*UPDATED

In a split decision, the California Supreme Court on Monday declined to review an appellate court ruling that overturned Vergara v. California, a landmark case that challenged teacher tenure and declared some school employment laws unconstitutional.

The court was split four to three, with two of the dissenting judges issuing lengthy and forceful statements that laid out why action is needed on the state’s tenure laws.

Ted Boutrous, an attorney for StudentsMatter, the nonprofit that supported the nine California public school student-plaintiffs and asked the state Supreme Court to review the appellate court ruling, said in a call with reporters that he has never seen dissenting statements like the ones given Monday in previous Supreme Court denials, “Until today.”

“These are two scholars, legal scholars, brilliant scholars, who have explained why these issues are so important, why the statutes are so bad, why the court should have taken this case,” he said.

Boutrous said the justices’ opinions will be a “launch pad” to a possible federal case.

“We have been exploring possible federal challenges based on very similar theories and other theories” as related to the Vergara lawsuit, he said.

Justices Goodwin Liu and Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, who wrote the dissents, were nominated by Gov. Jerry Brown and reportedly on President Barack Obama’s short-list as possible U.S. Supreme Court nominees this year after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

“As the state’s highest court, we owe the plaintiffs in this case, as well as schoolchildren throughout California, our transparent and reasoned judgment on whether the challenged statutes deprive a significant subset of students of their fundamental right to education and violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. I respectfully dissent from the denial of review,” wrote Justice Liu.

“The nine schoolchildren who brought this action, along with the millions of children whose educational opportunities are affected every day by the challenged statutes, deserve to have their claims heard by this state’s highest court.”

Justice Cuellar wrote in his dissenting statement: “Beatriz Vergara and her fellow plaintiffs raise profound questions with implications for millions of students across California. They deserve an answer from this court. Difficult as it is to embrace the logic of the appellate court on this issue, it is even more difficult to allow that court’s decision to stay on the books without review in a case of enormous statewide importance.

“Nothing in California’s Constitution or any other law supports the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.

“There is a difference between the usual blemishes in governance left as institutions implement statutes or engage in routine trade-offs and those staggering failures that threaten to turn the right to education for California schoolchildren into an empty promise. Knowing the difference is as fundamental as education itself. Which is why I would grant review,” Cuellar concluded.

The decision puts an end to the Vergara lawsuit, which had challenged five statutes: tenure, dismissal laws and “last-in-first-out” laws that determine layoffs based on seniority. The suit did not challenge federal laws or the U.S. Constitution, so the case cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

LA Unified School Board President Steve Zimmer noted: “Today’s action ends a very difficult moment in the history of public education in California. It is my hope that it also signals an end to the era of singling out teachers as the scapegoats for the very real failures in our system. More important, I hope we can all move forward and work together to create and invest in the systems of training, support and accountability that will ensure every student has an excellent teacher in every California public school classroom.”

Zimmer added, “We also know that we all have work to do to repair the damage done to the image of the teaching profession. If we are to address teacher shortage and its potential danger to our most vulnerable students, we must create a new narrative that recaptures the joy, idealism and mission of teaching for an new generation. That must be our collective responsibility and priority. I believe the dreams of our students demand that we come together to make sure the promise of public education can be fulfilled in every community throughout California.”

Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch, who founded StudentsMatter, said the decision was disappointing but vowed that “Vergara is just the beginning.”

“Transforming our public education system from a system that exacerbates inequality to a system that creates opportunity takes all hands on deck,” Welch said. He said the nonprofit organization would turn its attention to the state Legislature, as well as to legislatures around the nation, to change laws to “ensure all students have access to the quality teachers they deserve.” He said Vergara changed the conversation.

“We hope the state Legislature is listening, recognizing the compelling need to act,” he said.

In an April 14 decision, a three-judge appellate panel said it found the plaintiffs in Vergara v. California didn’t present enough evidence to show that minority students were more often subjected to ineffective teachers than other students. It unanimously reversed the lower court ruling.

California’s teachers unions, who had characterized that ruling as a “win,” also claimed victory with Monday’s action, with the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers releasing a joint statement following the Supreme Court decision.

“This is a good day for students and educators as the Supreme Court’s decision brings an end to the case brought by wealthy anti-public education millionaires who spent millions of dollars to bypass voters, parents, and the legislature in an attempt to impose their harmful education agenda on local schools,” said CTA President Eric C. Heins. “It’s time to get back to the real issues facing our public schools and work together to improve student learning and support the art of teaching. Eliminating teachers’ ability to stand up for their students and robbing school districts of the tools they need to make sound employment decisions was a well-funded but wrong-headed scheme developed by people with no education expertise.”

In a statement, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said she was “relieved” by the Supreme Court’s decision.

“It is now well past time that we move beyond damaging lawsuits like Vergara that demonize educators and begin to work with teachers to address the real issues caused by the massive underinvestment in public education in this country,” Weingarten said. “The state of California, like many others, remains in the throes of a serious teacher shortage. We need to hire, support and retain the best teachers, not pit parents against educators in a pointless blame game that does nothing to help disadvantaged students pursue their dreams.”

California has among the nation’s highest protections for teachers. It is one of only 10 states that use seniority as the sole factor in determining how to lay off teachers.  Evidence presented at the trial showed that it takes anywhere from two to 10 years to fire a teacher and it costs from $50,000 to $450,000.

State lawmakers have been unsuccessful in attempting to make changes to teacher tenure laws at the legislative level. The California Teachers Association is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Sacramento.

Most recently, a bill that would have extended the probationary period for new teachers from two to three years, among other changes, was defeated in June by the Senate Education Committee, even after the bill became so watered down that initial backers revoked their support.

LA Unified school board member Monica Garcia called the Supreme Court’s refusal a “lost opportunity for both students and high quality educators in Los Angeles and across our great state.”

“The Court has put the responsibility back on local leaders to do what is needed. Changes in law are possible. Our students, our families, our teachers and our collective prosperity cannot wait any longer. California must lead,” Garcia said in a statement.

She added, “Youth, particularly from low income and racial minority groups, depend on voters, policy makers, unions, elected officers, parents and community to create more, not less, opportunities for and access to excellence.”

“We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court will not be hearing the Vergara case,” Seth Litt, executive director of Parent Revolution. “During my seven years as a principal, I saw firsthand how great teachers can change students’ lives. The onus is now clearly on California’s elected leaders to build better policies and create the conditions so that all students, especially those who most deserve a transformative education, have great teachers.”

“It is time for California lawmakers to focus on the inequities that rob our most vulnerable students from access to highly-effective teachers,” said Mike Stryer, Teach Plus California senior executive director.  “The fact that substantive legislation wasn’t addressed in the last term makes it even more incumbent on the Legislature to develop sensible legislation that provides more equitable access to excellent teaching for California’s lower-income students and students of color.”

A spokeswoman for LA Unified said the district would have no comment at this time on the Supreme Court decision.

A spokesman for the California Charter Schools Association also declined comment.

*This article has been updated with reaction from Steve Zimmer, lawyers, teachers unions and more. 

• Hear audio highlights from the Vergara appeals hearing.  

• Read previous Vergara coverage from LA School Report, which covered the 2014 trial.

Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara, student-plantiffs in Vergara v. California.

The California Supreme Court today declined to review an appellate court ruling that overturned the landmark Vergara v. California teacher tenure case.

Here are key excerpts from the dissenting opinions of State Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and State Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu:

The nine schoolchildren who brought this action, along with the millions of children whose educational opportunities are affected every day by the challenged statutes, deserve to have their claims heard by this state’s highest court.

The Court of Appeal’s treatment of Group 1 is more problematic. In overturning the trial court’s judgment with respect to this group, the Court of Appeal said the group is not “an identifiable class of persons sufficient to maintain an equal protection challenge” because “to claim an equal protection violation [citations], group members must have some pertinent common characteristic other than the fact that they are assertedly harmed by a statute.” On this point, the Court of Appeal likely erred.

