A group of education experts and organizations supporting the state’s two largest teacher unions’ appeal of the Vergara lawsuit have filed amici curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs with the California Court of Appeals while former California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in with their own briefs opposing the unions.

The deadline for any amici curiae filings was yesterday.

Nothing less than the future of California’s teacher employment laws surrounding tenure, seniority and dismissal hang in the balance of the Vergara v. California ruling after Judge Rolf Treu struck down the current laws after ruling in favor of a group of California students. They had contended that the laws deprived them of a quality education by keeping bad teachers in the classrooms. His ruling was stayed pending the appeal, and should it stand would require state lawmakers to draft completely new teacher employment laws.

With so much at stake, powerful entities have lined up on both sides with friend of the court briefs submitted by individuals or organizations that are not party to a lawsuit but have an interest in its outcome.

Parties filing in support of the two teacher unions, the California Association of Teachers (CTA) and California Federation of Teachers (CFT), and the state, which are all co-defendants, were Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Equal Justice Society, Education Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Advancing Justice-LA, according to a press release from CTA. Individuals who filed briefs in support of the unions included education scholars Diane Ravitch, Richard Ingersoll and Eva Baker, as well as 2012 National Teacher of the Year, Rebecca Mieliwocki, and 2014 California Teacher of the Year Timothy Smith.

A group of legal scholars that included Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk of UC Irvine Law School, Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, and Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School wrote, “In this case, the trial court substituted its judgment about desirable education policy and the best way to improve education for students without regard to the harms its policy choice might cause and without regard to the evidence or the law about the cause of educational inequities and the likelihood that the court’s injunction would redress it. The trial court exceeded its role in our constitutional system and its ruling must be reversed.”

Joining a list of education chiefs from around the nation, student groups, business organizations and others who filed briefs supporting the student plaintiffs was Schwarzenegger and Wilson, who wrote, “At stake in this case is not only the future of California’s students, but also the future of California,” said the former California governors, both Republicans. “As students who learn from grossly ineffective teachers face lifelong setbacks, by extension, California’s future economic and social success is similarly impacted.”

A ruling on the appeal is expected sometime in 2016.

Corrects spelling of two names, Erwin Chemerinsky and Eva Baker. They were misspelled in an earlier version.

The findings were somewhat of a surprise in that the poll, conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research for Teach Plus, a national nonprofit that focuses on professional development for teachers, sought responses from only full-time district public school teachers, omitting charter school teachers, private school teachers and part-time teachers.

Under California law, all full-time district public school teachers must be members of the union or pay an agency fee to the union.

The defendants in Vergara — the state, along with its two big public school teachers unions, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) — have appealed the ruling. If the lower court ruling stands, the legislature would be compelled to rewrite the laws struck down — on tenure, dismissal and layoffs.

While the 500-plus teachers surveyed were not asked directly about the Vergara ruling, they were polled about their feelings on those three issues.

Among the key findings of the survey are:

• 72 percent of teachers believe that 18 months is not enough time for an administrator to make tenure determinations.

• 92 percent of teachers believe that they should be required to demonstrate classroom effectiveness as part of the tenure decision.

• On average, teachers want performance and seniority to have equal weight in layoff decisions.

• 71 percent of teachers think layoff decisions should be based entirely or partly on classroom performance.

• 70 percent of teachers believe that district support for an ineffective teacher should be limited to 2 years.

Cal-Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein

The battle of the experts continued today in Vergara vs. California as an expert in labor economics and public policy called by the defense provided rationales for keeping in place the state laws governing teachers that are under challenge in the case.

Jesse Rothstein, a professor at Cal-Berkeley and a former senior economist on the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, testified that the two-year tenure statute was adequate to identify ineffective teachers and still help school districts attract new employees.

He also said a “last-in, first-out” process that favors seniority in times of staff reduction is more fair and objective than so-called “value-added” models that take into account student performance to measure teacher effectiveness.

And he said the dismissal statutes protect teachers against “arbitrary and capricious decisions of employers” who might want to get rid of certain teachers.

These three issues — tenure, dismissal and seniority — are central to the case, which began more than a month ago. The nine student-plaintiffs are trying to show that California’s laws governing the issues combine to deny public education students access to a quality education.

The state and its two big teachers unions — the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers — are trying to convince the court that the laws are fine as they are, posing none of the pernicious effects the plaintiffs claim.

Rothstein’s testimony, under direct questioning by Jim Finberg, representing the unions, was largely focused on opinions derived from his own studies and those of others that took general views on the subjects at issue in the case. Rothstein left the strong impression that he believed the laws, as they are, do not impede academic performance because of ineffective teachers.

