(Photos courtesy of iStock)

The first half of 2016 brought high stakes and high drama to Los Angeles’ education scene, from dire budget predictions to heated charter debates to attempts at overhauling teacher tenure laws.

There were anniversaries to celebrate along the way — 25 years for both charter schools nationwide and Teach For America — and comings and goings of superintendents, plus the glimmerings of electoral races to come (for the school board’s members and president, LA City Council, mayor and even governor) that promise a starring role for education.

NEW SUPERINTENDENT

The new year started with the announcement that Michelle King had been chosen by a unanimous vote of the school board to be LA Unified’s next superintendent, the first black female ever to lead the district and the first woman since 1929. The three-month nationwide search had ended at home, with an LA Unified “lifer” who was educated in the district and has worked for it for nearly 30 years. King replaced Ramon Cortines, who stepped down at the end of 2015.

King had to immediately grapple with how the district would co-exist with the growing number of charter schools and the school board’s opposition to a plan to significantly increase their numbers. In fact, the day she was confirmed by the board was also the day of the unanimous board vote against an early draft plan to expand charters.

King called for healing, and in her first community town hall she stressed, “It’s not us versus them.” She met three times with the new head of the nonprofit formed to lead the expansion of the city’s high-quality schools, Great Public Schools Now Executive Director Myrna Castrejon, who, like King, was announced in January, is a minority woman and single mother, and stands to have significant impact on the shape and state of education in LA.

King also took on the plummeting graduation rate as well as predictions of a massive deficit within three years, holding a series of special board meetings in May and June to address the predictions and as well as recommendations outlined in a November report by an independent financial review panel.

She presented her first budget in June, which most board members praised, but noted there was much work yet to be done.

“Are we there? No, we’re not there, but we are on a path moving forward in the right direction,” King said as she presented the budget to the board.

“In general, I think that your staff and you have done a good job of trying to meet the needs in the district with the limited funds we have,” board member Monica Ratliff told her.

BUDGET GLOOM

“The future is dire,” is what King heard at the outset of the special meetings on the fiscal health of the district.

Internationally renowned education expert Pedro Noguera of UCLA, hired by the district to advise King and the board and facilitate the special meetings, warned that unless more serious measures are taken, the nation’s second-largest school district is destined to lose more students.

The challenges LA Unified is facing, Noguera said, include declining enrollment because of the growth of charters and demographic shifts, chronically under-performing schools, structural budget deficits and the need to increase public support for schools.

The details were daunting: the budget deficit was projected to reach nearly half a billion dollars in three years; a district audit showed LA Unified debt outstripped assets by $4.2 billion; unfunded pensions topped $13 billion and have more than doubled since 2005; per-pupil funding had doubled but the district still faces financial crisis; and plans for a turnaround included boosting enrollment but not cutting staff. Indeed, even though the district has lost 100,000 students in the last six years, its certified administrative staff has increased 22 percent in the last five years.

While the board in June passed a $7.6 billion balanced budget for 2016-17, it included $15 million for “housed” employees, which have increased to 181. These “teacher jails” are for staff members who are being paid to essentially do nothing while awaiting internal investigations about alleged misconduct, while the district has to hire substitutes to do their jobs.

CHARTERS

The tensions over charters grew increasingly more heated after January’s unanimous vote by the board to oppose the charter expansion plan.

Charter operators contended the district had turned up the heat on them by making charter approvals and revisions increasingly difficult and documented that investigations into charters had increased. The board openly pondered whether the district is unfair to charters.

In May a study funded by the LA teachers union claimed that independent charter schools drain half a billion dollars a year from LA Unified, but the district disputed the report, and its own numbers show LA Unified actually makes money from charters.

The union, UTLA, also stepped up pressure on charters that are co-located on traditional school campuses, with a UTLA-led rally at a school in Chinatown and organizing other rallies districtwide.

Charters and their growth were a recurrent theme at board meetings, as were responses and reports by the California Charter Schools Association, including one that charter schools in the state are excelling at getting historically disadvantaged students into college over traditional schools.