The two cases involve different yet complementary claims concerning the importance of resources and reform to improving the education system. Both cases ultimately present the same basic issue: whether the education clauses of our state Constitution guarantee a minimum level of quality below which our public schools cannot be permitted to fall. This issue is surely one of the most consequential to the future of California.

Despite the gravity of the trial court’s findings, despite the apparent error in the Court of Appeal’s equal protection analysis, and despite the undeniable statewide importance of the issues presented, the court decides that the serious claims raised by Beatriz Vergara and her eight student peers do not warrant our review. I disagree. As the state’s highest court, we owe the plaintiffs in this case, as well as schoolchildren throughout California, our transparent and reasoned judgment on whether the challenged statutes deprive a significant subset of students of their fundamental right to education and violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. I respectfully dissent from the denial of review.

Nothing in California’s Constitution or any other law supports the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.

When a fundamental right has been appreciably burdened, we apply strict scrutiny. The appellate court did not. Instead it erected a novel barrier — not only for Beatriz Vergara and her fellow student plaintiffs, but for all California litigants seeking to raise equal protection claims based on a fundamental right.

Beatriz Vergara and her fellow plaintiffs raise profound questions with implications for millions of students across California.They deserve an answer from this court. Difficult as it is to embrace the logic of the appellate court on this issue, it is even more difficult to allow that court’s decision to stay on the books without review in a case of enormous statewide importance.

These findings instead failed to justify a remedy, according to the Court of Appeal, because there was no identifiable group explicitly targeted or uniquely burdened by the statutes. This conclusion is, at best, in stark tension with settled law.

The harmful consequences to a child’s education caused by grossly ineffective teachers — the evidence for which the trial court found compelling — are no less grave than those resulting from a shortened period of instruction or financial shortfalls. In considering this case, we must respect the role of the representative branches of government and the public itself in shaping education policy. But our responsibility to honor the court’s proper constitutional role makes it as important for us to review a case that merits our attention as it is for us to avoid a dispute beyond the court’s purview. This case is the former. It squarely presents significant questions of state constitutional jurisprudence that our court, rather than the Legislature or the executive branch, is best suited to address.

There is no right without an adequate remedy. And no such remedy exists without review by a court of last resort when the decision of the appellate court, the importance of the case, and the question presented so clearly merit review. Denying review in this case leaves in place a decision that is in considerable tension with existing law and accepts with little explanation the notion of material interference with the fundamental right to an education – interference that the trial court here found was caused by the challenged statutes

There is a difference between the usual blemishes in governance left as institutions implement statutes or engage in routine trade-offs and those staggering failures that threaten to turn the right to education for California schoolchildren into an empty promise. Knowing the difference is as fundamental as education itself. Which is why I would grant review.

Read the full dissenting statements here.

Here’s what’s not in dispute in the case, Vergara v. California, even after the appeals court’s decision: Thousands of teachers in schools across California — a small percentage but still a huge number — are not up to the job. These grossly ineffective teachers are derailing their students’ academic futures. Poor and minority students are more likely than others to be assigned to one of these teachers. And all of this is happening because of state laws that make it practically impossible for schools to replace the relatively few teachers who shouldn’t be there.

The nine public school students who brought the case painstakingly proved all these points during a trial. In striking down the state’s tenure laws, the presiding judge wrote that the damage they’ve caused “shocks the conscience.”

The appeals court justices challenged none of these facts. Instead, they overturned the verdict based on the most technical of legal technicalities. They decided that the tens of thousands of “unlucky” students assigned to ineffective teachers aren’t a group that deserves any special legal protection. As for poor and minority students being disproportionately taught by ineffective teachers — the court decided that’s not a violation either, arguing that local school systems could remedy the situation in spite of the law.

• Related commentary: Dmitri Mehlhorn surveys the ruling’s fine print and identifies three key arguments that may sway California’s Supreme Court.

The court doesn’t elaborate on how local officials might do that, though, because there are no plausible explanations. Schools could fire their ineffective teachers, but the court admits this is nearly impossible under the law. Alternatively, schools could spread the harm around by assigning ineffective teachers to classrooms with affluent white students — hardly anyone’s idea of a “solution,” and something that no district has ever actually done.

Still, according to the appeals court, the theoretical possibility that a district might be able to circumvent all evidence and experience is enough to absolve state laws of the actual damage they’re doing to students.

That means we’re left with a situation where the justice system has acknowledged that California’s tenure laws are robbing tens of thousands of students each year of the education they deserve, but claims the state has no obligation to fix the problem.

Of course, the state legislature could always choose to fix the problem anyway. As my organization explained in a 2014 report, Rebalancing Teacher Tenure, improving tenure laws doesn’t mean stripping teachers of all their job protections, or ignoring other pressing educational issues like teacher shortages. It simply means making a few common sense changes that strike a better balance between the interests of teachers and the educational rights of students.

But history suggests that even when faced with hard proof that tenure laws are hurting students, and even when armed with clear solutions, lawmakers are too captive to special interest groups to take meaningful action. It’s why students and parents asked the courts to intervene on the issue in the first place. If the overwhelming evidence presented at the Vergara trial wasn’t enough to inspire a serious effort to fix these laws, it’s hard to imagine what would.

That evidence isn’t going away, though. No amount of tortured legal reasoning can sweep it back under the rug. If anything, the mountain of evidence will keep growing, as challenges to similar laws in New York and Minnesota wind their way through courts there.

The indisputable fact is this: Every day that California’s tenure laws remain unchanged, the state knowingly subjects kids to bad teaching that hurts them in life-altering ways. As things stand now, not a single branch of California’s government is willing to step in to address this profound injustice. Let’s hope a higher court ensures that’s not the final answer to Beatriz Vergara, her fellow students and families across the state. Let’s hope that they won’t have to wait much longer for the justice they are so courageously demanding.

Daniel Weisberg is chief executive officer of TNTP, an education nonprofit that helps school systems across the country end educational inequality and achieve their goals for students.

This article was published in partnership with The74Million.org.

Elizabeth Vergara at a news conference. She and sister Beatriz are among the nine student plaintiffs in the case.

On Thursday, a three-judge Court of Appeal overturned a trial court’s decision in the case of Vergara v. California, upholding the state’s existing education laws in a ruling of significance for millions of public school students in the state and across the country. (Read more about the sharply divided reactions after the ruling).

The real implications of Thursday’s decision, however, may be even more far reaching, as the appellate court’s semantic choices could hamper broader civil rights enforcement in education and elsewhere. The appellate ruling language, therefore, sets up a far-reaching controversy for review by California’s Supreme Court.

Beatriz Vergara vs. the State of California

Nearly two years ago, at the conclusion of a two-month trial, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu found that California had denied Beatriz Vergara a decent education.

The California laws at issue mandated that teachers receive specific job security protections, known as tenure, after two years in the classroom. Judge Treu found that this time period was far too short to exclude ineffective teachers, and that the job security protections made it onerous to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms. The operational and political reality of public school systems, therefore, led these ineffective tenured teachers to be highly concentrated in schools that served low-income students of color.

Judge Treu further concluded from the evidence at trial that good teachers were the linchpin of a decent education.

Since Vergara and several of her fellow plaintiffs were students of color from low-income families, and since education is a fundamental right under California’s constitution, Judge Treu’s findings of fact made the relevant education laws constitutionally suspect. In legal terms, that meant that the laws were subject to “strict scrutiny,” so they had to be “necessary” to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Judge Treu did not find them necessary for a compelling state interest.

Thus, Judge Treu struck down the laws in question. His decision met with immediate and widespread approval. Almost every major newspaper editorial board of the left, right and center — including the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal — applauded the ruling as creating an opening for public schools to better serve students like Vergara. Even President Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said that the decision presented an opportunity to build a new framework that better served teachers and students.

