THE ACTUAL DECISION HERE
James Ryan, dean of Harvard University’s graduate school of education, said the verdict “will likely cause lawyers in other states to think about bringing similar suits.” But he pointed out that the decision explicitly called on the state Legislature to fix the unconstitutional statues at issue. As a result, there will likely be “back-and-forth” between the Legislature and courts for many years to come.
Silicon Valley mogul David F. Welch, founder of an optical-telecommunications firm, who created Students Matter, an advocacy group, to challenge teachers unions in California. Welch pumped several million dollars into the effort. Students Matter is considering similar lawsuits in New York, Connecticut and other states with teacher job protections similar to those in California, Boutrous said.
The court found that the nine student plaintiffs and their team had proven both of their points. One, that California’s laws directly cause students to be unreasonably exposed to grossly ineffective teachers. And two, that poor and minority students, in particular, are saddled with those teachers. The ruling was so complete that the judge declared every state law in question unconstitutional:
-California teachers are permitted to earn lifetime employment after a mere 18 months in class, well before they could truly earn that status or even be properly evaluated for it. The upshot, said the judge, is that “both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily and for no legally cognizable reasons (let alone a compelling one) disadvantaged.”
-The dismissal process for grossly ineffective teachers in California is so complex and costly that it does not work; many districts do not even bother trying. That leaves thousands of underperforming teachers knowingly remaining in front of students. The judge blasted the system as so problematic that it turned dismissal into an illusion.
-California’s “last-in, first-out” law gives top priority in a time of layoffs to ineffective teachers if they have seniority while better teachers with fewer years are sent packing. The judge called that a lose-lose situation, supported by logic that was “unfathomable.”
Now what? In California, the ruling is on hold pending appeal, but the precedent has been set.
The Vergara case reflects just the start of opportunities for action in other states, where many leaders are searching for better ways to evaluate teachers.
California school districts employ roughly 280,000 full-time equivalent teachers, and the average annual teacher’s salary is just under $70,000.
In 37 states, including New York, states still make decisions on whether to grant tenure — protected employment — to teachers in three years or less.
In 33 states — again, including New York — states do not consider classroom performance in deciding which teachers go in a systemwide layoff. Instead of merit, they favor length of service.
And in 38 states, the cumbersome teacher dismissal process allows multiple appeals. This is not due process; it is an undue burden on those trying to protect teacher quality. And it can be dangerous. In New York, even teachers accused of sexual misconduct have stayed on the job.
It would be no surprise to see parents in New York and elsewhere take the cue of the Vergara plaintiffs and take matters into their own hands. It is empowering to know the courts can help.
“This is a huge deal,” said Sandi Jacobs, a policy director for the National Council on Teacher Quality, a privately funded group that aims to change states’ teacher-employment policies. “This has a huge ripple effect nationally in telling policy makers that policies that harm students can be challenged,” said Ms. Jacobs, who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.
Ms. Jacobs’s group points to Florida, Indiana and Colorado as having what it considers to be best-practice policies where classroom performance is a “top criterion” to be considered in layoff decisions.
It should never have come to this: Students taking on the powerful governments and teachers unions, all to challenge laws that inexplicably and directly lead to a worse public education.
DESPITE the earthquakes of reform that have rattled public education in recent years, there are parts of the system that still resemble “The Lost World”, where prehistoric creatures still roam. A long-standing demand of education reformers has been that it should be easier for schools to fire bad teachers. The terms in many teacher contracts forbid this. Most schools when making cuts are forced to fire the newest teachers rather than the worst ones—a policy is better known as “last in, first out”. The result is that a lot of bad (and often expensive) teachers linger in the system.
Having lousy teachers is terrible for children and their future prospects. Pupils assigned to better teachers are more likely to go to college and earn decent salaries, and are less likely to be teenage mothers, according to work published in 2011. If teachers in grades 4 to 8 are ranked according to ability, and the bottom 5% are replaced with teachers of average quality, a class’s cumulative lifetime income is raised by $250,000. Bill Gates once pointed out that if every child had mathematics teachers as good as those in the top quartile, the achievement gap between America and Asia would vanish in two years.
Owing to the glut of studies showing that teacher quality is more important than a classroom’s size, income level or access to high-tech wizardry, 18 states and Washington, DC, now require tenure decisions to be “informed” by measures of whether a teacher is any good. Fifteen states and DC are using teacher efficacy as a factor in deciding whom to lay off. And in 23 states teachers can now be sacked if their evaluations are unsatisfactory.
California, though, was one of these Jurassic Lost Worlds where the dinosaurs of the teaching world still roared. Its mighty teachers’ unions helped it withstand change. But thanks to a lawsuit brought by Students Matter, an advocacy group formed by David Welch, a rich entrepreneur from Silicon Valley, all this may now change. Mr Welch (with the help of some extremely expensive lawyers) has just won a case challenging teacher tenure, and a Los Angeles court has now ruled that job protections are unconstitutional. The court struck down five teacher-tenure laws.
