Benicia teachers group chief says Vergara decision ‘very disappointing’
Benicia Teachers’ Association President Carleen Maselli said her organization is “very disappointed” in a judge’s findings that California teacher tenure violates students’ constitutional right to equal educational opportunities.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu listened to two months of evidence and testimony in the case, Vergara v. California, before siding Tuesday with nine students from Oakland, Los Angeles and other cities who brought the lawsuit.
The students claimed tenure, which can be awarded after two years of employment, protected “grossly ineffective” teachers who were assigned in greater numbers to those schools with minority or lower-income students.
They also said they had been assigned to teachers who were unprepared to teach, who would berate students and dismiss their aspirations as out of reach, and who let their classrooms get out of control.
Among the witnesses called, Los Angeles School Superintendent John Deasy said it can take from two to 10 years to dismiss a tenured teacher, with costs ranging from $250,000 to $450,000.
Treu agreed. “Evidence has been elicited in this trial of the specific effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students. The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience,” he said.
“There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms.”
Treu said the students, represented by attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., had provided “a preponderance” of evidence that California’s tenure and dismissal statutes “impose a real and appreciable impact on students’ fundamental right to equality of education, and that they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.”
Boutrous was part of a legal team assembled by Students Matter, a nonprofit group organized by David Welch, president of Infinera, a Sunnyvale optical telecommunications systems manufacturing firm.
Among the witnesses Treu cited in his decision was one who said that a class of students spending one year with an incompetent teacher can cost those students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings.
While the judge said teachers should be afforded reasonable due process when their dismissals are sought, he said the current system is “so complex, time-consuming and expensive as to make an effective, efficient yet fair dismissal of a grossly ineffective teacher illusory.”
Treu added that both students and teachers are “disadvantaged,” for no “legally cognizable reason, let alone a compelling one” by state law, because it allows for dismissal of a recently hired, gifted teacher while protecting the job of “senior, incompetent teacher.”
But Maselli expressed a different view.
“BTA has been following the Vergara trial attacking teacher rights and we are very disappointed in today’s decision,” she said.
“Defense witnesses, including respected superintendents, principals, and nationally recognized education policy experts, all showed that these laws work well in well-run school districts and help ensure a quality and stable teaching pool in our schools,” she said.
“It is a misnomer that teachers have ‘tenure.’ Teachers are granted permanent status after a two-year probationary period.
“Permanent status grants the right to a hearing and ensures that teachers may present their side of a case and have their case heard by an objective third party,” she said.
“Circumventing the legislative process to strip teachers of their due process rights will not improve student learning, will make it harder to attract and retain quality teachers in our classrooms, and ignores all the research that shows experience is a key factor in effective teaching.”
Neither Benicia Unified School District Superintendent Janice Adams nor Michael Gardner, deputy superintendent, responded to requests for comments.
The Vergara decision may become a topic in the Nov. 4 general election.
Tom Torlakson, running for re-election as California’s superintendent of public instruction, said in a prepared statement, “All children deserve great teachers. Attracting, training, and nurturing talented and dedicated educators are among the most important tasks facing every school district, tasks that require the right mix of tools, resources, and expertise.”
He said that Treu’s decision “may inadvertently make this critical work even more challenging than it already is.”
Torlakson said he has no direct jurisdiction over the specific statutes that have been challenged in the court case.
But, “I am always ready to assist the Legislature and governor in their work to provide high-quality teachers for all of our students,” he said. “Teachers are not the problem in our schools; they are the solution.”
The incumbent is being challenged by Marshall Tuck, who asked that Torlakson not appeal the judge’s decision.
“I urge him to do the right thing for California’s students and not appeal this landmark ruling,” Tuck said. “The state’s top education official must be an independent advocate for parents and students, not an apologist for a broken system.”
Tuck wrote Torlakson, reminding his opponent that he was listed as a defendant.
“I know that this lawsuit alone will not solve all of our problems. We will not fire our way to better schools,” Tuck said. “I believe we need to do much more to support teachers, and elevate the teaching profession.”
He added, “Good teachers are the backbone of great schools. But the fact is, we will never have great schools if officials like you continue to deny that problems exist and spend more time protecting the status quo than working to dramatically improve schools.”
Nationally, the decision has been decried by Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, who said it was an attempt “by millionaires and corporate special interests to undermine the teaching profession.”
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten agreed, saying, “This is a sad day for public education,” and calling the “lack of a thorough, reasoned opinion … disturbing.”
However, Arne Duncan, U.S. Education secretary, said the nine students who filed the suit were typical of millions who are put at a disadvantage, especially when better teachers aren’t assigned to schools with needy students.