Unfortunately, the decision was decried by the California Teachers Association, by far the most powerful lobbying group in California. The CTA invested heavily in a local and national campaign to undermine the legitimacy of Judge Treu’s ruling, while also bringing high-powered legal resources to appeal the decision.

The CTA’s twinned efforts in public relations and legal advocacy put enormous pressure on the appellate court. As any political scientist knows, judges do not operate in a vacuum, and courts are conservative institutions. Overruling the wishes of a powerful bureaucracy and lobby requires the expenditure of enormous political capital. This particular appellate panel consisted of three cautious and long-serving justices. The Vergara plaintiffs thus were prepared for the possibility of an appellate reversal, and all parties have long understood that California’s Supreme Court would ultimately resolve this case.

The real question was how Appellate Presiding Justice Roger Boren would justify his deference to California’s bureaucracy and the powerful CTA.

The appellate theory — the problem is just a few bad apples

Justice Boren confirmed that Beatriz Vergara got a raw deal from California’s educational system, and that the California laws played a role in that. The appellate ruling accepted Judge Treu’s findings of fact that the state law “does not provide nearly enough time for an informed decision to be made regarding the decision of tenure,” that dismissal of tenured teachers was “so complex, time consuming and expensive as to make [the prospect of dismissing] a grossly ineffective teacher illusory,” and that the result was that ineffective teachers “tend to” be shuffled to schools with the least political power to resist them. The expert witnesses who had testified about these facts included leading education researchers from the nation’s top universities. In summarizing his review of this evidence, Justice Boren wrote that the evidence at trial “highlighted likely drawbacks to the current tenure, dismissal and layoff statutes,” and that “staffing decisions” did indeed “have a deleterious impact on poor and minority students in California’s public schools.”

In overturning the earlier Vergara decision, however,Justice Boren ruled that this state of affairs did not constitute a constitutional violation. Since the staffing decisions were made by local administrators in all cases, the fact that these decisions “tend to” deprive low-income and minority students of their fundamental interest was not sufficient for a constitutional violation. In other words, according to the appellate court, the problem was due to the individual actors in the system, not the system itself.

With concurrence from the other two justices,Justice Boren wrote that Vergara “did not demonstrate a facial constitutional violation [because the] deplorable staffing decisions [were] being made by some local administrators [and the] evidence did not show that the challenged statutes inevitably cause this impact.” In other words, the laws did not “inevitably” violate the constitution; rather, the constitutional deprivation of a good education to poor and minority students occurred only because of the “deplorable” decisions of “some local administrators.”

Peel away the legalistic verbiage and this emerges as the classic “just a few bad apples” defense. Does a rotten system that repeatedly violates rights require politically difficult reform? No, of course not, not if the rights violations occurred only because of the actions of a few bad apples.

The many arguments Vergara plaintiffs can pursue on appeal

When appealing to the California Supreme Court, the Vergara plaintiffs will have several strong rebuttals.

The first rebuttal is practical. The appellate court agreed that the actions of the state bureaucracy violated the fundamental rights of a suspect class. The implication of the court’s ruling, however, is that every plaintiff in Beatriz Vergara’s situation would need to file a lawsuit against the actions of administrators within their district.

Although it required tremendous philanthropic fundraising to pursue a single lawsuit against the state bureaucracy and its most powerful lobby, the appellate court would require disadvantaged students to raise many thousands of times that much money to sue in the many thousands of individual cases where students’ rights have been violated. To borrow an already-borrowed line from the lower court holding, that idea shocks the conscience.

The second rebuttal is the idea of “stare decisis,” which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. The relevant precedent in the Vergara case is the California case law surrounding Serrano v. Priest. Initiated in Los Angeles Superior Court in 1968 and resulting in California Supreme Court rulings in 1971, 1976 and 1977, the Serrano case law required California to use state funds to pay for education districts. The reasoning of the California Supreme Court in these decisions was that the prior funding system of property taxes “inevitably” created a constitutional deprivation of education to poor students. This was “inevitable” because poor school districts simply could not be expected to tax themselves sufficiently to reach the level of school funding enjoyed by wealthier districts.

Justice Boren’s understanding of the term “inevitably” appears to be sharply different from the Court’s holdings in Serrano. After all, it was conceptually possible for low-income neighborhoods to spend substantially higher portions of their incomes on property taxes. To be sure, they would “tend to” avoid doing so because of the costs and consequences, but it would have been conceptually possible for them to do so. By Justice Boren’s logic, their failure to do so was their local failure, not the failure of the California public treasury to equalize local property taxes. Justice Boren thus ignored the clear meaning of the term “inevitably” from Serrano as “inevitably given the evidence, and given a realistic and fact-based understanding of human behavior.”

The third strong argument available to plaintiffs is that the implications of Justice Boren’s ruling would cripple future civil rights enforcement in the Golden State. Advocates for marginalized citizens always face the duplicitous “just a few bad apples” defense of abusive bureaucracies. The defense is powerful because it always has at least a grain of truth: no bureaucracy eliminates human discretion entirely.

Human beings implement policies — including policies that, on average, tend to make it costly and expensive to behave well, and cheap and easy to deprive citizens of rights and liberties based on race or gender. Even in such cases of biased laws, at least a few human beings of extraordinary leadership and character will always find ways to hold themselves to a higher standard. Under Justice Boren’s ruling, those rare acts of leadership would protect even odious laws from scrutiny, because the unconstitutional application would always be a matter of human judgment rather than an “inevitable” extension of the law.

The next step: California’s Supreme Court

The appeal to the state Supreme Court will not be easy. Even the most self-confident courts will always be careful of intervening in the operations of a large bureaucracy. Even the highest court of California is not immune to political considerations. The California Teachers Association and their allies in the state bureaucracy will raise the stakes by spending considerably on law and public relations.

That said, the plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to find a more balanced set of jurists than the California Supreme Court. Although the justices are sometimes characterized as left-of-center on average, not one of them is doctrinaire or diffident. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was appointed to judicial positions of increasing stature by the state’s last three Republican governors (Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger), and then was confirmed for a 12-year term as Chief Justice by the California electorate. Justice Goodwin Liu has often been mentioned as a short-list candidate for the federal Supreme Court, and the other justices such as Mariano-Florentino Cuellar have been known throughout their careers as impressive and high-integrity thinkers.

As other state courts grapple with similar questions under their different constitutions, and as the overall trajectory of national education law prioritizes the needs of individuals over the interests of bureaucracies, Beatriz Vergara and students like her still have a good shot at justice.

Dmitri Mehlhorn is a Democratic activist, donor and investor. He currently serves on the board of directors of StudentsFirst, a bipartisan organization that advocates on behalf of students as a counterweight to the teachers unions. He spent two years as the founding chief operating officer of StudentsFirst and also was a co-founder of Hope Street Group, a national nonprofit pushing for equal opportunity in jobs, healthcare and education.

This article was published in partnership with The74Million.org.

Raylene Monterroza, one of the plaintiffs. (Courtesy of Students Matter)

The day after the state Court of Appeal ruled that the job protections for teachers do not predominantly harm minority students, the key players in the case said they feel confident the California Supreme Court will take up the issue.

The three-judge panel reversed a landmark 2014 ruling by Superior Judge Rolf Treu, who struck down five of the state’s tenure laws. The case is being watched nationwide and has sparked similar lawsuits in other states.

One of the nine students who filed the lawsuit, Raylene Monterroza, now 18, expressed her disappointment in a Friday conference call. “We deserve better. All of us, in every school, in every grade, in every ZIP code, so even with this decision, we will keep fighting.”

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., attorney for the students, said the appeals court decision is “divorced from reality.” He said in the call, “We took a hit but have dusted ourselves off and are ready to fight the next round for the students who have been our inspiration from Day One.”

He is ready to appeal to the California Supreme Court and added, “We feel very good about our path going forward.”

