Tom Torlakson (left), Marshall Tuck (right)

* UPDATED

The lower court’s final ruling in the Vergara case has pushed it into the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction as the latest proxy fight between supporters of reform and protectors of the status quo.

Tom Torlakson, the incumbent, is urging the state to appeal.

Marshall Tuck, the challenger, is urging the state not to appeal.

“While the statutes in this case are not under my jurisdiction as state Superintendent, it is clear that the Court’s ruling is not supported by the facts or the law,” Torlakson said in a statement today. “Its vagueness provides no guidance about how the Legislature could successfully alter the challenged statutes to satisfy the Court. Accordingly, I will ask the Attorney General to seek appellate review.”

Earlier today, Tuck put out his own statement, saying, “Now that the Vergara ruling is official, my opponent State Superintendent Tom Torlakson and other Sacramento insiders should do the right thing for California kids and drop any plans to appeal the ruling.”

Efforts to learn what California Attorney General Kamala Harris intends were not immediately successful. The state has until Oct. 27 to file an appeal. (The LA Times reported Saturday that the state filed an appeal on Friday.)

Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu‘s final ruling in Vergara vs. California, released yesterday, affirmed his decision in June that five California laws governing teacher tenure, seniority and dismissal violate the state constitution by denying students access to a quality public education.

As a political issue, it creates another fault line in education policy, dividing proponents of reform who are seeking to hold teachers more accountable for classroom success and those who view the court ruling as another assault on public school teachers, whose jobs are difficult enough with crowded classrooms, larger numbers of students from poverty and growing numbers of students who don’t speak English.

It’s ideally suited for a statewide election in which the challenger has a background in the reform movement and the incumbent is a strong union supporter.

“I applaud the nine students who took a courageous stand for all of California’s kids,” Tuck said of the Vergara plaintiffs. “But the truth is, no student should ever have to go to court to get a quality education – and no elected official should ever put bureaucratic laws ahead of students’ interest.”

Torlakson, who was named a defendant in the case and is supported by the teachers unions that joined Vergara as co-defendants, was widely expected to favor an appeal.

“School districts have always had the power to dismiss those who do not measure up, and this year I helped pass a new law that streamlined the dismissal process, while protecting the rights of both teachers and students.It is disappointing that the Court refused to even consider this important reform,” he said.

Prior to the final ruling Torlakson had remained vague about his intentions regarding an appeal. The deadline on filing means he must make a decision before the November 4 election, making it an obvious issue for Tuck.

Already, he has. His staffers are citing polls conducted in the aftermath of the Vergara trial that suggest voters agree that the state’s two-year tenure period is too short to determine whether a teacher is truly effective and that the dismissal process for ineffective teachers is too long and expensive for public school districts.

Further, he has created an online petition to engender public support to urge the state to drop any plans to defend “a failing system in need of major change” by appealing the Vergara ruling.

*Adds LA Times report, saying the state has appealed.

The judge in Vergara vs. California today released his final review of the case, affirming his preliminary decision in June, that five state statures governing teacher employment rules violate the California constitution by denying students access to a quality public education.

In his final ruling, filed yesterday, Judge Rolf Treu, said, “plaintiffs have met their burden of proof on all issues presented.”

The decision effectively starts the clock for the defendants — the state and its two largest teachers unions, which joined the case — on whether to appeal. They have 60 days to decide.

Jim Finberg, a San Francisco-based lawyer who represented the unions — the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the California Teachers Association (CTA) — told LA School Report that the unions fully intend to appeal “and I fully anticipate that the state will appeal also.”

Treu’s ruling stops with his interpretation of the laws that involve tenure, dismissal and layoffs, leaving the ultimate remedy to the California legislature.

As he said in his decision, “All the court may do is apply constitutional principles of the law to the Challenged Statutes as it has done here, and trust the legislature to fulfill its mandated duty to enact legislation on the issues herein discussed, that passes constitutional muster, thus providing each child in this state with a basically equal opportunity to achieve a quality education.”

His preliminary ruling was hailed by that part of the education community, in California and beyond, that believes teachers should be held more accountable for the academic achievement of their students. The nine California students serving as plaintiffs had been seeking an end to laws that provide protections for “grossly ineffective teachers” at the expense of younger, effective teachers.

Treu’s affirmation only give that side greater expectation for changes.

“We are thrilled that the court has finalized its landmark ruling in Vergara,”  Theodore J. Boutrous, lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Judge Treu’s inescapable findings—that California’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoff statutes are harming students, and that poor and minority students are bearing the brunt of the harm—are supported by an overwhelmingly compelling trial record. The ruling in Vergara is a victory not only for our nine Plaintiffs, but also for students, parents, and teachers across California.”

Josh Pechthalt, the CFT president, expressed confidence that Treu’s ruling would be overturned when the case reaches the court of appeals. Meanwhile, he conceded, there was value in the national discussion over tenure and other issues, triggered by the outcome of the case.

“While I’m not happy about the ruling, it does light a fire under having a national discussion about what education reform should look like and the role teachers play in it,” he said in an interview. “This is not the environment of our choosing, but it does create some urgency to engage parents and the community in the discussion.”

Previous Posts: Vergara legal team joining similar teacher case in New York; Weingarten comes out swinging: attacking Vergara, Duncan; Teachers union is in town, Vergara front and center

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer for Vergara plaintiffs at news conference on day of trial decision

The LA-based legal team that prevailed in Vergara v. California, convincing a California judge to strike down state laws governing teacher employment, has been brought into a similar lawsuit now underway in New York.

Students Matter, sponsor of Vergara, said today that Vergara lawyers, including Ted Boutrous and Marcellus McRae, would represent the plaintiffs in Davids v. New York, which was originally filed July 3. No trial date has been set.

Davids seeks to declare unconstitutional statutes in New York law similar to those in California, preventing school administrators from taking into account the interests of students in retaining effective teachers when making dismissal and layoff decisions in economic downturns.

As plaintiffs claimed in Vergara, the New York plaintiffs say the state laws have a substantially negative impact on students’ education by keeping ineffective teachers in the classroom and dismissing effective teachers.

“We plan to show that New York’s current education system does not serve the needs of kids and in fact prevents them from accessing a sound education,” Boutrous said in a press release from Students Matter.  “Research shows without a doubt that teacher quality is the number one in-school determinant of educational effectiveness. The system created by New York’s laws restricts access to quality teachers and detracts from the overriding purpose of New York’s education system: to serve the best interest of students.”

Plaintiffs in the Davids case are 11 public school children from New York City, who claim to be at substantial risk of being harmed as a result of the state laws.