The lawsuit, brought on behalf of nine schoolchildren, concentrated on three areas: teacher tenure, dismissal procedures and the seniority rules. The plaintiffs had argued that the rules resulted in grossly ineffective teachers obtaining and retaining permanent employment, and these teachers were disproportionately in schools serving low-income and minority students. The judge said this violated fundamental rights to equal education. “There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms,” he said, adding that “the evidence is compelling. Indeed it shocks the conscience.”
Implementation of the ruling has been stayed pending appeals. The California Teachers Association has promised a fight. Teachers complain that they can now be fired on unreasonable grounds, and they have criticised the circumvention of the legislative process. But Mr Welch has said he felt obliged to go through the courts after watching union-backed Democrats repeatedly resist attempts at reform. From the start he and his allies were keen to frame the case as a defence of children’s civil rights, not an attack on teachers. John Deasy, the superintendent of the Los Angeles school district, compared the denial of adequate education to ethnic-minority children to the refusal of café owners to serve coffee to black students over 50 years ago.
This decision is one for the history books, says the National Council on Teacher Quality, a reformist research group. Even Mr Welch’s legal team sounded surprised at the scale of their victory.
The ruling will affect one in eight public-school children in America, thanks to the size of California’s education system, and could resonate well beyond the Golden State. As the NCTQ announced, “this landmark case should put states across the country on notice: policies that are not in the best interest of students cannot stand.” Roars of approval all around.
The case began with courageous students, because they had to endure the nightmare: grossly incompetent teachers, mainly in poor and minority schools, protected by state laws. And when the court ruling thundered down Tuesday, the impact was profoundly clear: Students, you win.
Sweeping and unambiguous, the outcome of Vergara v. California is more than one decision in one big state, although even that much is significant given the shudders it will cause. It is an indictment of laws in any state that protect inferior teachers at the expense of students — and a powerful inspiration for other families nationwide who will turn to the courts out of desperation.
It is precisely because of its spillover national implications that this case has had so many people watching, and they all just became witnesses to history. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu said the evidence of the deleterious effect of ineffective teachers on students is so compelling that it “shocks the conscience” — a line that instantly gave voice to countless parents.
The court found that the nine student plaintiffs and their team had proven both of their points. One, that California’s laws directly cause students to be unreasonably exposed to grossly ineffective teachers. And two, that poor and minority students, in particular, are saddled with those teachers. The ruling was so complete that the judge declared every state law in question unconstitutional:
-California teachers are permitted to earn lifetime employment after a mere 18 months in class, well before they could truly earn that status or even be properly evaluated for it. The upshot, said the judge, is that “both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily and for no legally cognizable reasons (let alone a compelling one) disadvantaged.”
-The dismissal process for grossly ineffective teachers in California is so complex and costly that it does not work; many districts do not even bother trying. That leaves thousands of underperforming teachers knowingly remaining in front of students. The judge blasted the system as so problematic that it turned dismissal into an illusion.
-California’s “last-in, first-out” law gives top priority in a time of layoffs to ineffective teachers if they have seniority while better teachers with fewer years are sent packing. The judge called that a lose-lose situation, supported by logic that was “unfathomable.”
Now what? In California, the ruling is on hold pending appeal, but the precedent has been set.
The Vergara case reflects just the start of opportunities for action in other states, where many leaders are searching for better ways to evaluate teachers.
In 37 states, including New York, states still make decisions on whether to grant tenure — protected employment — to teachers in three years or less.
In 33 states — again, including New York — states do not consider classroom performance in deciding which teachers go in a systemwide layoff. Instead of merit, they favor length of service.
And in 38 states, the cumbersome teacher dismissal process allows multiple appeals. This is not due process; it is an undue burden on those trying to protect teacher quality. And it can be dangerous. In New York, even teachers accused of sexual misconduct have stayed on the job.
It would be no surprise to see parents in New York and elsewhere take the cue of the Vergara plaintiffs and take matters into their own hands. It is empowering to know the courts can help.
It should never have come to this: Students taking on the powerful governments and teachers unions, all to challenge laws that inexplicably and directly lead to a worse public education.
Brown is former anchor for CNN and NBC and and founder of Parents’ Transparency Project, an education advocacy group.
Calling it a landmark decision, lawyers for the plaintiffs said that California was just the start of a planned effort to knock down tenure in a state-by-state campaign across the country. Those who have opposed tenure — from both the right and the left — have long said that the protection is an impediment to stronger U.S. education because it keeps bad teachers in the nation’s classrooms. Tuesday’s decision could mark a new front in national education reform, with attacks on tenure moving into the courtroom.