School board president Steve Zimmer, who was on a jet and traveling when the ruling was released, said in a statement late Thursday: “Today’s important court decision allows us to return with laser focus to the real question facing our public education system: how will we recruit, train and support a new generation of teachers who will give their lives to the ideal that the American dreams of every child can come true in the schools of our state and our nation.”

Randi Weingarten

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten heralded the decision and said it will help with the teacher shortage problem facing the state. “It is vitally important that every single child, particularly the kids who brought this case, receive a great public education. That starts with recruiting, retaining and supporting teachers, not blaming educators for societal problems or stripping away their voice.”

Weingarten said in a statement, “The clear lesson from Vergara is that we need to solve the very real teacher shortage problem—not make matters worse by bashing and scapegoating the dedicated educators who teach our children. … When it comes to tenure and due process, these are essential protections for teachers to do their jobs, but they should never be used as a cloak for incompetence or an excuse for managers not to manage.”

Weingarten added: “Here’s the simple truth: We cannot fire or sanction our way to high-quality schools. We stand ready to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work necessary for every public school to be a place where parents want to send their children, where educators want to work and where children thrive. That takes working together to find real solutions, not attacking educators through the courts.”

The director of Education Trust-West, Ryan J. Smith, said the decision was a setback for students of color and low-income students. He pointed out that in California, 1.5 million black and Latino students do not meet standards in math or English.

“The continuing debate over the Vergara case is a linchpin to continue the conversation about the need for real equity in education,” Smith said in a statement. “The case forces California to publicly confront the inequitable reality so many of our students face in schools across the state.”

However, National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen Garcia declared the decision a victory for students and called the case “political.” “Now we must return to working on real solutions to ensure all of our students succeed. Only when teachers, school boards and administrators work together can we ensure that there is a great public school for every student.”

Eskelsen Garcia said the case “focused on the wrong issues, proposed the wrong solutions, and used the wrong legal process. It was not about helping students and has become a divisive distraction from the real work needed to improve student success. Ensuring that every student gets a good education is a critical goal but one that can’t be solved with stripping our teachers of their rights. Today was a win for our educators, our schools and most importantly, our students.”

Dave Welch, the founder of Students Matter that is supporting the students who filed the case, said, “We have set the expectation in California that students will inevitably get bad teachers. We simply expect students to go to school and for an entire year not learn.”

Theodore Boutrous and Dave Welch

Ben Austin, the policy and advocacy director for Students Matter, said, “The political tectonic plates of public education have shifted as a result of Vergara and they aren’t shifting back.” He added, “The facts are plain as day. We can’t ignore the harm being done to our children and to our best and brightest teachers.”

Joshua Lipshutz, a lawyer in the Vergara case, told LA School Report that the judges affirmed that there were severe problems in the laws governing teachers, but their decision was completely wrong. He said this gives the state Supreme Court “a good chance to make the right decisions and help students” and to “answer difficult questions in this battle over equal protection.”

The plaintiffs have until May 24 to file a petition for review, and then the state Supreme Court has 60 days to decide if they are going to take the case or extend the review period further. It could take six months to a year once they grant the review to actually hear their appeal. That would be the last stop, as the case would not go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it deals with state law, Lipschitz said.

“The California Supreme Court can stand as a leader to the nation, and we really, really, really believe they will take it,” Boutrous said.

Vergara v. California was reversed today. The landmark lawsuit sought to scuttle teacher tenure laws and “last in, first out” layoff policies, stating they disproportionately harm minority and low-income students.

The plaintiffs – nine students in five California public school districts – argued that five laws governing teacher dismissal deprive them of their right to a quality education, in violation of the state’s constitution.

After a two-month trial in early 2014, Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, declaring those laws unconstitutional. Treu delayed the portion of the ruling banning the imposition of those laws pending appeals.

The state Court of Appeals arguments were held Feb. 25 in a 77-seat courtroom in downtown Los Angeles, where attorneys stated their cases and were asked questions by a three-judge panel.

Here are audio clip highlights from the appeals arguments.

• Read more on the case: 5 things you need to know about Vergara as CA appeals court hears arguments Feb. 25

• Read previous Vergara coverage from LA School Report, which covered the 2014 trial.

Clip 1: Everyone’s had a bad teacher

In the most quoted moment of the arguments (in the clip above posted on YouTube), Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren says: “There isn’t anybody in this room that probably didn’t have a bad teacher sometime.” The comment brought muted laughter in the room, but his tone was serious.

In this section, Deputy Atty. Gen. Nimrod Elias acknowledges there are bad teachers, but he notes they’re not always in one location. He talks about 277,000 teachers in the state and that some will be fired for underperformance.

As Elias is making the state’s case against the lower court ruling, he points to the high teacher attrition rate, saying California loses 22 percent of the workforce in the first four years of teaching.

Clip 2: Wipe out laws in 1,000 districts

In the clip above, the state is making a case that the ramifications are great for all school districts in California. Elias continues his arguments and says that upholding the judge’s ruling would “wipe out” laws for more than 1,000 school districts in the state. He said that the statutes deal with teacher employment protections.

This was a notable moment as it was the first time Associate Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst asked a question, and it was about a third of the way through the 90-minute session. The other two judges had been dominating the questioning, often interrupting the lawyers.

She asks whether there is evidence that pervasive discrimination has occurred, revealing the justices’ interest in learning how their decision will impact schools and the ways schools are run in the state.

Elias contends there is no causal link to ways teachers are assigned at a local level.

Clip 3: Grossly ineffective administrators too

This clip shows how involved the judges are in their questioning. In a follow-up question by Associate Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt, he asks about how grossly ineffective teachers are impacting minority students. He goes into a detailed question about how they are able to prove that such teachers are specifically in low-income areas and wants to see how the legal team justifies that.

Attorney Michael Rubin, who is arguing for the California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers, points out changes made by former LA Unified Superintendent John Deasy and how certain dismissals are automatic for poor performance.

Rubin says there are also “grossly ineffective administrators.”

Clip 4: Tenure should not be for life

Here Rubin tries to explain how school districts assign teachers to districts. This is a time that the justices all seemed to take note, some of them writing as Rubin speaks.

Rubin, who walked around in front of the justices more than the other two lawyers presenting, talks about how charter schools that are not governed by the statutes do not perform better than some of the schools that are, and he tries to explain why some predominantly minority districts have low-performing teachers.

Rubin points out that in more depressed areas there is more turnover and younger and less experienced teachers. He said the districts try to assign the best principals to schools that need help.

He credits Deasy with changing the system in LA Unified so that tenure was not automatic. He points out, “Deasy is their witness, not ours.” He also talks about charter schools.

And he says: “Tenure is not a lifetime appointment.”

Clip 5: “It’s an outrage”

In this section, the attorney for the students, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., becomes emotional as he points out there are students wasting their time with teachers who aren’t doing their job.

The audience seemed to stir as he said, “So right now there’s a group of students whose lives are being affected forever.” He argues that minority students get the brunt of the ineffective teachers, saying, “It’s an outrage.”

Judge Hoffstad, who asks the most questions of the three judges, seems like he is trying to justify his own thought process in the arguments. He questions how the rights of minority students are specifically being violated, because there is a group of other students who also have bad teachers, and that the argument “seems to be circular.”

Clip 6: “The judge had it right”

In this clip, the crux of the argument for Vergara and the students is made. This is the first time that a few of the students looked up and watched the proceedings rather than keeping their eyes down.

Boutrous notes that a bad teacher could cost a student nine months of a school year and recounts some of the testimony, such as a teacher who spoke of a colleague who couldn’t spell. Another teacher took students out of a classroom of an ineffective teacher.

“This shocks the conscience,” Boutrous said quoting Judge Treu. “The judge had it right.” Because the issue is so political, the attorney notes that the state legislature is not going to do anything and that it’s up to the judges.

Clip 7: “A tragedy for our students”

In the clip below, Boutrous makes his final summary about the case, and the judges and audience appear to be listening intently. Two of the judges try to challenge him, almost as if they are trying to figure out ways to support their arguments.