Students Matter is an organization that was founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David F. Welch for the sole purpose of challenging the California laws.

“I am a child of our public education and know first-hand the importance of a good education and great teachers on a student’s life trajectory,” Welch said in the release. “I believe great teachers should be protected, but I also believe that our public education systems have failed to put the needs and success of our students above all else by being blind to the quality of our teachers.  We have a responsibility to ensure that state law—whether in New York or California—guarantees that the needs of students comes first and that every student has access to an effective teacher.”

]]> https://www.laschoolreport.com/vergara-legal-team-joining-similar-teacher-case-in-new-york/feed/ 5 https://www.laschoolreport.com/vergara-decision-tenure-teacher-union/ https://www.laschoolreport.com/vergara-decision-tenure-teacher-union/#comments Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:37:54 +0000 http://laschoolreport.com/?p=25360

Cartoon by David Granlund

By Ron Taw

I came to education out of the business world. Before entering the classroom, I was making my way up the corporate ladder at a Fortune 500 company. But then, over 15 years ago, I realized that I wanted a job where “success and advancement” would mean changing more lives, not just earning more money.

That’s why I came into teaching, and why I stay. So as someone who deeply loves his job and his students, I am disappointed in the reactionary response of many of my colleagues to the ruling in Vergara v. California, in which California’s teacher tenure laws were ruled unconstitutional.

Rather than an attack on teachers, Vergara has given us an opportunity to completely rethink the systems of teacher tenure, support, evaluations and lay-offs. When I received tenure, it was the result of an arbitrary and opaque process, divorced from my work in the classroom helping students. At the moment, tenure remains the only official milestone for most teachers’ careers. So rather than an empty stamp, we want tenure to be meaningful, impactful, and part of a career-long system of professional development.

This ruling presents a rare opportunity for actual classroom educators to own our profession and lead the nation in creating an innovative, student-focused and teacher-driven system for how we hire, evaluate and retain educators.

The impending wave of retirements and decline in new teacher credentials being issued means we have to do something new to ensure that we are not facing understaffed classrooms in the coming years. Changing tenure is not the silver bullet, but it can be a key part of the solution.

We need tenure to reflect the complex and growth-oriented nature of teaching itself. Teachers base their evaluations of their students on multiple factors. In the same way, we must reimagine tenure as something equally multi-faceted and dynamic. A system like this would require ongoing professional development and teacher training, so students can have access to educators who are on the cutting edge of the profession.

Securing and maintaining tenure in higher education requires ongoing research and scholarship. Similarly, tenure in K-12 should reflect ongoing growth in pedagogical and content knowledge, and impact on students.

Updated tenure and lay-off practices should not exclude seniority as a factor. After all, we must recognize the work, commitment and experience of our best and seasoned teachers. But it must also be based upon student data, community and parent engagement, leadership roles, and pro-student accountability measures. This, coupled with the ongoing professional development, is how we can make tenure a truly meaningful professional milestone for teachers.

If our most talented and dedicated teachers are the architects redesigning tenure, it can be a signifier of educators most committed to serving their students.

As an active member of my teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), and the child of a father who was a member of a union, I believe we absolutely do need our union to protect us from unfair labor practices, bias or discrimination. But I do not pay dues to protect ineffective teachers or to pass by incredible opportunities to elevate our profession.

We need the union to lead, making sure that new programs help students, comply with the law and maintain adequate protections for good teachers. When Superintendent John Deasy goes to the legislature and asks lawmakers to come up with a new plan, UTLA leadership should be there, representing the interests of its best teachers, who care deeply about the rights of their students. If our teachers union does not seize this opportunity, there are plenty of other special interest groups that will. With a new board set to take over UTLA this year, I hope our union begins to focus on the future, instead of fighting for the past.

Fixing tenure practices to conform to the Vergara ruling will elevate the teaching profession, changing its reputation and attracting the best and brightest. New structures would reaffirm what all teachers know – teaching is complex, difficult, and reserved only for those willing to work hard.

We cannot allow this opportunity to pass us by. I sincerely hope that when the dust settles, we will have a new model for the teaching profession that makes tenure the meaningful milestone it can and must be.

Ron Taw is a teacher and Instructional coach for mathematics at Los Angeles Academy Middle School in south Los Angeles. He has been teaching for 13 years and has served as department chair and data lead.

Lorena Gonzalez, San Diego Democrat

While much of the state waits out the appeal process in Vergara v. California, one member of the California assembly is moving forward with an effort to expand tenure to teachers in smaller school districts who have no tenure at all.

The state law that grants tenure after two years was one of the five laws struck down in Vergara.

A bill sponsored by Lorena Gonzalez, a San Diego Democrat, and supported by the state teacher unions, would require school districts with fewer than 250 students to grant tenure to teachers after three years. For now, those districts are not required to offer any tenure.

The bill passed in the Assembly, but it fell one vote of approval yesterday in the Senate education committee, failing in part because it appeared to some members of the committee that it violated at least the spirit of Vergara.

The bill is expected to come back for another vote in committee next week, and Senator Bob Huff, the Republican leader and a member of the committee, whose district straddles LA and Orange Counties, said it’s likely to pass, moving then to the full Senate for a vote.

The state and its co-defendants in Vergara, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), argued that two years was adequate time to assess teachers for permanent employment. Judge Rolf Treu disagreed, saying it’s too short a time and leaves ineffective teachers in classrooms.

Would passage of the Gonzalez bill violate the court decision, in fact or spirit? Depends on whom you ask.

Even though it would only apply to the smallest districts, Huff described it as a sort of end-around “to crawl out of the decision.”

But he stopped short of saying it would encourage future union-supported measures that reflect issues in Vergara, saying, “We’ll have to see if they try reform-lite or wait for Vergara to wind through the courts.”

Frank Wells, a spokesman for CTA, said it’s more likely the latter.

“I don’t believe Vergara hamstrings anything,” he said. The judge stayed his decision, so nobody is doing anything. We’ll wait and see as it plays out.”

“Maybe you’re just not good at math. Some people are good at some things, and others aren’t. Maybe math isn’t your thing.” Those were the words my child, Julia Macias, heard from her second-grade teacher at a San Fernando Valley elementary school when she struggled to learn new math concepts.

At the time, I didn’t realize that my daughter was hearing these words throughout the day in her classroom until the teacher repeated those same words to me during a parent-teacher conference.