“This is going to be the beginning of a series of these lawsuits that could fix many of the problems in education systems nationwide,” said plaintiffs attorney Theodore Boutrous, who was joined in the effort against tenure by former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson. The same legal team won a U.S. Supreme Court victory that allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California. “We’re going to roll them out to other jurisdictions.”
Boutrous and Olson were among several prominent lawyers hired by Silicon Valley mogul David F. Welch, founder of an optical-telecommunications firm, who created Students Matter, an advocacy group, to challenge teachers unions in California. Welch pumped several million dollars into the effort. Students Matter is considering similar lawsuits in New York, Connecticut and other states with teacher job protections similar to those in California, Boutrous said.
The ruling was a serious blow to labor unions, whose core mission is to protect teachers’ jobs. The judge issued a stay pending an appeal by the unions, and a final resolution could take years.
John Deasy, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District and a witness for the plaintiffs, called it a “historic day.”
“We can rectify a catastrophe,” Deasy said. “We can and will and must assure that children have the most effective teachers in their classrooms every day. Not some children, not most children, not even nearly all children. But all children.”
Labor leaders said the case is part of a broad assault on unions, as government workers make up more than half of the nation’s union membership.
“Let’s be clear: This lawsuit was never about helping students, but is yet another attempt by millionaires and corporate special interests to undermine the teaching profession and push their own ideological agenda on public schools and students while working to privatize public education,” Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, said in a statement.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the lawsuit focused on the relatively small pool of “grossly ineffective” teachers — estimated at 1 percent to 3 percent of California’s 275,000 teachers — and ignores other factors that affect the quality of education, especially for poor children.
“It’s surprising that the court, which used its bully pulpit when it came to criticizing teacher protections, did not spend one second discussing funding inequities, school segregation, high poverty or any other out-of-school or in-school factors that are proven to affect student achievement and our children,” Weingarten said.
Tenure and related employment laws in California protect teachers from arbitrary firings, reward experienced teachers and make teaching an appealing career option, Van Roekel said. The ruling will make it more difficult to attract and retain high-quality teachers, he said.
But the plaintiffs argued that California’s laws make it too difficult to get rid of ineffective teachers, costing districts as much as $450,000 in each instance and taking 10 years in one case, according to one trial witness.
In a 16-page ruling, in the case of Vergara v. California, Treu struck down three state laws as unconstitutional. The laws grant tenure to teachers after two years, require layoffs by seniority, and call for a complex and lengthy process before a teacher can be fired.
Treu said the evidence presented at trial “is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”
Defendants in the case, including Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and other state officials, were joined by the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers.
In many ways, the case was a proxy fight for some of the national conflicts over the teaching profession.
Backing Welch were some of the most incendiary players in the fight over the future of public schools, including Michelle Rhee, the former schools chancellor in Washington who got rid of tenure in the District in 2009 and went on to form an advocacy group aimed at eliminating it across the country.
“It is my hope that this movement continues on the national stage for all of our students,” said Rhee, who is now chief executive of Students First.
For the unions, the ruling poses a serious threat to tenure, which was first adopted by New Jersey in 1909 to protect teachers from firings on the basis of race, pregnancy, politics or other arbitrary factors.
It figures that New Jersey would be the cause of this fucking mess. A shit state filled with shitheads that all have their heads up their assess!
The California unions have staved off attempts to change the laws through the legislature, leading Welch to try through the courts.
Welch used a novel civil rights approach, arguing that poor and minority students in California are being denied their right under the state constitution to equal access to public education because they are more likely than affluent white students to be taught by “grossly ineffective” teachers.
Under the laws struck down by the court, school districts have about 18 months after a teacher is hired to award tenure. That is not enough time to make a valid decision, the judge found, noting that California is one of only five states with a period of two years or less. Thirty two states have a three-year period and nine states have four- or five-year periods. Four states have no tenure system.
The complaint also attacked seniority rules and “last in, first out” policies, which say the newest teachers are the first to be laid off when jobs are cut, regardless of performance.
Since 2010, Republican governors and legislatures have been trying to eliminate or weaken teacher tenure laws. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida and a potential Republican presidential candidate who heads an education foundation, applauded the ruling, saying “its impact will be felt well beyond California.”
Some Democrats also joined in cheering Tuesday’s verdict.
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), an old-school liberal and the top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, suggested that the anti-tenure movement ought to spread beyond California. “It is not only Californians who should celebrate today’s decision, but families in every state and school district across the country,” Miller said. “Unfortunately, school districts nationwide have policies in place that mirror those challenged in Vergara. . . . This is simply indefensible. Today’s ruling puts every school with similar policies on notice.”
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan also criticized tenure laws.
“The students who brought this lawsuit are, unfortunately, just nine out of millions of young people in America who are disadvantaged by laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students,” Duncan said in a statement.