But later, under cross examination by Marcellus McRae, the plaintiffs lead lawyer, he admitted that he knew little about how the laws play out in California and that none of his own work specifically reflected public education policies in the state.

He conceded that his familiarity with the California laws went largely so far as reading them after he was invited to be an expert witness for the defense.

As he began, Rothstein told the court that a longer tenure period would make it more difficult to attract and retain quality teachers. A two-year period, he said, helps to retain teachers because it provides a quicker path to job security.

“No one likes getting fired,” he said.

He further testified that extending the evaluation period beyond two years only has incremental benefits and that principals and school administrators have enough information to make tenure decisions by a teacher’s second year of employment.

He said the two-year evaluation period also allows school administrators to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms sooner and helps school districts avoid the higher costs associated with dismissing more senior teachers. He insisted that lengthening the tenure process distracts teachers from focusing on their job, forcing them to concentrate on their evaluation.

When Finberg asked if a longer period four-to-five years would serve as well as California’s two-year statute, Rothstein answered, “It wouldn’t.”

Later, under cross-examination, he acknowledged that in a paper he wrote last year, “Teacher Quality Policy When Supply Matters,” he said that the “optimal time” for assessing teacher performance is three years.

Finberg went on to question Rothstein about the contested dismissal statutes and their impact on attracting quality teachers. He replied that dismissal statutes enhance job security by minimizing the possibility of dismissal for arbitrary reasons.

When asked whether the dismissal statutes serve a legitimate and important governmental interest, helping school districts attract and retain quality educators — another central element to the case — Rothstein said they did.

On the California teachers’ seniority rules, Rothstein told the court that a reverse seniority system is more attractive to teachers because it provides greater job security for both senior and prospective teachers, establishing “clear and objective” criteria for layoffs.

Having such a rule in place, he said, makes it easier to retain good teachers.

On cross examination, McRae focused on what Rothstein conceded was limited first-hand knowledge about how the contested statutes actually work in the state and his opinions about how the laws might be changed.

After pointing to the apparent discrepancy in optimal time for tenure decisions — two years or three — McRae suggested that the witness had no opinion as to whether the California dismissal statutes should be changed. Rothstein agreed.

McRae later suggested that Rothstein had no opinion on whether the last-in, first out statutes should be changed. Again, he agreed.

The cross examination continues when he returns to the witness stand tomorrow.

Previous Posts: In Vergara, a defense witness defends districts’ teacher management; Vergara plaintiffs file a response, asking that the case continues; In Vergara trial, legals positions are a universe apart.

Martha Sanchez, a parent who is ‘sick and tired of corporate interests’ in public schools.

As defendants in the Vergara trial were asking the court to dismiss the case, attorneys for the state’s two biggest teachers union met with reporters outside the courthouse to offer a preview of arguments they intend to make if the judge denies their request, and the trial resumes next month with witnesses for the defense.

Jim Finberg, lead counsel for the California Teachers Association said existing teacher tenure protections, “help school districts recruit and retain highly effective teachers.” He said the laws being challenged help keep a stable workforce in schools which is vital to student learning.

Finberg added, “Without job security, teachers would have to worry about teaching evolution or Islam.”

Pasadena teacher Christine McLaughlin, who will be testifying on behalf of the state, said plaintiffs have offered no alternatives.

McLaughlin, who was honored a teacher of the year by the county, teaches at Webster Elementary School in Pasadena Unified School District, one of the schools that has been identified as “ineffective” in the case.

“The anecdotes plaintiffs have tried to use as evidence have no connection to these laws and could have been given by students in any other state with widely different laws governing teacher employment,” she said.

Dean Vogel, president of the state’s other big teachers union, the California Teachers Association, called the lawsuit, which is financed by Students Matter, “an ideological red herring, financed by billionaires to pit parents against teachers.”

That sentiment was echoed by parent and community activist Martha Sanchez.

“I am sick and tired of private companies using parents to advance their own agenda,” she said.

Defense lawyers were expected to file their motion to dismiss this afternoon.

LA Unified Superintendent John Deasy is expected to take the stand.

Courtroom seats are being assigned by lottery – with limited press seating available. We will do our best to update our readers as the trial unfolds.

The case, Vergara vs CA is brought by a group of students who claim they have a civil right to an education and that state law that protects teachers and pushes them into lower income areas is discriminatory. The families of the plaintiffs are in full force today in the courtroom.

The case has gotten attention in editorials: Both The LA Times (Protect good teachers, fire bad ones) and The San Jose Mercury News (Teacher tenure, seniority, due process rights will get much-needed scrutiny in court) printed pieces.