My 7-year-old child believed her teacher because she was an adult whom she trusted. Over time, this began to erode my child’s confidence in the subject – and in herself. When I repeatedly shared with the teacher my concerns about Julia no longer wanting to attend school – her class in particular – she complained about how Julia simply wasn’t performing in any subject. Worst of all, she suggested Julia – who is now a 13-year-old honor student – might have learning disabilities.

Read the full story here.

Via The New York Times | By Jesse Rothstein

BERKELEY, Calif. — In his decision on Tuesday to strike down California’s teacher-tenure system, Judge Rolf M. Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that laws protecting teachers from dismissal violated the state’s constitutional commitment to provide “a basically equal opportunity to achieve a quality education” and drew parallels with prior cases concerning school desegregation and funding levels.

But there is a difference between recognizing students’ rights to integrated, adequately funded schools and Judge Treu’s conclusion that teacher employment protections are unconstitutional.

The issue is balance. Few would suggest that too much integration or too much funding hurts disadvantaged students. By contrast, decisions about firing teachers are inherently about trade-offs: It is important to dismiss ineffective teachers, but also to attract and retain effective teachers.

Read the full commentary here.

The ruling, which found California laws dictating teacher tenure, seniority rights and dismissal practices unconstitutional, is seen as huge blow to teacher unions and a boost to education reformers. Here is what a handful of board members had to say:

Monica Garcia, LAUSD Board Member, District 2

“California is a state in transformation! Today, California must act to support our students’ civil rights as directed by Judge Rolf Treu in Vergara v. California. By striking down all five laws, California must focus corrective action that will ensure students are served adequately, and teachers are treated fairly. I applaud the nine student plaintiffs, and the Students Matter team for creating this opportunity to radically change our educational system.”

“On behalf of those I represent, I call on all parties to come together, propose new laws and lead the nation in creating conditions that best serve our youth.”

Tamar Galatzan, LAUSD Board Member, District 3

“The Vergara ruling is the first step toward being able to guarantee that we have great teachers in every LAUSD classroom and classrooms around the state. It is now up to the Legislature to pass laws that provide equal opportunity and provide equal access to a high-quality education.”

Steve Zimmer, LAUSD Board Member, District 4

“Basically yesterday you had a completely antithetical moment. You had the verdict read at the courthouse that identifies teacher tenure and other protection statutes as the reasons why kids have suffered disproportionately in public education. And then, not half a day later, you actually had the incoming president of the teachers union standing with a civil rights leader saying, No no no there are many factors that impact children and their access to education, and these factors are so strong that we believe that you have to take them into consideration when we are distributing funding.”

“As I’ve always said, there are parts of the statute that I would change. The problem with Vergara has always been that in saying one part of the problem is the problem, is a reckless theory. And now I worry that it could be a very reckless implementation.”

Bennett Kayser, LAUSD Board Member, District 5

“On behalf of my former colleagues, public school teachers, I am deeply saddened that our profession has been so attacked in the in the courts. It is shameful when billionaires use children to mask their efforts to eliminate employees’ hard-won rights. I do believe however that, we shall prevail on the Vergara appeal.”

Richard Vladovic, the board president, and Monica Ratliff, did not respond to requests for reaction to the Vergara case.

Previous posts: Vergara decision: Big win for students, big loss for teachers union; Analysis: The long wait for the impact — if any — of Vergara; Vergara trial ends, with CA teacher laws hanging in the balance

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer for Vergara plaintiffs at a news conference yesterday

Now what?

Two years after Vergara v California was filed and one stunning Superior Court decision later, the long wait to a final resolution now begins in earnest.

Will Judge Rolf Treu’s lower court decision stand? He knocked out five California laws that he viewed as unconstitutional, violating state laws that guarantee every public school student a quality education.

Or will the state and its two major teacher unions prevail on appeal, convincing higher courts that the laws serve a valuable purpose, providing due process protections that help recruit teachers and keep them in the profession?

Just as important as all that is the political message Judge Treu’s decision sent across the country, that here is a court that views quality public education as a civil right, guaranteed, in this case, by the California constitution.

Education policy is one of those passionate public debates that never goes away — and never seems to find a solution that satisfies all stakeholders.

It largely pits two powerful entities against each other in eternal conflict — reformists, who want change, any change, that can demonstrate better academic performance than what happens in traditional public schools; and teacher unions, whose prime objective is to safeguard employment, which generally means neutralizing legislative actions that would reduce the numbers of teachers, irrespective of their effectiveness in the classroom.

The decision in Vergara v California provides new fuel for the debate, as the opposing forces contemplate what it could mean for California — and beyond.

“This decision will undoubtedly spark interest in similar suits in other states,” said James Ryan, Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

He went on to say, “If suits like Vergara are brought in other states, this will be a long, drawn-out process. Litigation takes time, especially given the inevitable appeals process. The results are also likely to vary from state to state. The constitutional rights at stake are stronger in some states than in others, and the teacher employment laws in states also vary.

“It may be the start of something big,” he said. “But we won’t have a clear idea of just how big for years to come.”

That’s the thing, though, with education policy. It takes so much time to initiate, legislate and settle in. The full implementation of Judge Treu’s striking down five laws that set rules for teacher dismissal, seniority rights and tenure will likely not take effect for years — or not at all if the state wins on appeal.

In the meantime, state lawmakers here and elsewhere now have something more to contemplate, how this one judge viewed the conflict not by how it affects teachers but how it affects those they teach, especially the disadvantaged ones. He cited the lifelong consequences suffered by students doomed to learn from an ineffective teacher.

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer for the Vergara team who did most of the questioning during the two-month trial, said the value of a court decision is that it was free of political partisanship and influence with an unassailable rationale: “There’s no negotiating around the Constitution. That’s a tremendous wake-up call to the legislature, and if they didn’t know it then, they know it now.”

David Welch, the Silicon Valley billionaire who financed a Vergara communications team, Students Matter, and the same legal team that argued successfully against California’s Prop 8, had this to say after the decision was released yesterday:

“I believe our public education system is failing our children because it has stopped putting their needs and their success above all else. This case was designed to change that – to ask, how do the rules that govern our education system advance the best interests of California’s children?”

It’s a question other states may be asking on behalf of their public school children. The New York Times reported that Welch’s lawyers are “considering filing lawsuits in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho and Kansas as well as other states with powerful unions where legislatures have defeated attempts to change teacher tenure laws.”

How all that plays out and how long it takes remain unknowns. But for the time being, they have another piece of evidence, in Vergara, to inform their thinking  — one way or another.

Students’ lawyer, Marcellus McRae, discussing Vergara decision.