He called the ruling “a mandate to fix these problems.”
He issued a statement saying the ruling would protect students’ rights to equal education and provide teachers with support, respect and rewarding careers.
Sharing is caring!
There should be no such thing as tenure. You don’t get tenure in corporate America. You have to constantly earn your keep and you can’t sit back and rest on your laurels. . Unions only serve to create mediocrity and stifle excellence. Yes we need experienced teachers but just because a teacher is experienced doesn’t mean they are good and just because a teacher is inexperienced doesn’t mean they are bad. I have seen both. This whole tenure thing is one of the reasons why our system is broken. Good job by the judge!
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/judge_strikes_down_california_s_teacher_tenure_laws_a_made_up_statistic.html
Bad job by the judge!
Just read the article. All it did was question a couple of figures but did not address the larger points:
Should teachers be protected via permanent job status after only two years?
Is the process of removing ineffective teachers after two years, too complicated?
And most importantly, what is the main priority of the public school system? Educate students or protect teachers?
The article argues a few statistics but misses the larger points.
Teachers should not have permanent job status. Teachers that under perform should seek other employment. Under performance should be judged by administrators. Yes, some administrators will make bad decisions, but that will be the minority. Welcome to the real world.
Yes, read the article. Very illuminating how the Vergara decision is based on a huge error.
Matter,
In reading the tenuous comments made I was reminded of this
Tenure does NOT prevent firing of teachers. It allows teachers to have due process – which corporate American gets through the ability to sue through the Equal Employment Act, which teachers cannot utilize. Tenure prevents firing for little or no cause, such as: not wearing pantyhose, sounding off against poor administration, refusing to teach the Bible as science, living with someone not your spouse, crossing, for any reason, a school board member or upper level administrator. These are all real, documented examples of why tenure was instituted in the first place. The figures cited erroneously are tremendously important because the implication is that, if a kid has low test scores, it is because of the teacher, ignoring the years of parent neglect, poverty, language problems, low funding in troubled schools. The implication is also that teachers don’t work as hard as those in other fields which is just plain bushwa, as any teacher who has worked a typical 60 hour week will attest. The constant barrage of negativity toward teachers, who have become scapegoats for our society’s basic, anti-education and anti-intellectual psyche, (which is now coming home to roost as we fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in the levels of education of our kids) is one reason why 50% of our young, talented and energetic teachers leave the profession in the first 5 years of working in it, often after having 5-6 years of higher education. There are poorly performing teachers, just as there are poorly performing doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. etc. and they should not be protected, which they often are because, well, there is no one willing to take their places in troubled schools. We had better wake up. Instead of gloating and celebrating this poorly thought-out court decision, we had better start working to figure out how to bring our schools to the top again – and we can start by asking TEACHERS what to do, rather than depending on politicians and textbook manufacturers. This decision is yet another reason why going into education is dangerous to the future of any young person. And I am speaking with 30+ years of education experience, in a variety of jobs and fields, which I dearly loved and left early because of just the attitudes being expressed here and in the national media – and I had exceptional/superior evaluations, btw.
5 to 10 years to remove a poor performing teacher is not due process. It is undue process.
Think of all the children subjected to that poor teacher for 10 years. All those children affected in order to protect one poor teacher.
Terrible system and it should be changed.
Good teachers have nothing to worry about.
Matter stated“Good teachers have nothing to worry about”
Absolutely correct.
That likely is an understatement as well. I would suggest that the vast majority of teachers have nothing to worry about.
Actually, good teachers DO have something to worry about if, in certain areas, they refuse to teach the Bible as science, tick off a member of the school board, question discipline – or lack of support for it by districts, or criticize administration publicly. I personally know of 2 excellent teachers who were let go for one or more of the above – their contracts were “not renewed” which is how many districts circumvent due process to get rid of pesky teachers.
Jfurlong stated:Actually, good teachers DO have something to worry …their contracts were “not renewed” which is how many districts circumvent due process to get rid of pesky teachers.
It sounds as if you are arguing in favor of keeping bad teachers so as not to run the risk of losing some good teachers.
I wonder how the numbers stack up?
Only 19 teachers out of 275,000 were fired in California for failure to perform up to standards. How many continue to teach because of the issues this judge is striking down? How many fall into the category you describe?
I am quite confident that there are a heck of a lot more “bad” teachers than 19 in the entire state.
In other words, two teachers were dismissed, by your opinion, for incorrect reasons. 2 out of 400. Not bad. Better odds than the private sector. By a long shot. I think you just proved my point …. Good teachers have nothing to worry about.