Meanwhile, the district was offering up its own plans to stem declining enrollment, focusing in large part on its popular magnet schools. The board approved a $3 million expansion of magnets, delved into why charters were attracting more federal dollars than magnets and voted unanimously to seek help from outside the district to replicate high-achieving schools, including magnets.

In June Great Public Schools Now revealed its long-awaited plan to increase access to high-quality education for tens of thousands of low-income students in Los Angeles and announced its first three grants, though none directly went to district schools. More grants are expected to be announced in the fall.

GRADUATION RATES

In her first month, King declared it was “all hands on deck” in an internal memo that revealed that only 54 percent of seniors were meeting their A through G requirements and on track to graduate.

A $15 million credit recovery program started in the fall that included online classes and staff interventions was credited with raising the projected rate to 74 percent by the end of the term, topping last year’s rate of 72 percent, while California graduation rates also rose to a new high of 82 percent.

But questions remained about the quality of those online courses, and about the worth of high school diplomas statewide. And while there was much celebration over the improved numbers, still a quarter of all LA Unified seniors, perhaps as many as 10,000, would not celebrating in commencement ceremonies and would be facing uncertain futures.

Even of those graduating and heading to college, a rising percentage find themselves required to take remedial classes, setting them back financially and increasing the likelihood of dropping out.

ACCOUNTABILITY

A three-year dearth of state data on schools continued to have ramifications and cause deep consternation throughout California.

Most responsible for the dearth is Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been one of the foremost critics of federally driven efforts to use data to improve education — leaving researchers and policymakers in the dark and setting up the possibilities of significant consequences for defying federal guidelines.

Felt most notably is the absence of a single-score method of ranking schools. The Academic Performance Index (API), which reported a single score, was discontinued after 2013 as the state transitioned to the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced tests, which debuted last year.

Then a new accountability system was released in February, but LA Unified said it wouldn’t even consider it, even though it was one of the six school districts that developed it.

The School Quality Improvement Index was developed by the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) and is a significant jump away from API scores because it represents a far more complex and intricate way of ranking schools and incorporates more than just test scores while also valuing how well the neediest students are performing.

Because the state is developing its own guidelines in the wake of new federal legislation, the CORE data will not be reported again after its initial year, but its creators hope that it will influence the state process.

But the data revealed a trove of insights, which LA School Report documented in a number of deep dives inside the system, calculating the scores of all 714 LA Unified schools entered into the data set (which didn’t include charters) and ranking them.

The new data revealed the best and worst of the district. It showed that the district’s 13 lowest performers are all elementary schools, and it looked at the top and bottom elementary schools, the stark differences among middle schools and the high and low high schools (Harbor Teacher Prep Academy at the top, Jordan High at the bottom).

The lack of data also played a notable role in the drama over 20th Street Elementary School, when LA Unified rejected a parent petition to take over the failing elementary school in South Central Los Angeles, asserting that no California school qualifies as failing under the state “parent trigger” law precisely because data no longer exist, meaning no school could be failing.

TEACHER TENURE AND UNION DUES

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February set off fears of deadlocks and predictions that the Supreme Court could change course on education reform.

Indeed, following Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court split 4-4, upholding mandatory union dues for teachers and other public employees in Rebecca Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which had been called a “life-or-death” case for public employee unions.

Plaintiffs fighting the mandatory dues had been optimistic following January oral arguments, when a 5-4 decision in their favor seemed likely. That calculus changed, however, following Scalia’s death.

A blow to efforts to overhaul California’s teacher tenure laws came in April, when the Court of Appeal overturned a Los Angeles Supreme Court ruling in Vergara v. California, which challenged teacher tenure, layoff laws and dismissal policies. Attorneys representing the students plaintiffs appealed to the California Supreme Court, which must decide whether to take the case by the end of August.

Then in the closing days of June, state lawmakers defeated a bill that would have amended teacher tenure laws and extended the probationary period from two to three years — even after the bill was stripped of its boldest language. The bill, AB 934, had been drafted to address some of the same concerns raised in Vergara.

Photo credit: Getty Images

The Supreme Court Tuesday voted 4-4 to uphold mandatory union dues for teachers and other public employees, at least for the time being.