Judge Hoffstadt asks more pointed questions of Boutrous. Then Judge Boren brings up some questions that Boutrous seems to support.

The justices try to poke holes in the arguments that were made during the trial and the original ruling. Was there a definition of a “grossly ineffective” teacher after all? Boutrous says the governor knows, the unions know, everyone in the courtroom knows. He points to the audience sitting on three sides of him. Then he quotes Deasy who also expressed his frustration on the stand.

“These statutes are a tragedy for our students,” Boutrous concludes.

• Audio: To listen to the entire appeals arguments, click here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfhORBWSqB0&feature=youtu.be

Students calling for better A-G implementation protest outside LAUSD headquarters.

By Evelyn Macias

It should come as no surprise to any of us that nearly half of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) high school students are not on track to meet their A-G (required graduation and college prep) courses to graduate, as reported last week by LA School Report.

News outlets reported this last year when they covered protests held outside LAUSD headquarters by hundreds of students, parents and education advocacy groups who demanded the renewal of A-G, and the creation of an intervention plan to ensure that students would complete the required coursework with a “C” grade or better, so that they could graduate and, if they so desired, attend a UC or CSU school. The school board responded to their requests by lowering the required passing grade for A-G classes from a “C” to a “D” stating that students needed a diploma to graduate and ignoring the larger issue – accountability for quality instruction.

My heart broke as I saw students make the plea to school board members during an LAUSD meeting to raise the standards for them and to believe in them. I had worked alongside students, parents and advocacy groups ten years earlier in the passing of A-G, and here I was again with a new group asking for an incremental adjustment — more A-G classes, quality instruction and accountability.

Why our children would have to ask the district to make college prep courses — or quality instruction in each classroom — available to them is beyond comprehension, because this should be an obvious component of their education. One thing is clear, however, and that’s that students have few choices when it comes to getting the education they deserve.

When desperate parents seek options out of failing traditional schools through school choice or charter schools, which are more autonomous public schools, opponents immediately cry “corporate” takeover. Equally, when students and their parents raise their voices to demand a high quality education for all, as in the education equality lawsuit, Vergara v. California, their actions too are denounced as being part of a corporate conspiracy to privatize our public education system. It seems as if any effort by parents to seek an equitable education for their children is maligned and aligned with corporate interests. This is an insult to injury. Not only are parents and their children forced to endure a broken education system, but they are also forced to remain in it. How long will our leadership continue to kowtow to a system that holds our children and their future hostage?

Just as children and their parents have rightly chanted for the past ten years: “A-G is our right: we have a right to a quality education,” they continue to chant today — unsure of who will champion their cause for education equity. To put the blame solely on the LAUSD for the current skeletal remains of a once robust education system is unfair. We need to go further. We need to look at state policies, legislation and labor agreements that have, over the course of decades, eroded and diminished the rights of children, low-income working families, and ALL families, by claiming the higher moral ground for employees, while much of our leadership remains silent.

Our children are falling through the cracks, while we stand and watch. Who besides their parents and student advocacy groups will step up?

Evelyn Macias is the mother of Julia Macias, one of nine student plaintiffs behind the education equality lawsuit, Vergara v. California.

The California Supreme Court could be the next step. (Credit: Paul Sakuma-Pool/Getty Images)

Nearly two years after the trial in Vergara v. California first began, the case is set to move forward as judges from a state appeals court hear arguments Feb. 25.

The plaintiffs – nine students in five California public school districts – argue that five laws governing teacher dismissal, tenure, and “last in-first out” layoff policies deprive them of their right to a quality education, in violation of the state’s constitution. Those policies disproportionately harm minority and low-income students, they say.

After a two-month trial in early 2014, Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, declaring those laws unconstitutional. Treu delayed the portion of the ruling banning the imposition of those laws pending appeals.

Here’s what you need to know ahead of the appeals court arguments.

What are the plaintiffs’ arguments, and who is supporting them?

Attorneys representing the students argued that California’s constitution, as interpreted in past cases, requires the state to provide a quality education. The five laws in question deprive students of that equal education, and poor and minority students are more likely to be assigned low-performing teachers, the plaintiffs argued.

Specifically, they said California’s two-year time period for tenure was too short to adequately evaluate new teachers. The cumbersome dismissal procedure made it too difficult to fire ineffective teachers who harmed students, they said. “Last in-first out” layoff policies forced districts to ignore teacher quality and students’ best interests.

Parents, students, teachers, superintendents and other school officials testified on their experiences under the law. Researchers testified about the harmful effects of an ineffective teacher on students’ test scores and long-term earning potential as adults.

The students filed the lawsuit with the backing of Students Matter, a national nonprofit that “promotes access to quality public education through impact litigation, communications and advocacy.” (The group has also filed a case challenging 13 California districts’ teachers contracts that prohibit the use of standardized test data in teacher evaluations, which they say violates a 1971 law.)

As the case has moved to the appeals stage, numerous individuals and groups have filed “friend of the court” briefs backing the students, including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; a coalition of groups including the Education Trust-West and the Los Angeles Urban League; business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce; and current and former superintendents, including New Mexico’s Hana Skandera, Louisiana’s John White, and Cami Anderson of Newark, N.J.

What are the union and the state’s arguments, and who is supporting them?

The California Teachers Association, which intervened on behalf of the state, argues that the lawsuit “has highlighted the wrong problems, proposed the wrong solutions, and followed the wrong process.” They say the laws at question are not unconstitutional and don’t harm students.

Unions have also argued in briefs that there isn’t evidence linking the least effective teachers to the neediest schools, and that there’s no evidence students named in the lawsuit have been taught by the worst teachers.

They also argued that the probationary period is enough time to weed out early-career ineffective teacher. On dismissals, they argued that most dismissal proceedings resulted in some early settlement or the teacher dropping the challenge, and that schools win when the process finishes through completely. On “last in-first out,” they argue that in the aggregate, more experienced teachers are more effective than newer ones and that without seniority protections, schools will simply choose to keep newer teachers who make less.

The state has argued that the laws are necessary to create a stable workforce and attract people to a profession that often offers low pay and difficult working conditions.

National unions – including the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers and other national groups – filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the unions. A coalition of civil rights groups, including the Education Law Center and Southern Poverty Law Center, also weighed in on the unions’ behalf.

The union also argues that Students Matter is “an organization created by Silicon Valley multimillionaire David Welch and a private public relations firm for the sole purpose of filing this suit.” CTA says those who back Students Matter have “an interest in privatizing public education and attacking teachers’ unions.”

What’s happened in the case so far?

Students Matter filed the lawsuit in 2012. After the judge dismissed the state and unions’ motions for dismissal and immediate judgment, the trial began in March 2014. Proceedings lasted 33 days.

Judge Treu issued his ruling in June 2014 declaring all five laws unconstitutional.

There is “no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms,” he said in the opinion.

The evidence on the effect of ineffective teachers “shocks the conscience,” Treu wrote. He also said there is evidence that the laws in question disproportionately affect poor and minority students.

The state and unions appealed, setting the stage for the Feb. 25 arguments before the appeals court.

What are the next steps?

A three-judge panel will hear arguments from judges representing the students and the state and teachers’ union, on Thursday, Feb. 25. Lawyers will have arguments prepared, mostly about the validity of the lower court’s ruling, and justices will interrupt to ask questions. While the 2014 trial lasted for months and involved the presentation of scores of witnesses and evidence, this trial likely won’t last more than an hour and will be more focused on the legal issues at hand and evidence already presented.

California rules require that the judges rule within 90 days, so a decision should be released by the end of May. The decision takes effect 30 days after that, unless one of the parties appeals to the state supreme court.

What’s the national impact?