This story is updated throughout the day

In a stunning defeat for California’s public school teachers unions, a state superior court today ruled in favor of students challenging teacher protection laws in Vergara v California.

It was a total triumph for the nine student plaintiffs, giving them a victory on all counts in an equal protection case aimed at striking down five laws that govern tenure, seniority and dismissal that the students argued kept ineffective teachers in their classrooms.

In his decision, Judge Rolf Treu said, “evidence has been elicited in this trial of the specific effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students. The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscious.”

He concluded that “all Challenged Statutes are found unconstitutional.”

The decision is temporary; final judgement may take as long as 30 days, depending upon any changes or modifications to the ruling. Meanwhile, Judge Treu stayed any changes in the laws, pending appeals.

“This is a monumental day for California’s public education system,” said Ted Boutrous, the lead attorney for the students. “By striking down these irrational laws, the court has recognized that all students deserve a quality education. Today’s ruling is a victory not only for our nine plaintiffs; it is a victory for students, parents, and teachers across California.”

Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy, who was the first witness to testify on behalf of the students in the eight-week trial, said: “This is a truly historic day for our education system. Today’s decision is a call to action to begin implementing, without delay, the solutions that help address the problems highlighted by the Vergara trial. Every day that these laws remain in effect is an opportunity denied. It’s unacceptable, and a violation of our education system’s sacred pact with the public.”

The plaintiffs in the case were nine California school children who claimed that they were deprived of a quality of education by the application of the laws. The state was the chief defendant, joined by its two biggest teacher unions — the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT).

The state and the unions intend to appeal the decision, which requires filing within 60 days of the finalizing of Judge Treu’s decision.

Josh Pechthalt, the CFT president, said, “We know that this is not the last word on the case. We know what’s in the record of evidence, and we have a high degree of confidence that we will prevail on appeal.”

Added Jim Finberg, a lawyer who represented the unions in the case, “I don’t think this opinion reflects the substantial evidence presented at trial. We believe the statutes do work well and serve an important government interest.”

Appeals are expected to take months, if not years before the case could reach the California Supreme Court. While Judge Treu’s ruling could spur the legislature to rewrite the laws he struck down before final resolution, the ruling would discourage state lawmakers from minor changes in an effort to satisfy the court’s concerns.

“The legislature could see the handwriting on the wall, that student needs are not being met,” said Josh Lipshutz, another of the students’ lawyers. “But what they can’t do is tinker with the laws, making cosmetic changes to avoid Judge Treu’s decision.”

The trial became a proxy argument nationally over root cause of poor educational outcomes in highly urbanized settings. Are ineffective teachers partly to blame for low-income students falling behind their more affluent peers, as the plaintiffs argued? Or, as the defendants contended, is student performance less related to teacher effectiveness and more symptomatic of larger societal problems, like unending cycles of poverty and neighborhood violence?

The case also became a battle over the power of teacher unions to preserve protections that are not always available to other public employees. The state and the unions argued that the laws help school districts attract and retain teachers while the plaintiffs countered that they keep in place ineffective teachers whose instructional skills deny students the promise of a quality public education.

Judge Treu was unambiguous in how he viewed the facts, pointing to unchallenged evidence that thousands of ineffective teachers in California are impacting the quality of education for thousands of students and their lifetime earnings potential as a result.

Citing two earlier cases that forced changes in state laws regarding students’ rights to quality education through money spent and time of instruction provided, as well as evidence in Vergara, he said the plaintiffs “have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Statutes impose a real and appreciable impact on students’ fundamental to quality of education and that they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.”

In Judge Treu’s 16-page decision, he broke down the rationale for his decision on each of the challenged state statutes:

• Permanent Employment, commonly known as tenure: He concluded that the state’s two-year requirement to make a decision on tenure is inadequate, finding that “both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily, and for no legally recognizable reason (let alone a compelling one) [are] disadvantaged” by the current law. As a result, he said he finds it unconstitutional under the state’s equal protection clause.
• Dismissal: Judge Treu concluded that teachers have every right to due process in the event of a dismissal, but he said the evidence convinced him that the “current system required by the Dismissal Statutes to be so complex, time consuming and expensive as to make an effective, efficient yet fair dismissal of a grossly ineffective teacher illusory.”
• Seniority, commonly known as Last in, first out: Judge Treu called this law, which requires the most recently hired teachers to be dismissed first in times of budget constraints a “lose-lose situation” that often removes quality teachers while leaving ineffective teachers in place. “The logic of this position is unfathomable and therefore constitutionally unsupportable.”

Judge Treu also concluded that the laws in questions disproportionately affect low-income and minority students and that a “lack of effective dismissal statutes and LIFO” harm them through the so-called “dance of the lemons,” a tactic often used by districts to send the least effective teachers into classrooms with the high concentrations of vulnerable students.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, the incoming president of the Los Angeles teachers union, UTLA, said the decision is harmful to students. “The outcome of this is going to be that it actually creates more instability at the very schools and with the very kids who need stability.”

Teachers’ union reacts to Vergara decision

California’s teacher unions vowed to fight today’s Vergara ruling that called teacher dismissal, seniority and tenure laws unconstitutional as other education groups applauded the court’s decision.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, UTLA President-elect

“All the school will be [adversely affected], but the schools where conditions are worst, which is often south LA, that’s the equity issue we’re talking about. At those schools, teachers are going to be at particular risk.”

“This ruling is striking down statutes. It affects all teachers, particularly teachers who stick their necks out, who build programs with students, do all the extra things, that spend way more than 2 percent of their salary on their classrooms. Those teachers in the toughest conditions who stick their necks out the most, are going to be at risk from an administrator who doesn’t like them, or from someone who doesn’t like an approach to their curriculum. All teachers are affected by this.”

Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers President

“Sadly, there is nothing in this opinion that suggests a thoughtful analysis of how these statutes should work. There is very little that lays groundwork for a path forward. Other states have determined better ways—ways that don’t pit teachers against students, but lift up entire communities. Every child is entitled to a high-quality education regardless of his or her ZIP code. And no parent should have to rely on a lottery system to get his or her child into a good school.

“This will not be the last word. As this case makes it through an appeal, we will continue to do what we’ve done in state after state. We will continue to work with parents and communities to fight for safe and welcoming neighborhood public schools that value both kids and the women and men who work with them. No wealthy benefactor with an extreme agenda will detour us from our path to reclaim the promise of public education.”

Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

“All children deserve great teachers. Attracting, training, and nurturing talented and dedicated educators are among the most important tasks facing every school district, tasks that require the right mix of tools, resources, and expertise. Today’s ruling may inadvertently make this critical work even more challenging than it already is.