Justices issued a short, unsigned opinion saying that the lower court’s opinion “is affirmed by an equally divided court.” High court votes that end in a tie affirm the lower court’s ruling — in this case, the 9th Circuit’s finding that requiring public employees to pay at least a portion of union dues did not violate the First Amendment.

Friedrichs 101

Plaintiffs fighting the mandatory dues had been optimistic following January oral arguments, when a 5-4 decision in their favor seemed likely. That calculus changed, however, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. The group representing California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs said later that in the event of a tie they would ask a full nine-member court to rehear arguments.

(The 74: 9 Things You Need to Know About the Friedrichs Case)

Shortly after Scalia’s death, Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, the group backing the plaintiffs, told The 74 that only the Supreme Court can give the final answer in such an important case.

“The idea of a smoothly running democracy depends on getting these kinds of fundamental questions about individual, constitutional rights answered in a timely fashion,” he said in February.

When the court will be at full strength again — and how a ninth justice could affect Friedrichs’ 4-4 tie — is unclear. President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but Senate Republicans have refused to hold a confirmation hearing. They argue the appointment belongs to the incoming president.

The current law governing mandatory dues was established in a case from the 1970s known as Abood. The Supreme Court said states could not require public employees to be members of unions or for them to fund the portion of dues that pay for overtly political activity.  Instead, those who oppose the unions pay what are sometimes called “fair-share fees” or “agency fees” to pay for collective bargaining and other traditional labor activities.

The case hinged on whether requiring employees to support the union violated the First Amendment by forcing them to back opinions they didn’t support. The Abood court’s rationale was that requiring “fair-share” fees prevented employees from “free riding” and getting the benefits and protections of generous contracts without contributing financially to their collective bargaining.

Plaintiffs have argued that activities deemed traditional labor activities, like advocating for raises or better benefits, are inherently political when public funds are at issue. Outside groups supporting the plaintiffs argued that particularly in the realm of education reform, union arguments for policies like last-in, first-out dismissal or tenure are inherently political.

The case had the potential to limit the impact of teachers unions and others across the country. About half of states require employees in unionized workplaces to pay at least some dues. The other half are what’s known as “right to work” states that allow employees to opt out of unions completely.

Union leaders praised the ruling.

“This decision is a victory for educators and all public employees, but most importantly a victory for the millions of students of California and across the U.S. By having the ability to join together to make our voices heard on issues that affect all of us such as a quality, safe, and healthy schools for our kids, we ensure that our public schools remain strong and our students get the quality public education they need and deserve,” California Teachers Association President Eric Heins said in a statement.

National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen Garcia repeated a common union complaint that the case was brought by big-money political groups, saying in a statement that the court “rejected a political ploy to silence public employees.”

This article was published in partnership with The74Million.org.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Two and a half years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa left his office steering the nation’s second-largest city with a legacy of pushing the kind of changes in the school system that education reformers relish.

Trying to make good on a campaign promise to fix the city’s schools, he fought the teachers union in court to limit seniority-protected layoff policies (he won) and supported another court challenge that sought to incorporate student test scores into teacher evaluations (no clear victory yet on that one).

He successfully lobbied lawmakers to wrest control of the school district from its elected school board (the courts turned him down), aggressively expanded choices for parents, including charter schools, founded the non-profit Partnership for Los Angeles Schools to take over the city’s lowest-performing schools and raised a boatload of money to help elect reform-oriented school board members.

Since leaving office Villaraigosa, 63, who drew national attention as the city’s first modern-day Hispanic mayor, has been stumping for Hillary Clinton, teaching at USC and traveling the country giving corporate speeches. Most recently, the man who tried to remake the sprawling Los Angeles Unified School District while in office has been singled out as a likely gubernatorial candidate.

In an extensive interview last week, we spoke with the former mayor about the political challenges he faced, what he told Eli Broad about his foundation’s $490 million proposal to dramatically expand charter schools (he’s for it with some caveats) and national education controversies. Take, for example, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case before the Supreme Court in which justices are weighing whether charging mandatory union dues to cover costs for activities like collective bargaining violates teachers’ free speech rights. The justices heard oral arguments in January and will have to issue a decision by the end of their term in June. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, their ruling could severely hamper a major fundraising vehicle for teachers unions across the country but also support educators who feel union leaders use their money on political causes they don’t agree with.