Each state sets its own laws governing teacher tenure, dismissal and layoff policies, and the rights the students assert are given under the state constitution, so similar efforts will come in state courts. Several similar lawsuits have already been filed, including two in New York that have been merged into one case. (The 74’s editor in chief, Campbell Brown, founded the Partnership for Educational Justice, the group that filed one of those two lawsuits.)

This article was published in partnership with The74Million.org.

Student plaintiff Elizabeth Vergara at a press conference

An appellate court ruling in the landmark Vergara v. California case moved closer to an end date today with the attorneys for the nine student plaintiffs filing their appeal brief.

The brief is a response to the appeal arguments made by the defendants in the case, the State of California and its two largest teacher unions, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association.

The defendants lost the case last June when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu struck down California’s laws regarding teacher tenure, layoffs and dismissals by saying they deny students access to a quality public education. Treu stayed his ruling and left it up to state lawmakers to fix the problems he cited, making the outcome of the appeal a potential tectonic shift in education should the ruling stand.

The defendants now have 20 days to file additional reply briefs, unless they are granted an extension. Once the briefs are all filed, the court will schedule a date for oral arguments, but there is no timeframe on when the court must schedule it, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., the plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel, explained in a phone call today with reporters.

The plaintiffs in the case have been financially supported by the organization Students Matter.

Once the oral arguments happen, the appellate court will then have 90 days to issue a ruling.

“Realistically, we are looking at six months to a year [before the appellate court rules,]” Boutrous said.

The defendants argued in their appeal that court did not apply proper legal standards in the case, that the plaintiffs used improper legal theories in arguing it, and that Gov. Jerry Brown should not be named as a defendant because he lacks “institutional interest” in the case, among other arguments.

“We should be clear that the deep-pocketed financial backers of Vergara have an anti-union track record and that this lawsuit is part of that long-term agenda,” CFT President Joshua Pechthalt, said in a statement. “To suggest that education reform should be driven by how teachers get fired misses the reality of what’s really happening across the country.”

Boutrous expressed confidence in the plaintiffs’ appeal brief.

“The briefs on the other side took issue with our legal theories, but, as we lay out, the legal underpinnings of our claims are well established, and they are based on the same principals that led to historic civil rights victories,” Boutrous said.

Today the group is claiming a partial victory over Assembly Bill 753 after the Assembly Appropriations Committee voted to hold it in committee, essentially killing it for the current session. The bill would have extended tenure protection to teachers who work in small school districts and certificated employees that work in non-teaching positions.

“AB 753 flew in the face of the Superior Court ruling in Vergara and defied all logic by seeking to expand the very system the court found to be unconstitutional and harmful to California’s students and teachers,” Students Matter Policy Director Ben Austin said in a statement.

Students Matter is the group that funded Vergara v. California, in which nine students successfully sued the state and California’s two largest teacher unions over laws governing teacher employment. It’s currently under appeal, but Students Matter said that AB 753 and three other bills were unconstitutional as they ignored the Vergara ruling.

The website as of this afternoon displayed the message, “We are temporarily Under Construction.”

Students Matter sent out information about the hack in its regular newsletter Monday. The statement read:

Over the weekend, the Students Matter website (www.studentsmatter.org) was maliciously hacked to display vulgar and disgusting language. As a result, Students Matter has temporarily disabled the website and is in the process of removing the offensive language.  No files or confidential information was compromised.  We apologize to our supporters who may have seen the offensive content, and are working to strengthen our website security measures going forward.  

 

The hack follows an uptick in digital hate mail received by Students Matter staff, and is consistent with a coordinated and targeted attack on our online presence.  Students Matter takes these actions seriously and is working closely with data security experts to publicly identify the source.

A representative with Students Matter told LA School Report the organization would have no further comment about the hack at this time.

Students Matter financially supported the student plaintiffs in the Vergara lawsuit, a landmark case in which Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu last year struck down California’s laws regarding teacher tenure, layoffs and dismissals. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s teacher employment laws deny students access to a quality public education because it is too easy for a teacher to get tenure in California, too difficult to fire a bad teacher and too harmful to students to base teacher layoffs on seniority.

The case has been appealed by the defendants in the case, the state of California,  the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, and a ruling on the appeal is expected in 2016.

Student plaintiff Elizabeth Vergara at a press conference

The non-profit group behind the Vergara lawsuit, Students Matter, went on the offensive today against three bills introduced recently in the California legislature that the group says are “anti-Vergara” as well as unconstitutional.

The bills, AB 753, AB 575, and SB 499, all work in direct opposition to the landmark Vergara v. California decision, Ben Austin, who leads policy development and advocacy for Students Matter, said on a conference call with reporters today.

“We are seeing bills debated on the floor, like Assembly Member [Jose] Medina‘s bill, and we see Assembly members who are wholly uneducated about the constitutional, legal and moral implications of the Vergara decision,” Austin said.

In the Vergara decision in June 2014, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu struck down California’s laws regarding teacher tenure, layoffs and dismissals by saying they deny students access to a quality public education, especially those from poor and minority families. In essence, Treu ruled that it’s too easy for a teacher to get tenure in California, too difficult to fire a bad teacher and too harmful to students to base teacher layoffs on seniority.

The state’s two largest teacher unions, the California Teachers Association (CTA)  and the California Federation of Teachers  (CFT), and the state, all defendants in the case, have appealed the ruling.

Treu’s ruling leaves the ultimate remedy to teacher employment laws to the legislature, and the lower court decision will not be implemented unless it is upheld by the appellate court.

Austin insisted that Vergara is still the “law of the land” and that the three bills Students Matter is opposing are unconstitutional.

AB 753 looks to expand tenure to teachers in districts with 250 employees or fewer, where it had traditionally not previously been extended.

“This conflicts with Vergara in the most fundamental of ways despite the Assembly member’s comments.” Austin said. “The court found that tenure in California… that system is unconstitutional.”

In a followup email to LA School Report, Austin said Medina’s bill “exemplifies the arrogance of the status quo to not only ignore this historic decision while on appeal, but also super majorities of the public as well as tenured teachers.”

Medina’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The two other bills deal with amended rules regarding teacher evaluations, but Austin said they were problematic because they grandfather in an “unconstitutional” system, even though the Vergara ruling did not cover teacher evaluations.

“Evaluations were not technically at issue in the Vergara trial, but…. just about all of the legal and policy theory implicate it in the Vergara trial,” he said.

Austin also pointed to a recent USC-Los Angeles Times poll that found the majority of registered voters in California support the major tenets of the Vergara ruling and want to see a longer term for teachers before tenure, an easier system to dismiss underperforming teachers and a layoff system that does not only factor seniority.

“Nobody supports the current system except for CTA and their close allies,” Austin said.

Student plaintiff Elizabeth Vergara at a press conference

The Vergara case is moving back into public view with appeal briefs from the defendants, who lost, due before a three-judge panel on March 30.

Once the papers from the state and the two teachers unions, California Federation of Teachers and California Teachers Association, have been filed, lawyers for the plaintiffs have 40 days to respond.

The case will go before three judges chosen from a pool of four: Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren, Judith Ashmann-Gerst, Victoria Chavez and Brian Hofstadt. Boren was appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian, Ashmann-Gerst by Gray Davis, Chavez by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hofstadt by Jerry Brown.

At issue is whether trial judge Rolf Treu ruled properly last year in deciding that California laws governing teacher dismissal, seniority and tenure were unconstitutional in denying some students a quality public education.

The laws remain in place, pending the completion of appeals.

Former LA Unified Supt. John Deasy testifying at the Vergara trial

The non-profit behind the Vergara lawsuit, Students Matter, is adding two former LA Unified lightning rods to their ranks. Ex-Superintendent John Deasy and founder of Parent Revolution, Ben Austin, are joining the advocacy group.

Students Matter successfully sued the state of California and its public school teachers unions, overturning five laws governing tenure, seniority and dismissal that the student plaintiffs argued kept ineffective teachers in their classrooms. The state and the unions have appealed, vowing to defend the statutes challenged in the case.