“While I have no direct jurisdiction over the statutes challenged in this case, I am always ready to assist the Legislature and Governor in their work to provide high-quality teachers for all of our students. Teachers are not the problem in our schools, they are the solution.”

Josh Pechthalt, California Federation of Teachers President

“We know that this is not the last word on this case. We know what’s in the record of evidence, and we have a high degree of confidence that we will prevail on the appeal.”

John Lee, Teach Plus Senior Executive Director

“We are thrilled with Judge Treu’s ruling in the groundbreaking trial of Vergara v. California. The success of the plaintiffs in this case is a historic milestone in public education.  It reaffirms students’ fundamental constitutional right to equality in education.

“By resetting the conversation to where it should have been all along — on putting the best interests of students first — Vergara has created an opportunity for all stakeholders to come together and build a better education system.  But our work is not done yet.  All states should take a look at their existing education and question whether statutes such as California’s arcane dismissal or “Last-in, First-out” laws really give all students an equal shot at reaching their full potential.  As we embark on modernizing California’s education system, we call on the legislatures in our state and across the country to continue to do just that.”

Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst Founder and CEO

“Judge Treu’s groundbreaking ruling is a victory for California’s students and affirms their fundamental right to a quality education – regardless of their zip code. I applaud the parents and the nine courageous students who stood up for their future and their right to a quality education. It is my hope that this movement continues on the national stage for all of our students.

“The great promise of education is its power to end the vicious cycle of poverty and inequality that destroys too many families. While today’s ruling is a victory, the fight for students is far from over. It is now time for legislative leaders to work with the communities, parents and students they represent to build a first-class educational system in California.”

Nina Rees, National Alliance President and CEO

“This is a win for students. The court has recognized the right of all students to benefit from the instruction of a high-quality teacher, regardless of a student’s race or socioeconomic status.

“Research shows that teachers are the single most influential factor in the classroom for predicting future student success so it is important to ensure that all students have access to a high-quality teacher and are not stuck in failing schools. We look forward to seeing the precedent this sets in California, as well as the doors it will open for similar lawsuits to be filed in other states with tenure laws that fail to put the needs of students first.”

Educators 4 Excellence

“This case has ignited passions on all sides of the education spectrum. We hope today’s verdict will now spark conversations in local districts about how best to reshape education policies around critical issues like how we hire, evaluate, support and retain top talent to do the toughest and most important job on earth – teach our future.

“While litigation and legislation provide important guardrails, Educators 4 Excellence believes those directly impacted by what happens in our classrooms should be proactively identifying better strategies to improve teaching and learning. Teachers, school leaders, and parents can and should lead the conversation about the incredibly important issues facing our classrooms and careers such as teacher evaluation and dismissal. This case can be a victory for everyone involved if adults respond in a way that organizes our priorities around the needs of California’s students.”

Parent Revolution

“The implications of this are absolutely huge and will not be well understood for years. But one thing we do know is that the door for wide scale school reform is open. What the court did today was say that the laws on permanent employment, tenure, and dismissal are unconstitutional and shall not stand. In part because of the huge impact this will have, the court is expecting the state and California Teachers Association to appeal this decision (which they will).”

“The laws will not be wiped out until the appeals process is done. But appeal is a high bar. And given the strength of the students’ arguments, it would be surprising for the appellate court to reverse course on all three issues. Today is a victory for kids and for progress. Today is a victory for all of California. What this means is new laws must now be written. We have a chance to work with parents and other allies to get the laws that our children deserve and our state needs.”

The case pits the state and its biggest teacher unions against nine students who have asked the judge to strike down five laws that govern teacher tenure, dismissal and seniority consideration for layoffs.

The case was initially filed two years ago and whatever the outcome tomorrow, the losing side is almost certain to appeal, delaying for quite awhile any changes the judge’s decision requires.

Judge Rolf Treu

Lawyers in the Vergara v. California lawsuit, a challenge to laws that govern teacher employment, have been told to expect a decision in the case by June 10.

The two-month trial concluded in March, leaving state superior court judge Rolf Treu to wade through the testimony of dozens of witnesses for his decision.

At issue are five state laws that involve tenure, the dismissal process and seniority rights. Defendants in the case — the state, joined by two big teacher unions — want to keep them as they are. The nine students who are acting as plaintiffs want them struck down.

While a decision either way provides a symbolic victory, any practical effect is probably years off. The loser is almost certain to appeal, which means many more months or even years could pass before a court instructs the legislature to act, or not.

Judge Rolf Treu

Just in case Judge Rolf Treu might have missed anything during the two months of Vergara v. California, a battle over teacher employment protections that concluded last month, the parties filed their post-trial briefs yesterday, each making one last effort to influence Judge Treu’s decision.

At issue are five state laws that govern tenure, dismissal and seniority. Defendants want to keep them. Plaintiffs want them struck down. He now has 90 days to decide who wins.

Each side echoed the same themes from closing arguments:

“In two months of trial, Plaintiffs proved that the Challenged Statutes are creating vast and unjustified inequalities in the educational opportunities being afforded to students across California,” lawyers for the nine student-plaintiffs wrote.

“It is remarkable that after a month of testimony from twenty-two different witnesses, Plaintiffs have been unable to answer the most basic questions surrounding their theory that the Challenged Statutes cause the hiring and retention of ‘grossly ineffective’ teachers in California public schools,” said lawyers for the state.

“After a lengthy trial, Plaintiffs are entirely unable to prove their unprecedented equal protection claims,” said lawyers for the intervenors — the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) — who joined the state in defense.

The entire 30-plus page filings can be found here (plaintiffs), here (defense) and here (intervenors).

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Boutrous

Lawyers from both sides in Vergara v California — the state’s most significant teacher rights case in two decades — unleashed their final arguments today, in a last attempt to amplify their own case and destroy their opponent’s.

The case is now in the hands of state Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu, who gave the sides until April 10 to submit any final briefs, after which he has 90 days to issue his ruling. He has the option of striking down all the laws, some of them or none of them.

“I’m not saying it’ll take all 90 days,” he told them inside a downtown courtroom larger than the one used for the trial, so as to accommodate a big audience on the final day of proceedings. “The court has much to consider, and it will consider it deliberately and thoroughly.”

Ted Boutrous and Marcellus McRae, lawyers for the nine student-plaintiffs went first, offering dramatic and emotional rationales for striking down five laws that govern teacher seniority, dismissal and tenure.

Jim Finberg

They were followed by Supervising State Attorney Susan Carson and Jim Finberg, who was representing the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers. Together, they argued that the plaintiffs came nowhere close to proving their case.

