evaluations. Then, if large numbers of students do poorly they will have “evidence” that the teachers are bad and should be fired.

Then again, maybe I’m just a tad paranoid. As an older teacher with quite a few years in the classroom and two advanced degrees, I am compensated well. Why do these facts, which have always been a source of pride, now make me feel I have a target on my back?

As for the Paul Vallas situation, here’s my advice to him: Go back to school. Pay tuition. Interact with other learners. Don’t set yourself up as an educational leader when you demonstrate contempt for higher learning.

Reply
Chi-Town Res says:

July 11, 2013 at 9:43 am

If anyone knows someone involved in the lawsuits against Vallas in CT, please pass this info on, which I posted last week:

The Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport decision of June 28, 2013 says,

“Before his arrival, Vallas served as a school teacher in the 1970s and later was an instructor at a military academy run by the United States National Guard” http://www.scribd.com/doc/150609033/Vallas-Bridgeport-Decision (All of that was news to me.)

If this information is what Vallas tendered to the court and it’s a fabrication, it would be perjury.

Isn’t it incumbent upon the Bridgeport Board of Ed, the CT DoE, the state legislature, the Supreme Court , SOMEONE to check out and verify these “credentials”?????

Reply
Chi-Town Res says:

July 11, 2013 at 9:54 am

If anyone wants to see what Vallas “accomplished” in Chicago, please read the report, “Chicago School Reform: Lessons for the Nation” including the chapter entitled “The Vallas era: Test-driven policies produce poor results” by FairTest and Parents United for Responsible Education (2007): http://pureparents.org/data/files/Final%20report.pdf

Reply
FLERP! says:

July 11, 2013 at 10:18 am

Has anyone considered Vallas’s chances of winning on appeal?

Reply
- Teacher Ed says:
  
  July 11, 2013 at 10:28 am
  
  Of, course, but we are not lawyers. As an attorney yourself, what do you think his chances of winning are? Doesn’t that have to be based on procedural grounds, rather than a refutation of the actual decision?
  
  If it is based on the decision, as a college professor, I think the judge is correct in declaring a “course”, which Vallas admitted could have been completed in a week, to not be a “program”, since programs typically consist of several courses and last at least 13 months in that state.
  
  Reply
  - Linda says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 10:30 am
    
    Here is some legalese for you…read this three times:
    
    Sec. 61-14. Review of Order concerning
    Stay; When Stay May Be Requested from
    Court Having Appellate Jurisdiction
    (Amended July 23, 1998, to take effect Jan. 1, 1999.)
    The sole remedy of any party desiring the court
    to review an order concerning a stay of execution
    shall be by motion for review under Section
    66-6.
    
    Execution of an order of the court terminating
    a stay of execution shall be stayed for ten days
    from the issuance of notice of the order, and if a
    motion for review is filed within that period, the
    order shall be stayed pending decision of the
    motion, unless the court having appellate jurisdiction
    rules otherwise.
  - Linda says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 10:35 am
    
    By the way, I meant that as a knock on the never ending loopholes and delay tactics allowed for the “elite”. I had to read it a few times myself.
  - FLERP! says:
    
    July 11, 2013 at 11:51 am
    
    In this case I was truly asking if anyone had considered it, as I haven’t followed the merits closely enough to have anything intelligent to say. I may try to take a look today or tomorrow. I would think it could be procedural or substantive, at least in theory.
- Linda says:
  
  July 11, 2013 at 10:29 am
  
  Yes, I am confident (from what I have read) the retired judge, the parent and their lawyers have considered the appeal. Right now this is a simple synopsis, not that I need to simplify it for you Flerp!
  
  They can go to the Appellate Court and ask that Court to reinstate the STAY. If the Appellate Court does not act or denies it, it is over. They will have to find that Judge Bellis acted in error and abused her discretion when terminating the STAY.
  
  Of course, once you get to a higher court is there a chance it becomes more political and someone owes someone or do they just rule on the law?
  
  That I don’t know. I will wait for Flerp to advise.
  
  Reply
Linda says:

July 11, 2013 at 10:39 am

To Flerp….he is a summary of events leading up to the case and where CT stands now:

Connecticut’s superior court has ruled that Paul Vallas lacks the legal credentials to serve as Bridgeport’s superintendent of schools.

Governor Malloy’s Commissioner of Education violated Connecticut law when he waived Vallas’ certification requirements because Vallas had not completed a school leadership program as required.

The Connecticut court further ruled that because Vallas lacks the appropriate requirements to hold the job he must leave the position immediately.

And without any approval by the Bridgeport City Council or the Bridgeport Board of Education, the taxpayers of Bridgeport (and Connecticut) are paying for Vallas’ legal fees

THE FACTS:

Read more:

http://jonathanpelto.com/2013/07/11/vallas-fiasco-continues-ct-taxpayers-inappropriately-paying-vallas-legal-bill/

Reply
paula says:

July 11, 2013 at 11:35 am

I love CT, I wish we could do the same to Deasy in L.A. but the point here is that this man and many other superintendents who fancy themselves stars in the reform movement, have contempt for education and do what he did, cut corners to achieve his end.Well informed school districts and boards should not hire people who they haven’t investigated regarding qualifications and experience. Decisions made based on cronyism and politics will come back to bite you in the butt. As regards the appeal on Vallas, how dare the City Council and Board use taxpayers money to file an appeal for this loser, maybe they should be investigated also.

Reply