A high profile team of lawyers including Ted Olson and Ted Boutrous, who successfully argued before the Supreme Court to strike down the same sex marriage ban, will argue on behalf of the students.

Defendants include the State of California and the two largest teachers unions in the state, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT).

The suit, Vergara v California, has been brought by students who are challenging state laws that they contend protect ineffective teachers. They say the laws deny students their constitutionally protected right to a quality education.

One law provides tenure — a guarantee of permanent employment — after 18 months. Three others govern the long and costly process of removing teachers. And a fifth, known as “Last in, first out,” ignores teacher quality in favor of seniority when layoffs are deemed necessary.

The defendants are the state, including Gov. Jerry Brown and Superintendent of Public Education Tom Torlakson, as well as the two biggest teachers unions in the state, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT).

Josh Pechthalt, president of the CFT, told LA School Report, “The lawsuit is without merit. It ignores the real problems of education and demonizes teachers and teachers unions for the perceived problems of public education.”

If successful, he said, the suit would make it “more difficult to attract and retain teachers” in public schools.

Theodore J. Boutrous, a lawyer for Beatriz Vergara, an LA Unified 10th grader, and the other eight students from around the state who filed the suit in 2012, told reporters this week: “The system is dysfunctional and arbitrary. Outdated laws handcuff school administrators from operating in a fashion that protects school children and their rights to equality of education.”

The defendants failed on three attempts to have the case dismissed.

“Although we had hoped this would not make it as far as trial, we do see this as an opportunity to show that teachers and laws that protect basic due process, fairness, and the right for employees to be heard are not the problem with California schools,” Frank Wells, a CTA spokesman, said in a statement. “This lawsuit does nothing to address poverty, other social issues, and ongoing lack of social and capital investment in a strong public school system.

He described the suit as “just one more well-funded corporate ‘reformer’ attack on public schools and teachers that fails to address the real problems facing California students.”

Both the California Department of Education and the state Attorney General’s office, which represents the defendants at trial, declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are claiming that five state laws combine to make it so difficult to remove ineffective teachers from public school classrooms that many children are shortchanged in their pursuit of knowledge.

The combined effect of the five regulations, said Marcellus McRae, another of the students’ lawyers, costs school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars through years of legal procedures to remove teachers who are impeding academic development.

“The system is upside down,” he said. “It favors jobs at the expense of educating children.”

The judge in the case, Rolf M. Treu, has scheduled 20 days for the trial. He, alone, will determine the outcome.

The plaintiffs have given him a list of 82 potential witnesses, including LA Unified board member Monica Garcia; the state’s list includes 60, and the unions have listed 102, including LA Unified board member Steve Zimmer.

Deasy and other potential witnesses are named on lists for both sides.

The lawsuit is sponsored by StudentsMatter, a non-profit organization that promotes access to equality in public education.

The case is one of several efforts to amend or change laws governing teachers in the state. Students First, a group founded by Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of public schools in Washington, is gathering support for a ballot initiative that would accomplish some of the Vergara case’s same goals, and EdVoice, a nonprofit, is doing the same for an initiative that would ease rules in firing teachers accused of serious misconduct.

Previous Posts: A California court cleared the way for the ‘Vergara‘ trial to begin; Lawyers for ‘Bad Teacher’ defendants to ask court for dismissal; Olson Previews Arguments in Vergara ‘Bad Teacher’ Lawsuit.

“My guess is that there are probably some elements in there that we would embrace, but I think the process itself is flawed,” said CFT President Joshua Pechthalt. “Somehow, the women and men who are actually in the classrooms doing the day-to-day teaching were left out of the process of improving our schools. It’s just not going to work.”

The waiver request was put together by superintendents from eight school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, who received guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and other third parties. Elected school boards were not asked to sign off.

Pechthalt added: “It’s a top-down, one-size-fits-all reform.”

The CTA expressed similar objections to the waiver agreement, blaming Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

“By approving this waiver, Secretary Duncan once again demonstrates how his rhetoric that educators be actively involved in education change is just that – rhetoric,” CTA President Dean Vogel said in a statement. “Not one of the local teachers’ associations in the eight school districts was included in the discussion or signed the waiver application.”

UTLA President Warren Fletcher declined to comment.

Teachers unions had objected to the No Child Left Behind Law, which was signed by George W. Bush in 2001, and had supported California’s request for a waiver. After that waiver request was rejected, the eight districts went back to the Education Department with a waiver request of their own.