It’s the second job-related announcement this month for Deasy, who will be serving on the Students Matter advisory board. He was recently named a consultant for The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems as a “superintendent-in-residence.” Austin will serve as head of policy development and advocacy for Students Matter, leading the organization’s “Courtroom to Classroom” campaign.

“By hiring Ben Austin and adding Dr. John E. Deasy ’s expertise to our board, Students Matter is expanding its commitment to fighting for political change that focuses on the needs of our kids,” David Welch, the group’s founder and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur said in a press release today.

Austin stepped down last month as executive director of Parent Revolution, a group he founded six years ago to aid parents pushing for change in their children’s poorly-performing schools.  Under his leadership, the organization played a role in creating California’s parent trigger law and, later, helping three area schools use it. Three other schools used the threat of it to force changes.

Prior to that he served as a Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles under Mayor Richard Riordan and worked as a senior advisor to Rob Reiner and First 5 California. In 2010, he was appointed to the California State Board of Education.

Deasy resigned from LA Unified in October under pressure due to mounting criticism of his managerial style and several bungled technology initiatives. Since resigning, criticism of his three-and-a-half year tenure has continued, fueled by a federal grand jury investigation into his $1.3 billion iPad program.

It’s unclear whether he would be held accountable by the grand jury for any aspect of the iPad program, which sought to put an iPad in the hands of every LA Unified student and teacher.

During his years as superintendent, graduation rates rose along with student test scores, and dropout rates fell.

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.

Here, in no particular order, are the top stories about LA Unified as reported this year by LA School Report.

Superintendent Deasy resigns

On Oct. 15, LA School Report broke the news that John Deasy was going to resign the next day as superintendent of LA Unified. Although his future with the district had been openly debated for weeks, the news still rocked the education world to the core and made headlines around the country. Despite his eagerness to help students with the greatest need, his departure was viewed as a victory by those who opposed his centralized style of management.

Key Deasy resignation stories: Breaking News: LAUSD makes it official, Deasy steps down; Ratliff: lone vote on school board against Deasy settlement; Caputo-Pearl insists Deasy’s resignation not a victory for UTLA; In resignation letter, Deasy ‘overwhelmed with pride’

School reform loss is union’s gain 

Deasy’s departure was a reflection of a general retrenchment of school reform advocacy in 2014. The teachers union showed a strong hand at local and state level in elections this year while reform advocates suffered not only the loss of Deasy but also reform candidate Marshall Tuck in his bid to unseat Tom Torlakson as state Superintendent of Public Instruction. The shift occurred at the local board level, too, with the election of George McKenna, who defeated a candidate, Alex Johnson, heavily supported by charter schools.

Key reform stories: In words of congratulations, Zimmer blasts ‘reform billionaires’; Tuck, in defeat: In California, ‘a growing call for change’; Reaction to Deasy resignation as polarizing as his tenure; McKenna victory gives appearance of a pro-teacher union board.

Cortines returns for a 3rd time

After Deasy’s resignation, the school board quickly turned to a familiar face to lead the district on an interim basis. Ramon Cortines came back for a third stint as LAUSD superintendent and quickly went about business. He made a number of sharp turns in district policy and made key personnel changes that signaled he did not intend to remain a passive caretaker while the district searched for a permanent superintendent.

Key Cortines stories: Cortines on returning the LAUSD a third time: ‘They called my bluff’;  Cortines lifts LAUSD ban on Parent Trigger enacted by Deasy; Cortines ends meetings that take staff out of classrooms; Despite board approval, Cortines opposes bond money for iPads; Cortines finalizes reshuffling of MiSiS leadership team; For Cortines and UTLA, class size reduction is LAUSD priority.

 

iPads, iPads, iPads – and the FBI

Deasy’s grand vision to get a computer tablet into the hands of every student and teacher in LA Unified rapidly and dramatically unraveled, in the process, making his continued stewardship of the district untenable. Significant problems with the rollout of the $1.3 billion program, as well as serious questions about the bidding process, led to Deasy’s canceling it in August. In early December, the FBI confiscated documents related to the bid as part of a grand jury investigation, leaving the ill-fated program likely to continue making headlines well into 2015.

Key iPad stories: Deasy cancels Apple contract, starts new bidding; LAUSD says concerns cited in iPad report were expected; JUST IN: FBI raids LA Unified offices, seizes iPad documents; Cortines halts iPad program in face of FBI investigation; Federal probe into LA Unified procurement a first, says lawyer.

 

The MiSiS Crisis

The districtwide implementation of the MiSiS computer system was an unmitigated disaster, more evidence that the district could not handle a technology project of such magnitude. Intended to streamline the process of scheduling and record keeping, the program exposed glitches that have cost the district millions, cost senior district employees their jobs and contributed to scheduling and transcript nightmares. And it won’t be fixed anytime soon despite all-out efforts to get the system running properly. Superintendent Cortines has now said it will not be entirely functional for another year.

Key MiSiS stories: LA Unified board considers more money for MiSiS, classrooms, cops; Feds joining LAUSD’s effort to help solve issues with MiSiS; LAUSD bond panel OKs another $25 million for MiSiS, devices; Long-awaited LAUSD report calls MiSiS ‘grossly inadequate’; Cortines tells LA Unified board MiSiS fix needs another year.

 

Vergara ruling

The state of California was rocked with the judge’s ruling in June. In a lawsuit brought by students, including some from LAUSD, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu struck down five state statutes governing teacher employment, ruling that they violate the California constitution by denying students access to a quality public education. In one highly-controversial 16-page decision, Judge Treu wrote a template for other states’ seeking changes and threw into doubt the future of teacher tenure, dismissal and layoffs across California.

Key Vergara stories: Vergara ruling stands, judge rules in final review; Vergara sisters recall the teachers who inspired them to sue; Vergara ruling gets mixed reaction from school board; Teachers’ unions vow to fight Vergara decision, others celebrate.

 

George McKenna wins

Another chapter was added to the George McKenna story on Aug. 12 when he won the special school board election, defeating Alex Johnson in a runoff with over 53 percent of the vote. McKenna was widely seen as a friendly voice for teachers, whose union provided the vast majority of his financial support. The special election for the District 1 seat was held as a result of the passing of late board member Marguerite LaMotte. In just a few months on the board, McKenna has seasoned his remarks in debate with lessons learned over decades as a school administrator.

Key McKenna stories: George McKenna; McKenna is the union candidate, but CTA gave to Johnson backers; McKenna victory gives appearance of a pro-teacher union board; The race is on for 4 LA Unified board seat elections in 2015.

 

Miramonte settlement 

One of the ugliest chapters in the history of LAUSD came to a close on Nov. 21 when the district settled with the remaining victims of former Miramonte Elementary teacher Mark Berndt, who was convicted in 2013 of 23 counts of lewd conduct on a child. The $139 million settlement was a record for the district and drew the ire of district critics who complained that the money would have been better spent for assets like teachers and other school personnel.

Key Miramonte stories: Miramonte settlement is largest ever involving LAUSD; Jury selection resumes in Miramonte case as settlement talks continue; LA Unified says it followed the law in handling abuse reports.

 

Caputo-Pearl wins UTLA presidency

On April 29, Alex Caputo-Pearl was elected president of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the union that represents LAUSD educators. His landslide victory over incumbent Warren Fletcher signaled a major change in direction for UTLA toward more aggressive tactics and tone. Since taking office in July, Caputo-Pearl has pushed hard for getting more teachers involved in issues that affect them, drawn up a multi-faceted list of demands for a new labor contract with the district and started preparing teachers for the possibility of a strike if he fails in achieving the bargaining goals he has set out to win.

Key Caputo-Pearl stories: JUST IN: Caputo-Pearl wins decisively for UTLA president; Caputo-Pearl: The teachers’ view from the new union president; Strike talk emerges on Caputo-Pearl’s first day as union chief; In State of the Union, Caputo-Pearl hints at strike, targets Deasy; Caputo-Pearl asks energetic UTLA rally: ‘Are you ready for a fight?’