Here’s what Villaraigosa had to say about Friedrichs: 

I do not support the appellants in this matter. … In a democratic society, it’s critical that workers have an opportunity to organize and collectively bargain their wages, their hours, their working conditions. … I believe the agency fee issue that is particularly in question is one that is very important. Unions have a duty (to provide) fair representation. I worked for them for eight years. They are, by law, required to represent people, even if they are not union members. I think it’s important that those non-union members pay their dues so that they can be represented fairly. I do not support the plaintiffs in that matter at all. … In fact, I am vehemently against it. … At the same time I am vehemently against the status quo where African-American children and English language learners are relegated to the bottom. … We have to stand up for these kids too. You can be pro-union while at the same time stand up for the civil rights of these kids.

On the Great Public Schools Now initiative, a $490 million proposal by the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and other advocates to increase charter schools, a plan Villaraigosa said he is heavily involved with.

Well, I’ve already said I’m open to providing parents and particularly parents of failing and low-performing schools with better options. I support charters, successful charters. But I have also said that I believe that we should include a broader range of schools including traditional public schools that want to set a higher standard. … So what I said to Eli and them is I could support expanding charters, even dramatically. But that effort should be open to a much broader cross section of models (such as) traditional public schools (and) hybrids like my own, not just charter. … I think initially there were some who thought it should just be charters, but I think they have been convinced that in order to be successful we have to work together. We have to collaborate with the union, with parents, with charters (and) traditional public schools to improve the quality of education now in (Los Angeles) Unified. And we can only do that together.

On the perception that education reform is often implemented top-down and engineered by an elite group:

As a general proposition there is no question that most of what’s put forth as public policy priorities and the changes that emanate from them … come from the top down. Historically, that’s true. Actually, I think, with respect to the (education reform) effort, what distinguishes it is that it is more focused on parent empowerment and involvement. They have often been, particularly poor parents, missing in the equation. They have not been given their due as stakeholder. They are the ultimate consumer. … This notion that we drop off our kids and aren’t responsible for their education is misguided and a recipe for failure. We have got to include parents. We have got to engage them.

On what would need to happen politically and policy-wise to improve Los Angeles schools:

I think the Partnership Schools is the model. I think we’ve got to set higher standards. We’ve got to focus on teacher training and (select) principals, who as a first priority are instructional leaders, who are collaborative with parents and teachers. … I think at some point we are going to need more resources, but as I said to many people, “Before the public will give you more resources … they’ve got to see that you are doing more with the money you got.”

On his nonprofit, the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools:

If we were a school district we would be as large as Santa Monica-Malibu (Unified School District). It’s the largest turnaround effort in the country (and) these are traditional public schools. I think some of the elements of success we have (are) we hire educational leaders with a track record of turning failing schools into successful ones. (We hire) people who set high standards for the kids and people who understand that it’s important to collaborate with both parents and teachers while at the same time putting the interest of kids first. …When we started out there was a 44 percent graduation rate (at Los Angeles Unified). By the time I left there was a 72 percent graduation rate. … I’m very proud of what we did. We set a higher bar. … We’ve got to continue. We can’t rest on our laurels. … We should have (a) 100 percent graduation rate for virtually every one of those kids.

Does he have any regrets about the way he handled education issues in the city: 

I initially felt that we needed someone (to be held) accountable for success in our schools. And I do not believe that seven people, a (school) board and less than 10 percent of the (city’s) voters is the best mechanism for accountability and responsibility. I thought that as mayor, the buck should stop with me. I was willing to partner with the school district to improve our schools. Obviously, I was successful in getting the legislature to approve that … and give the mayor a role in LA. But in the end the courts … overturned that legislation so I had to go to a Plan B. Plan B was to help elect a group of school board members that would be more cooperative and set higher standards and give parents more choices. … That was such a radical paradigm shift that it created a furor and a level of conflict that was never my intention to create.