It became the first “No Child” waiver granted to districts, rather than a state.

The waiver includes provisions to measure student progress by a number of different metrics and to evaluate teachers based, in part, on student progress. One provision problematic for teachers: if a teacher is evaluated as “unsatisfactory” and fails to “improve substantially” after one year, that teacher may be fired.

“The craft of teaching is not something that you learn or change quickly,” said Pechthalt. “Rather than set one year as make-or-break, it seems to me that if an educator is showing commitment to improve, let’s continue to see progress rather than seeing if you’ve met a certain bar.”

Although the unions denounced the deal, they are not seeking to block or overturn it any way.

Previous posts: The ‘California 8′ Waiver: What it Means for Local Schools; No Child Left Behind Waiver for CA Districts Includes ‘Unique’ Oversight Panel;  ‘No Child’ Waiver OKd for LA Unified, 7 Other CA School Districts

Garcetti meeting with parents of 24th St. Elementary via Parent Revolution

The American Federation of Teachers and its California chapter, CFT, have just given a combined $60,000 to a super PAC named  Lots of People Who Support Eric Garcetti for Mayor.

Although UTLA, the local teachers union, endorsed Garcetti back in February, this is the first time a teachers union has spent any money on the 2013 Mayoral election.

“I think the AFT is sending a loud and clear message that the status quo — ensuring that the worst teachers are impacting students — is still the law of the land,” said political consultant Michael Trujillo, a strong (though unpaid) supporter of Garcetti’s opponent, Wendy Greuel. “And they’re gonna hold Eric Garcetti’s feet to the fire.”

The union contribution may come up later today, when the candidates will take part in an education-focused debate hosted by KPCC.

The disclosure of AFT’s donation came on the same day that both candidates visited 24th St. Elementary, the site of a recent “parent trigger” petition, a controversial parent empowerment mechanism that both Mayoral candidates have endorsed.

Though UTLA has been relatively quiet in its opposition to the trigger concept in recent weeks, the national union has been (and presumably still is) bitterly opposed to it.

More recently, Sunday night’s televised debate at USC showcased the reality that Greuel and Garcetti agree on nearly every policy issue — as they themselves admitted.

Education is no different. Both candidates support Superintendent John Deasy, both support the parent trigger law, and both support teacher evaluations that use pupil progress.

Nevertheless, the candidates will try to draw contrasts based on past positions and experience at today’s debate.

Greuel meeting with 24th St. parents

Greuel will remind voters that she is a mother of a boy in LAUSD.

“Wendy has never wavered in her support of school reform,” said Greuel spokesperson Connie Llanos. “I don’t believe that councilman Garcetti has been as clear on what his vision of education reform.”

A little known fact is that Garcetti has, in the past, been a foster parent to children who attended LAUSD — although he hardly ever talks about it.  He currently has a 16-month-old adopted daughter.

Garcetti spokesman Jeff Millman said that Greuel “hypes herself” as a school reformer but doesn’t “deliver anything.” He added: “Eric’s principal position is that he’s an advocate for kids.”

The new teachers union contribution may also come up. Garcetti has focused much of his recent campaign, including his latest TV ad, on blasting the Department of Water and Power union for spending millions of dollars on a pro-Greuel Super PAC, arguing that the money makes Greuel beholden to the union.

This debate, which will be broadcast live on KCRW 89.9 from 2-3 PM, was scheduled after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa chided the two candidates for not focusing enough on education.

After Garcetti spokesperson Millman suggested the debate, Greuel challenged Garcetti to a debate at Camino Nuevo Charter School — with just two hours’ notice.

After a bit of inter-campaign squabbling, the two camps agreed to the KCRW debate.

“We put this thing together,” said Millman. “She called a flash mob debate. And we put together a real debate.”

KCRW news program director Gary Scott said he hopes today’s debate, to be held at the Peterson Automotive Museum at 2 PM and hosted by Warren Olney, will draw contrasts between the two candidates.

“The game here is, let’s not have them on same side,” he said. “Let have them distinguish themselves. That’s the goal.”

Indeed, there are a few things we still don’t know about the candidates’ education positions, including where they stand on the controversial No Child Left Behind “waiver” that LAUSD is trying to get from Washington, whether they support SB 441, the teacher dismissal bill going through the state legislature, and — perhaps most important — which candidate they support for the District 6 School Board runoff.

Previous posts: Handful of Education Issues Could Split Mayoral Candidates; Garcetti and Greuel to Meet With “Trigger” Parents; Garcetti Praises Partnership School, Differs with UTLA Poll; Greuel Endorses New Teacher Evaluation Plan.