For two hours, Boutrous and McRae laid out their vision, arguing that the statutes handcuff school districts, thus leaving ineffective teachers in the classroom and denying students their constitutional right to a quality education.

Boutrous underscored the impact ineffective teachers have on students. Recalling testimony from Harvard economist Raj Chetty, he told the court that if as few as 3 percent of California teachers were ineffective, the academic impact on their students would be the equivalent of $11.6 billion in lost lifetime earnings.

“If that’s not real and appreciable harm caused by theses statutes,” Boutrous said, “I don’t know what is.”

McRae followed, and his presentation was the most animated and emotional of all the lawyers.

“You can’t make sense out of non-sense,” he intoned more than once, insisting that the challenged statutes are the prime reason why so many ineffective teachers remain in California classrooms.

He indicated the evidence supports the plaintiffs’ position that the two-year tenure statute provides insufficient time to make an informed decision on a teacher’s effectivess; the dismissal rules are too costly and lengthy; and, the seniority law requires district to layoff top teachers.

He called the dismissal process “a monstrosity” that requires “17 arduous and byzantine” steps before a teacher challenging a dismissal would have the final decision. He likened it to driving down an unfamiliar freeway, and “You don’t know if your getting off at exit 2, exit 10 or you have the E ticket ride to the Court of Appeal.”

McRae also repeated the familiar theme in the case, that the students most impacted by these statutes are the most vulnerable, generally from minority and low income families.

“Have we not had enough in this country’s history of short-shrifting poor people?” he asked. “This is an abomination. This has to stop.”

Both Boutrous and McRae reminded the court that the five statutes undermine students’ rights, and that the state must show that there is a compelling state interest that could not be satisfied with any other approach, and they argued it hasn’t done so.

The lawyers for the state and teacher unions mounted strong counter arguments, that the challenged statutes are not the problem. Rather, the pervasiveness of ineffective teachers can be laid at the feet of poorly managed school districts, as they said their evidence has shown.

The defense maintained that the contested laws serve legitimate governmental interests – academic freedom, attracting and retaining quality teachers, and providing employment protections for teachers to insure that they are not unfairly dismissed.

“The best way to help students,” said Carson, the state’s lawyer, “is not to take away teachers’ rights. Put more resources into schools so they can do the best job they can.”

Finberg argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the challenged rules had a direct impact on the nine-student plaintiffs, especially because only four of them and the father of a fifth actually testified in the case.

“None of the plaintiffs suffered real and appreciable harm,” he said.

He reminded Judge Treu that each accusation a plaintiff  made, of suffering from the ineffectiveness of a teacher, was a misrepresentation of the facts, as he described the teachers they named as exemplary.

“The reality was very different,” he said, adding that none of them had ever been assigned an ineffective teacher or been given one as a result of the statutes.

Finberg also made a strong defense of the two-year tenure statutes. To counter McRae’s argument that three years or more would give school districts more time to make critical judgements, Finberg asked rhetorically, “How useful is that additional information? And what is the cost of waiting?”

He concluded by telling the court that the statutes “are doing the good job we want them to do, educating California children.”

As is customary, plaintiffs got one last chance to make their case in rebuttal. Boutrous responded to the defense’s closing arguments by saying he felt as if he “had entered an alternative universe  where rules that govern behavior don’t apply.”

He said the laws violate students’ constitutional rights and harm “kids every day creating an inequity wave across the state.”

LOS ANGELES — An attorney representing nine California public school students told a judge Thursday that laws making it too hard to fire bad teachers and retain good ones are preventing students from obtaining a decent education and must be struck down.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. made his assertions in a closing argument in the trial of a lawsuit that seeks to make it easier for administrators to dismiss incompetent teachers with tenure and easier to retain effective ones.

Attorneys for those who support leaving teacher tenure laws intact were to make their closing arguments later in the day.

Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu, who is hearing the case without a jury, did not indicate whether he would issue a ruling immediately afterward or a written one later.

Boutrous said that saddling a student with a bad teacher for just one year can cost a youngster tens of thousands of dollars in future lifetime earnings.

“When a student has a grossly ineffective teacher, it harms them. It harms them for the rest of their lives,” Boutrous said.

Administrators clearly know who their ineffective teachers are, but tenure laws tie their hands, he said.

The closing arguments came after weeks of testimony from top school officials and others.

The group of students who brought the lawsuit say that once an incompetent teacher is granted tenure, it becomes so difficult to fire them that students are denied their right to a good education.

Attorneys for the state and teachers unions respond that the 18-month probationary period before a teacher is granted tenure is sufficient time to weed out incompetents.

The trial represents the latest battle in a nationwide movement to abolish or toughen the standards for granting teachers permanent employment protection and seniority-based preferences during layoffs. Dozens of states have moved in recent years to get rid of or raise the standards for obtaining such protections.

The students bringing the lawsuit want longer probationary periods before teachers are granted tenure and a streamlined process for firing underachieving instructors. They also want an end to “last hired-first fired” policies when financial constraints make it necessary for school districts to lay off instructors.

Teachers union officials say those job protections are vital to keeping quality teachers in a profession already losing talented people to higher-paid private-sector positions.

Judge Rolf Treu

Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in Vergara v California. Lawyers for the nine public school children who are the plaintiffs will speak from 10 to noon, followed by their defense counterparts, from 1:30 to 3:30.

The plaintiffs have the option to get in a last word after that, but, really, is there much new to say by now?

The positions are clear. For two months, the opposing sides have put on AM/FM cases as they try to persuade Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu of their superior wisdom.

Plaintiffs have taken a systemic approach, using the experiences of nine students as a motif for showing why California needs to legislate a more efficient way to get ineffective teachers out of the classroom. The fact that one child’s education could be compromised means all children are at risk.

No, say the defendants — the state, with the California Federation of Teachers and California Teachers Association, as “intervenors.” Their case has been more granular. These kids might have had problems with their teachers, but is that enough to blow up state laws that offer employment protections for public school teachers, whose effectiveness in the classroom is dependent on so many factors outside of it?

The battle ground has been five laws that cover three aspects of teaching in California:

• The Permanent Employment Statute, which requires school administrators to decide after 18 months whether to hire on a permanent basis or dismiss a teacher. Plaintiffs say it’s too short a time to make a reasonable decision. Defendants say it’s time enough.

• The three Dismissal Statutes, which provide the protocols for how districts get rid of an ineffective teacher. The plaintiffs say it takes too long and costs too much. The defendants say they provide critical employment protections for an endangered profession.