Was he surprised by the pushback he received in response to part of his education agenda:

Yeah, remember I worked for the teachers union. I believe in unions. I am unabashedly a progressive. I didn’t understand why there would be so much pushback. My schools were union, but I also believed in parental choice and, particularly for kids who were in low-performing to failing schools, I believe their parents had a right to a choice and that they had a right to go to a school where their kids could succeed. I was surprised at the pushback.

Why he was willing to engage in political fights over education issues: 

My only motivation was fighting for the civil rights of poor kids. I tell people it’s really simple. I recognize the historical nature of our election, the first (Hispanic to become mayor) in 133 years. I felt that the role of the first is not to bang on your chest and say how great I am. The role of the first is to acknowledge that you are here on the shoulders of others and to open up the door for the rest. I thought the only way you could do that is through education. I don’t think anyone was looking to engage in the kind of … conflict we had for eight years. … I moved ahead (be)cause I believe this issue is the most important issue facing the state and the nation. When you look at the Black Lives Matter movement, and you look at the growing poverty in California and America, you got to ask yourself why. The answer is simple: Too many of our kids aren’t going to graduate from high school and go to college. Communities of color, oftentimes, more of them are going to penal institutes than institutions of higher learning. I just don’t believe that that’s a paradigm that can work for us.

On whether the union was his biggest obstacle to bringing about more change in Los Angeles schools:

I always tell people, it was a city and a state that refused to invest in these kids. … Money does matter. We have failed as a society to make investments in these people, to create a safety net for them, and we wonder why there are so many disaffected people, angry with their circumstances. They have lost hope. I think it’s incumbent on all of us. It wasn’t just the unions. We all say we want better schools, but we haven’t wanted to invest in them in the way that we should.

Who do you listen to on education issues: 

Well, historically it was Ramon Cortines, John Deasy, Marshall Tuck (and) Joan Sullivan … but also parents (and) teachers. I don’t think we can listen to one stakeholder group to the detriment of the rest. Teachers and the unions are important, so are parents. I think the community overall is important.

When will you decide on running for governor:

I would just say that sooner rather than later…I don’t want to talk too much about (the race for) governor.

What advice would you give students about their education: 

I’d give it to the parents. I’d say, “Put your children in the best school you can.”

This article was produced in partnership with The74Million.org.

The lawsuit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, challenges the right of states to require public sector employees to pay compulsory dues to unions doing collective bargaining on their behalf. Even employees who are not union members must pay these fees, although they are allowed to opt-out of a portion of the fees that go directly toward political activities.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of California teachers who seek to overturn the court’s previous ruling on the issue, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 case.

“The current fair share system is a good compromise and common sense solution, and that’s part of the argument we presented to the Supreme Court Justices today,” said CTA President Eric C. Heins, who attended the arguments, according to a CTA press release. “This case is about our students, our public schools and our country’s economic future. Providing a quality public education for every student starts with educators having the ability to come together and make decisions for their students, as well as negotiating fair wages that attract the brightest minds into our profession. Undermining the collective bargaining process undermines the middle class.”

Last week, lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, outlined their side of the case with reporter, insisting that forcing employees to pay dues to a union infringed on their rights to free speech.

“We think Abood was incorrectly decided from the beginning … but in addition to that, one thing that has changed which has brought the issue into more sort of a clearer focus is that unions have become more and more political, and it is becoming more and more clear that even the things they negotiate for in collective bargaining have a direct connection to political disputes,” Pell said on the call.

California’s teacher unions and their national affiliates have painted the case as an attempt to crush unions and their collective bargaining power.

“Make no mistake about it, this case is an attempt to shift the balance away from workers and in the favor of corporate interests,” said Heins. “That’s apparent by the wealthy special interests funding the lawsuit. This case has nothing to do with what’s good for students or working families. It only hurts the middle class at a time when working Americans are finding it harder to get by. For our students and our future, we hope the Supreme Court upholds the current law.”

Friedrichs vs. CTA plaintiffs Jelena Figuerora, Karen Cuen, Rebecca Friedrichs (Credit: CIR)

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in a case that threatens the financial strength of teacher unions in California and 23 other states.