 

Fights over co-locations

The debate about the positive or negative impact charter schools operating on the same campus with district schools played out in a very literal way as difficulties among in several locations of co-habitation led to friction and even physical violence. The conflicts have drawn differences between charters and traditional schools into sharp focus, giving each side ammunition for the rightness of their cause.

Key co-location stories: 2 LAUSD schools work amiably in solving their co-location issues; Westside charter school finally finds a new home, or two; Zimmer: LAUSD ‘culture war’ over co-locations on the west side; Stoner parents win, LAUSD removes co-located charter; LAUSD reports increase in charter school co-location approvals.

 

Student achievement continues to rise

Amid all the negativity, there was positive news coming out of LAUSD this year. Graduation rates went up while dropout rates fell, leading to yet more controversy over who actually deserves credit — the board and administrative personnel who create new approaches to instruction or teachers charged with carrying out the every-day challenges of teaching.

Key student achievement stories: LAUSD sees big jump in graduation rates, early results show; LA Unified graduation rates are up, dropout rates are down; LA Unified reports LA Unified reports graduation rates up by double digits up by double digits.

On its Facebook page, UTLA posted a link to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) online petition that calls for Time to “apologize to America’s teachers for the misleading and hyperbolic attack on your November 3 cover.”

The cover in question is for a story about the impact of Vergara v. California, the case in which a judge earlier this year struck down California’s decades-old laws regarding teacher tenure, firings and layoffs.

The Time article, which features a gavel about to smash an apple on the cover, is headlined, “Rotten Apples: It’s nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher; some tech millionaires may have found a way to change that,” and is a look at the history of the case and the wealthy group of tech executives who have helped support it. The article has been available online since Friday and is scheduled to hit news stands in print form on Nov. 3.

But it is not the article that the AFT finds fault with. It’s the cover, which the AFT says “is particularly disappointing because the articles inside the magazine present a much more balanced view of the issue. But for millions of Americans, all they’ll see is the cover and a misleading attack on teachers.”

So far, over 60,000 people have signed the petition, according to the AFT’s Facebook page. The AFT has over 1.5 million members.

AFT President Randi Weingarten also posted a response to the story on Time’s website, saying, “America’s teachers aren’t rotten apples, as Time’s cover suggests, that need to be smashed by Silicon Valley millionaires with no experience in education.”

Teacher unions in California and nationally have lined up against the Vergara ruling. The defendants — the state, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association — have appealed the ruling, which will not set any precedent until an appeals court rules on the case.

The anger over the cover also caught the attention of the Washington Post, which pointed out it is not the first time Time has enraged teacher unions with a cover.

In 2008, its cover also drew condemnation from teacher unions when it showed then-D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee standing in a classroom while holding a broom, with the headline, “How To Fix America’s Schools” and a subhead, “Michelle Rhee is the head of Washington, D.C., schools. Her battle against bad teachers has earned her admirers and enemies — and could transform public education.”

Her efforts in D.C. ended in 2010, when she resigned.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with Teach Plus Fellows Bootsie Battle-Holt and Kat Czujko. (Photo: Nick Toren for Teach Plus)

While state teacher unions are spending time, energy and money fighting the landmark Vergara v. California ruling through appeal, one group of teachers in Los Angeles is helping shape what a post-Vergara world could look like.

In a presentation yesterday at the California Community Foundation, former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa joined L.A.-based teaching policy fellows with the national group, Teach Plus, in presenting ideas for change should the appeal fail.

In a ruling that landed like a bomb on the educational landscape, California Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu struck down five statutes governing teacher tenure, dismissal and layoffs, concluding that they violate the state constitution by denying students access to a quality public education. If the ruling stands, the state legislature has to rewrite the laws, and yesterday’s event was designed as a roadmap.

As the key speaker, Villaraigosa threw his support behind the Vergara ruling —  and the group’s ideas to accommodate it.

“When you take extreme positions, like tenure, that says you can’t ever fire anybody… that’s extreme,” he said. “The other extreme is that we shouldn’t have teacher unions and due process. But what Vergara said was, this is uber–due process; this is way beyond.”

Teach Plus works to elevate the influence of teachers in policy discussions, and yesterday’s forum “is an example of that,” said John Lee, executive director of Teach Plus Los Angeles, referring to 10 Teach Plus fellows, all of them LA classroom teachers, who spent the summer researching Vergara.

The researchers compiled their findings in a policy brief, “Valuing Performance and Honoring Experience: Teacher Solutions for a Post-Vergara Profession.”

First up was tenure, which currently gives teachers extensive due process rights after 18 months. California is only one of five states that awards tenure within two years, according to the Teach Plus presentation.

Teach Plus recommends one short-term and three long-term solutions:

• Extend to four years the time for a teacher to gain “permanent status”; require three consecutive years of evaluations demonstrating effective teaching for a teacher to earn “permanent status.”
• Base tenure decisions solely on performance.
• Require schools to provide evidence of support for teachers who receive an unsatisfactory evaluation if those teachers continue their employment.

Kat Czujko, a teacher at Hollenbeck Middle School in Boyle Heights, helped write the tenure section.

“We want tenure to be a meaningful achievement,” she told LA School Report. “I feel like I got tenure just for showing up. We want tenure to be a case for teachers to showcase their talents and prove that they are effective educators in the classroom.”

On the issue of dismissal, the brief said among 275,000 teachers statewide, only 2.2 teachers, on average, are dismissed each year for unsatisfactory performance, which amounts to just 0.0008 percent of all teachers in the state.

The Teach Plus brief recommends these changes:

• Improve and expand programs that support teachers, particularly those that target new and struggling teachers.
• Connect teacher evaluation to the dismissal process.
• Improve the Commission for Professional Competence hearing process.

Andrea Burke, a teacher at Dr. Owen Lloyd Knox Elementary School in south Los Angeles who helped write the dismissal section, said she had received some blowback from other teachers for participating with Teach Plus in preparing the new ideas.

“There was a lot of hesitation, I will admit,” she said. “They have a hard time understanding how I could get behind something that’s going to wipe out tenure and get rid of teachers. And I had to tell them I’m actually a teacher sitting across from them at the lunch table, that potentially could have a voice in legislation that would be a part of something that affects all of us. And they were like, ‘Oh, I didn’t think of it like that.’ ”

The final part of the presentation regarded layoffs under the “Last-In, First-Out” rule, which requires newer teachers to go first when cuts are required. The Teach Plus brief said: “Instead of using a seniority-based process for layoffs, we recommend an approach that accounts for teacher effectiveness and uses seniority as a secondary criterion.”

Lisa Blackwell, a teacher at John H. Francis Polytechnic High School in Sun Valley, who co-wrote the layoff section, said, layoff decisions “need to be based on effectiveness, but we also need to recognize that if you’ve been teaching a long time, you probably are better at it than the earlier teachers. So that’s what we were shooting for, the balance in-between.”

During a panel discussion after the presentations, Villaraigosa said, “The only reason I got behind Vergara was because of the extremism on the other end. I can live with this. This is rational. I say it everywhere I go. I could be for some seniority, I could be for some tenure. I just can’t be for uber seniority and tenure. Performance has to count for something.”

The next step? Teach Plus officials said they intend to spread the findings throughout the state and get them to leading state lawmakers.

“I know that we are looking at visiting legislatures, to go and talk to them,” Blackwell said. “There are definitely next steps in place.”

As a veteran urban educator and career union member, I care deeply about both my students and building the systems to ensure that all students and teachers have what they need to be successful. In the legal precedent laid out in the controversial Vergara decision relating to teacher tenure in California, I see a potential window of opportunity opened for all of us to rethink our current conceptions of accountability and advocate for something that will serve both students and teachers better.

Registration is required, but you can read the full story here.