• The “LIFO” Statute, or last-in, first-out, which means seniority is the only measure by which teachers are laid off in times of tight budgets. Plaintiffs want student achievement as a determinant. The defendants say seniority is fair, orderly and objective.

Tomorrow is not nearly so critical as what happens next. As a bench trial in which 52 witnesses testified over two months, the case now falls to Judge Treu to contemplate one over-arching question: Are the laws, as they exist, the best and only way for the state to provide California school children access to a quality education, as the state Constitution provides?

Anyone watching Judge Treu over the course of testimony would appreciate his unstinting attention to detail and process. He demonstrated a sponge-like quality to absorb nuances of testimony in navigating the appropriateness of questions, evidence and objections.

At the end of testimony on Monday, lawyers from both sides thanked him. But his task ahead is a daunting one. Striking down state laws is a serious undertaking, and no matter how he decides, the losing side is likely to appeal.

He is not bound to any formula for judgement. He can strike down all the laws, some of them or none of them — although they are so inextricably linked, vacating only some might pose a greater challenge for the legislature than a complete overhaul.

It’s even possible that the legislature might have another look at the laws if the defense prevails on all points. California is one of just five states that provide as little as two years for granting tenure. That would be the easiest law to change, and the case didn’t provide much compelling evidence that keeping the probationary period so short is vital.

Whatever happens, the Vergara case has provided yet another platform for those in public education to divide their universe along the usual union-reform axis. After all, it is a wealthy entrepreneur from Silicon Valley with ties to reform groups, David Welch, who is underwriting the plaintiffs, and the California affiliates of the nation’s largest teacher unions are on the other side.

In that context, the arguments are likely to continue, well beyond whatever Judge Treu decides.

Eric Hanushek

“Evidence is closed,” Judge Rolf Treu pronounced from his seat in Superior Court today, thus drawing the curtain on two months of testimony in Vergara v. California.

Since Jan. 27, lawyers representing nine students-as-plaintiffs and their adversaries — the state and its two powerful teachers unions — the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association — have been arguing it out over teacher protection laws. The plaintiffs say the laws deny California school children access to a quality education by making it difficult to get rid of ineffective teachers. The defendants say a well-run school district can manage.

Over the next two days, lawyers will formulate their closing arguments and present them on Thursday, after which the case falls to Judge Treu to render his decision. At stake are five statutes governing the way dismissals are carried out, the length of tenure and the requirement of last-in, first-out when budgets force school districts to reduce the number of teachers they employ.

A victory by the plaintiffs would force the state legislature to act in the vacuum of laws struck down as unconstitutional. If the defendants win, the laws remain for now, with another challenge coming as soon as November through a ballot initiative aimed at the same issues, if proponents can collect enough signatures to get the measure before voters.

As a final day of testimony, it was the plaintiffs’ chance to put on a rebuttal case, and it played out with an inordinate level of contention and almost as many objections to questions as answers. One witness under cross-examination had no questions to answer because Judge Treu sustained objections to every one posed.

The plaintiffs called just two witnesses — Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and an expert in using economic analysis in education, and Anthony Smith, a former superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District.

Both were used to amplify testimony of other plaintiffs’ witnesses and to refute testimony of defense witnesses. Hanushek spent most of his time on the stand defending his belief that using value-added measures of teachers is critical for evaluating their effectiveness and supporting a recent Stanford report that showed LA Unified charter schools did a better job educating students than traditional district schools.

While plaintiffs attorney Marcellus McRae steered clear of asking about an even more recent Stanford report, a survey of all California charters that showed they performed about the same as regular public schools, a lawyer for the unions, Peder Thoreen, went right at it, only to be swatted back by objections because Hanushek said he had been out of the country when the report was released, and he was not entirely familiar with it.

That struck some of the lawyers as a bit disengenuous in that Hanushek’s wife, Macke Raymond, wrote both reports.

“It is a pretty outrageous statement given that it was written by his wife,” Jonathan Weisglass, a lawyer for the defense, said during an afternoon recess. “And it, in fact, says that for the entire state of California, that the performance of charter schools is equal to or worse than traditional public schools. It’s far less favorable to charter schools than the LA study. So it’s really kind of odd and surprising that he was only familiar with that one.”

Smith’s value to the plaintiffs was offering opinions that underscored the major arguments of their side, that the state could find other ways to provide teacher protections without these particular laws.

All of them work against school children, he said, adding at the end that, sure, bad neighborhoods and other impediments to education outside the classroom can be difficult for students to navigate.

“Those conditions are real,” he said. “But the need to serve those kids is even greater.”

The day might have ended then and there. But other matters lingered. The plaintiffs tried to enter into evidence a late development in San Jose, where the school district and its teachers union — together — sought a waiver from the California Department of Education to allow the district a third year — one more than the current state law — to evaluate a teacher before granting tenure.

It is the first time district leadership and a teachers union have cooperated in seeking such a waiver, and it sent several defense lawyers scrambling for their phones, perhaps to learn more about it.

Then the defense had one more gambit. In a final stab at getting the second charter school report into evidence, they put on a brief surrebuttal case, recalling Jesse Rothstein, a professor at Cal-Berkeley and a former senior economist on the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, whose testimony in the case Hanushek had refuted.

This was a chance for Rothstein to refute the refuter. But once he said he hadn’t read the report and “may have read the executive summary,” the objections prevailed, and that was that.

Previous Posts: In Vergara, Darling-Hammond defends CA teacher laws; More than just teachers affect learning, Vergara expert says; Vergara witness says streets more than teachers shape academics.

Linda Darling-Hammond, with Judge Rolf Treu and lawyer Marcellus McRae

The defense in Vergara v California called its final witness to the stand today, a nationally-recognized expert on education policy, who provided testimony that heavily supported all the state laws under challenge in the case.

Throughout the day, Linda Darling-Hammond, who teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, said unequivocally that the California laws governing teacher tenure, dismissal and seniority — as they are — adequately serve public education throughout California.

The plaintiffs in the case, nine students, have mounted their challenge to the laws under the legal theory that they combine to deny access to a quality education by protecting ineffective teachers.

Tomorrow, the defense concludes its case by recalling Vivian Ekchian, LA Unified’s Chief Labor Negotiator. Her testimony was halted yesterday to accommodate Darling-Hammond’s schedule. Next week, the plaintiffs open their rebuttal case, followed by closing arguments a week from today.

Darling-Hammond’s testimony under direct examination gave the defendants — the state and its two biggest teacher unions — the most comprehensive support of any of the previous 27 defense witnesses.