The Friedrichs’ v. California Teachers Association lawsuit was brought by a group of California teachers seeking a dismissal from the requirement that they pay compulsory union dues.

The case has far-reaching implications not just impact teacher unions but all public employee union in the states that require so-called “agency fees” that fund collective bargaining efforts. Even employees who are not union members must pay these fees, although they are allowed to opt-out of a portion of the fees that go directly toward political activities.

In California, roughly 40 percent of dues to teacher unions goes toward political campaigning and lobbying, according to EdSource.

The plaintiffs will essentially be asking the court to overturn a 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in part by arguing that unions have gone too far in recent years allowing their collective bargaining efforts to become intertwined with political activism, which then violates the plaintiffs rights to free speech by forcing them to fund political actions they are often opposed to.

“In recent years, unions have become what they used to fight. They are powerful, entrenched organizations more interested in self-preservation than on protecting the rights of individual members,” said lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs in a phone call with reporters today.

The Abood ruling set precedent for the agency laws, but Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, which is representing Friedrichs, said  that the key change since 1977 is unions have become more political.

“We think Abood was incorrectly decided from the beginning … but in addition to that, one thing that has changed which has brought the issue into more sort of a clearer focus is that unions have become more and more political, and it is becoming more and more clear that even the things they negotiate for in collective bargaining have a direct connection to political disputes,” Pell said on the call. “It’s just not easily the case that you can separate between the unions overt political activities and the kinds of things the union negotiates for during collective bargaining.”

Teacher unions in California and nationally are fighting the case.

A joint statement issued in June from National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, CTA President Eric C. Heins, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Lee Saunders, and Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry said: “The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities—decisions that have stood for more than 35 years—and that have allowed people to work together for better public services and vibrant communities.

“When people come together in a union, they can help make sure that our communities have jobs that support our families. It means teachers can stand up for their students. First responders can push for critical equipment to protect us. And social workers can advocate effectively for children’s safety”

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a 2013 case with huge implications for unions’ nationwide in their ability to collect dues, the Los Angeles teachers union, UTLA, is gearing up for whatever the justices decide.

A victory by the plaintiffs would reverse a decades-old precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that requires non-union members to pay dues under a “fair share” rationale that non-members derive the same benefits as a members.

Friedrichs is challenging California’s largest teachers union on First Amendment grounds, arguing, in part, that mandatory union dues deny individual members the right of free speech through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions that don’t necessarily comport with the views of all union members.

But either way Friedrichs goes, UTLA will be prepared, said Jeff Good, the union’s Executive Director.

“There’s been a concentrated effort and an on-going effort to turn UTLA into an organizing union and an organizing culture,” he told LA School Report, pointing to the union’s mission to bolster a closer, “two-way relationship” with members of the community.

By actively working to improve representation for union members and to strengthen relationships with the community, Good said he hopes teachers would feel more invested in UTLA’s efforts, then join as a member.

In this scenario, he said, there would be fewer people in the “fair share” category, which means even if the Supreme Court rules against CTA, there would be less money lost in the fallout.

There’s a reason the “fair share” law has been in place since 1977, Good said, arguing that there should be no “free riders” when it comes to union support. By law, UTLA is obligated to represent non-members when it comes to matters of their employment, he said, so it’s only reasonable that those individuals contribute financially.

“Even if someone is not going to be a member, they’re going to benefit from those victories,” he said.

Good declined to say how much UTLA spends each year on political lobbying. According to the UTLA website, the largest portion of dues, 40.9 percent, goes toward state and local affiliate organizations that receive a fixed payment from the union. The second largest amount, 28.5 percent, goes toward member services and organizing — such as arbitration and professional development.

The website also says that UTLA’s dues have remained flat since 1970, an annual rate of $689.04, which makes them the lowest dues of any teachers union in the state.

The Friedrichs case, Good said, is funded by the “same type of millionaires and billionaires” who back the political figures that try to bust unions and create “right-to-work” states. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is just “one more concentrated effort to cut off the knees of the working class in this country,” he said.

“I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in revisiting this issue,” Good said. “This is about trying to destroy unions.”