Matter stated: By a long shot. I think you just proved my point …. Good teachers have nothing to worry about.
I agreed with your point.
The only people who should be concerned are the lousy ones, which are the ones the unions are protecting.
Vergara Decision Is Latest Attempt to Blame Teachers and Weaken Public Education
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/vergara-teacher-tenure_b_5484237.html
The left is apoplectic over this and are being torn in two directions: Do we support the Unions who forcibly take money from Republican member and give it to Democrat politicians or do we support minority children who are being deprived of a better quality education?
But they come out on the side of the money, no surprise there:
The Chicago Trib gets it right:
California judge rightly strikes down teacher job protection laws
From the article linked above:
The plaintiffs’ key argument in Vergara v. California: The laws in question cheat untold thousands of children — many of them low-income and minority students — of their constitutional right to a decent education.
Absolutely ‘tenure’ protects lousy teachers, I witnessed it first hand at the middle school.
So how many bad teachers have actually been fired?
From the link above:
In the California case, the plaintiffs have contended that, over 10 years, only 91 of the state’s 275,000 teachers have been fired. And most of those dismissals were for inappropriate conduct, they said; only 19 teacherswere dismissed for unsatisfactory performance
How many teachers are bad ones? Very few, but enough so that they should not be protected by the Union.
From a LA Time article on this issue. Always good to “follow the money.”
Observes David B. Cohen, a schoolteacher and associate director of Accomplished California Teachers, an education advocacy group associated with Stanford University, one should be “suspicious of wealthy and powerful individuals and groups whose advocacy for children leads to ‘reforms’ that won’t cost a cent, but will weaken labor.”
That’s a good description of Students Matter, the organization that has financed the Vergara lawsuit. It isn’t surprising that the animating force behind Students Matter is David Welch, a resident of one of the leafier enclaves of Silicon Valley, who has investments in charter schools and educational technology, both of which trends are questioned by, yes, teachers unions. And properly so.
“Students Matter has done nothing that will put a needed book or computer in a school,” Cohen observes. “Not one wifi hotspot. Not one more librarian, nurse, or counselor. Not one more paintbrush or musical instrument. Not one hour of instructional aide support for students or professional development for teachers. They don’t have any apparent interest in the more glaring inadequacies that their considerable wealth and PR savvy could help.”
The people behind this lawsuit have a vested interest in quashing labor unions and promoting private (for profit) charter schools and (for profit) technology programs in schools. If they were TRULY interested in “students,” they would be pushing to bring CA higher than the low 40s in per pupil expediters; would be pushing for great equity in funding and supporting schools; would be developing strategies on how to recruit the best and brightest. Instead, they are doing what all plutocrats do – weakening labor. It’s amazing to me that people miss the point that teacher’s unions are, well, teachers, who are in the classrooms every day, with all kinds of obstacles, actually WORKING with kids, being paid nothing compared to their education and skills, yet they are the ones that are wrecking the system! Such brilliant logic…
Follow the money, sound advice indeed.
So we have the Union run LA Times running a hit piece in defense of Unions.
“I’m shocked, shocked I say”
Puhleeze! Does that mean when the LA Times runs an article criticizing Gov. Brown or Obama – which they have done on many occasions – the union has stepped back? It wasn’t a hit piece either – check it out – it was actually FACTUAL in terms of the support for this decision and in its criticism of Arne Duncan, whose tenure as Ed. Secretary has been disastrous for education, esp. in his opposition to fixing the student debt crisis and pushing Race to the Top.
jfurlong stated:Arne Duncan, whose tenure as Ed. Secretary has been disastrous for education
Agreed.
Arne Duncan named education secretary
Barack Obama named Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan as education secretary Tuesday – calling him “the most hands-on of hands-on practitioners,” when it comes to school reform. When faced with tough decisions, Arne doesn’t blink. He’s not beholden to any one ideology – and he doesn’t hesitate for one minute to do what needs to be done,” Obama said
It’s not like the President wasn’t warned ( frpom the same article):
Yet Duncan has often been a polarizing figure in Chicago.
“To make him secretary of education is one of the biggest mistakes Obama has made. He is not an educator. He is a person who went to school.”
“This is not a time to play homeboy favorite,” one attendee said. “That would be the first big mistake the president-elect would make.”
Actually, Students Matter has done something very positive for the students in the state. They got behind this issue to right this ridiculous issue and bring it to the forefront. God knows the politicians won’t do it – they need the contributions from the unions. As I see it, they have done something that will affect students in a very positive manner across the board. Far more reaching than adding a wifi spot, a librarian, nurse or counselor.