Later, however, under cross-examination, her answers suggested that despite her expertise and many years of research, her opinions did not always allow for plausible alternative possibilities.

The testimony touched on many aspects of the laws under challenge.

She testified that well-managed school districts can easily identify grossly ineffective teachers within the state’s two-year tenure framework.

Expanding that window, as the plaintiffs want, would be more damaging to students and districts, she said, keeping ineffective teachers in place for a longer period of time.

Encouraging districts to make the decision “within a reasonable timeframe,” she said, would insure that “students are not exposed to struggling teachers for longer than they need to be.”

She described research showing that teacher evaluations, including Peer Assistance Review, a statewide program that helps teachers improve, are most efficient in remediating teachers or identifying those who should be dismissed for their inability to meet district standards.

“Districts with best evaluation processes are able to dismiss grossly ineffective teachers within one year,” she said.

While the plaintiffs contend the dismissal laws are too complex and expensive to work efficiently, Hammond insisted that remediation programs help cut down expenses for school districts and reduce teacher turnover, which destabilizes the classroom learning environment.

In testimony on the law known as “Last in, First Out,” which requires that the most junior teachers be laid off first in times of budgetary constraints, Darling-Hammond dismissed any notion that teacher effectiveness should be considered for the order of dismissal, over reverse seniority.

“Most districts cannot provide the evidence needed to rank teachers against each other,” she said, adding, “There is no accurate measure to rank teachers across a whole district.”

She called seniority “a rational basis for reductions” and insisted that any measures of effectiveness using test scores alone “are inaccurate and unstable.”

In his cross-examination, Marcellus McRae chipped away at Darling-Hammond’s assertions, showing they do not always comport with the current state of public education in California.

She admitted she had never read the laws in question before agreeing to testify in the case; she conceded that a three-year tenure statute “would serve the same interests” as the current two-year law; and she said she really didn’t know the costs of dismissing a teacher through the state’s existing appeals process.

At one point, McRae used Darling-Hammond’s own words against her, repeatedly quoting from her 2010 declaration in a case intended to stop seniority-based layoffs in LA Unified. In the document, she wrote:

• “California has failed, and is failing, to provide equal educational opportunities to all of its public schools students, primarily failing poor and minority students.”
• “Many California schools, primarily those serving a majority of low-income and minority students, continue to struggle for equivalent resources and for enough qualified teachers and, absent a change in state policy, will continue to do so for some time.”
• “While efforts have been made in the Courts and otherwise over the past decade to try to level the educational playing field for all of California’s public school students, the continuing and substantial inequalities between the haves and have nots in California’s schools is well-documented and indisputable.”

Back under questioning from the unions’ lawyer, Jim Finberg, Darling-Hammond put those statements in context saying, when they were made California’s public school funding policies were severely inadequate.

“Since then, she said, “a more equitable funding formula has been put in place.”

Previous Posts: More than just teachers affect learning, Vergara expert says; A witness in Vergara v California urges seniority over ‘effectivness’; Teachers refute ‘ineffective’ charges by Vergara witnesses.

Ken Futernick

An expert on the the role that teachers play in academic performance today became the latest defense witness in Vergara v California to testify that students in high-poverty area schools face higher challenges to learning.

Ken Futernick, Director of the WestEd School Turnaround Center, a research organization, and a former professor of education at California State University, Sacramento, told the court that such factors as ill-prepared teachers, poor working conditions in the school and high turnover among teachers and administrators make it difficult to attract and retain effective teachers, thus adversely affecting academic achievement.

The testimony supports a major contention of the defendants, that it’s not exclusively the caliber of teachers that affects learning; it is also external conditions that bear on a student’s ability to learn.

Defendants in the case, the state and teacher unions, are trying to prove that these other factors make it difficult for the nine-student plaintiffs to show that state laws governing teacher dismissal, seniority and tenure should be struck down as impediments to a quality education.

Futernick provided several statistics to support his opinions. He testified that 22 percent of new teachers in California leave the profession after four years and that the percentage of teachers who transfer out of high-poverty schools is twice that from low-poverty schools, He said 20 percent of new principals in urban school districts leave after just two years and pointed to the Oakland Unified School District as an extreme: There, he said, 44 percent of new principals leave the field after just two-years.

The effects of this high turnaround, he said, impact both student learning and teacher development and damages a school’s ability to provide a stable learning environment.

Futernick further testified that high-poverty schools have a harder time filling vacant positions, leading to a greater number of teacher mis-assignments — a math teacher assigned to an English class, for example — and these mis-assignments, he told the court, have a negative impact on student learning.

The assistance Futernick provided the defense might have been undercut to a degree during cross examination by Kyle Withers, who solicited an acknowledgement from him that none of his research or opinions related directly to the statutes at issue in the case.

Earlier, the plaintiffs’ wrapped up their cross examination of Lynda Nichols, program consultant with the California Department of Education.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae attempted to show that a teacher considered by the state as “highly qualified” for having a teaching credential does not always equate with being effective.

Judge Rolf Treu intervened and asked Nichols, “Are all teachers who are credentialed effective?”

“Unlikely,” she said.

Another witness today was James Webb, an English teacher from the William S. Hart Union High School District in Santa Clarita and a consulting teacher for the district’s performance review program for first-year teachers.

He told the court he could decide within three months whether a new teacher would meet program standards — testimony the defense used in support of its claim there is sufficient time to make decision on tenure within the two-year statutory framework.

On cross examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Josh Lipshutz, tried to minimize Webb’s testimony by pointing out his experience is limited to one school district among hundreds in California.

The day ended with the start of testimony by Vivian Ekchian, who was recently named Chief Human Resources Officer for LA Unified.

While the district withdrew as a defendant in the case before the trial started, she was called by the defense in an effort to impeach the testimony of a plaintiffs’ witness, Nicholas Melvoin, a former LA Unified teacher at Markham Middle School in Watts, who had testified last month that teacher layoffs in 2009 resulted in effective teachers being dismissed and morale at the school eroded.

“It was a toxic environment,” he said.

During a rather contentious examination, defense lawyer Jonathan Weissglass tried to show that problems at Markham were created by ineffective school administrators, not the challenged statutes.

Ekchian is scheduled to return to the stand on Friday, so the defense’s final witness, Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford professor and expert on education policy, can start and complete her testimony tomorrow.

Previous Posts: Vergara witness says streets more than teachers shape academics; A witness in Vergara v California urges seniority over ‘effectiveness’; Ex-district chief tells Vergara court teacher laws don’t interfere.