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.”

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.

David Berliner

An expert in educational psychology testified today that violence in the neighborhood, family income, food insecurity and other out-of-school factors are three times more likely to impact a student’s classroom performance than the effectiveness of the teacher.

The expert, David Berliner, also discounted the reliability of student test scores to judge a teacher’s ability to enhance student achievement. Such models, he said, are “notoriously unreliable and therefore invalid.”

As a widely-published expert and now emeritus professor at Arizona State University, Berliner offered helpful testimony for the defense in the Vergara v. California trial, which is focused on how to minimize the impact and number of ineffective teachers in California public schools — at least until his cross-examination.

One of the major issues in the case is the role teachers play in student achievement, as the plaintiffs contend that the inferior ones block access to a quality education. These teachers, the plaintiffs say, are protected by the current laws governing tenure, seniority and dismissal.

Along with the witness who followed Berliner to the stand, Lynda Nichols, a consultant to the California Department of Education, the defense has now called 24 people to testify in the case, two more than the plaintiffs called.

The defense is expected to call a few more witnesses through the middle of next week, after which the plaintiffs will take a few days to put on a rebuttal case. After that, the case belongs to Judge Rolf Treu for his ruling.

Berliner seemed to shield teachers from much of the responsibility for poor academic performance by students as he testified that conditions beyond the classroom — he mentioned about nine of them — account for 60 percent of what influences a student’s scholastic achievement whereas in-school factors such as class size, curriculum, the quality of the principal and the teacher account for only 20 percent. He further testified that of the teacher impact only accounts for 10 percent.

When asked by Deputy State Attorney Jennifer Bunshoft whether standardized test scores were ever intended to assess teacher effectiveness, he said they were not.

He further testified that standardized test scores don’t provide enough information about what goes on in a classroom and should therefore not be used to assess a teacher’s effectiveness.

During a contentious cross-examination, in which the lawyers talked over each other to make points, Judge Treu appeared more like a referee, asking all the lawyers to be patient and wait their turn.

In an effort to undercut Berliner’s testimony, plaintiffs’ lawyer Josh Lipshutz asked whether regardless of in-school or out-of-school factors, ineffective teachers can have an adverse impact on teachers, and Berliner said, “Of course.”

Plaintiffs then attempted to show that the professor’s statistics could have a significant margin of error, pointing out that teacher impact be higher than 10 percent. He agreed.

Throughout the cross examination, Berliner appeared to agree with a number of other plaintiffs’ points, admitting that “there should be greater accountability of teachers in schools” and that union protections shouldn’t be an obstacle to dismissing ineffective teachers. He further testified that test scores are, indeed, one way to measure student achievement and that value-added models should be able to identify good and bad teachers.

As for the tenure period, another major issue in the case, he said that principals should have more time to make decisions, as long as three-to-five years, which runs counter to a steadfast defense position that the current standard, two years, is sufficient.

Back in front of a defense layer, Berliner qualified his answer, saying principals can make such decisions within the two years, as well.

Nichols, a former teacher, told the court that she believed the dismissal and tenure statutes protected her rights as a teacher.

The defense contends that such statutes serve important governmental interests shielding teachers from being unfairly dismissed or pressured by parents and school boards.

She explained how teaching sensitive subjects like Islam, which she taught in her seventh grade history class, created difficulties for some parents.

Ms. Nichols stated that knowing “that very solid protections were in place allowed me to move comfortably forward.”

Previous Posts: Teachers refute ‘ineffective’ charges by Vergara witnesses; Witnesses in Vergara v. California hail collaboration despite API gaps; Vergara witness says state laws governing teachers work.

Linda Tolladay

A 30-year veteran of teaching in California school districts testified for the defense today in Vergara v. California, saying state laws protecting teacher employment are critical to maintaining teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

Linda Tolladay, an eighth grade science teacher in the Madera Unified School District outside Fresno, told the court that replacing seniority with a measure of effectiveness for layoff purposes would be disruptive to teamwork and would leave teachers vulnerable to a range of unfair judgements.

Switching to a consideration of effectiveness, she said, “would destroy utterly collegiality critical to teaching children. I’d be afraid to give my super secret teaching techniques to colleagues who might become better than me.”

Her views echoed testimony of other defense witnesses in the case, in which nine students are challenging state laws on seniority, tenure and dismissal. They are contending that the laws keep in place ineffective teachers at the expense of better ones, thereby denying equal access to a quality education.

Tolladay told the court that the idea of school administrators and board members sitting in judgement of teachers during an appeal process “quite frankly is frightening to me.”

“Superintendents, administrators have very little understanding of what goes on in a classroom,” she said.

She also said the existing legal protections inoculate teachers from administrative decisions based on bias or impatience. For example, she said, “If you’re gay and the principal doesn’t like gay people, you don’t have to worry that could be a cause for dismissal.”

And with a system that holds to reverse seniority in times of layoffs, more experienced teachers have greater latitude in using their own teaching techniques, she said.

“When you know you’ll be in the district for a while,” she testified, “you have the ability to build programs beyond a single year.”

The defense next called to the stand Jeannie Oropeza, who works for the California Department of Education as Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Services for Administration, Finance, Technology and Infrastructure Branch.

She recounted lots of details about how districts are funded, but in repeated efforts by Supervising Deputy Attorney General Susan Carson to get her opinion on the “highly unlikely” possibility teachers would be laid off in the future because of budget cutbacks, plaintiffs’ objections were sustained, and she was barred from answering.

The court also heard from Roxann Purdue, a consultant to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

She testified that about a study showing that 9.5 percent of California teachers between 2007 and 2011 ended up with “mis-assigments,” meaning they are not qualified for the subject of a class they are sent to teach, like a phys ed instructor teaching math.

The thrust of her testimony was that teacher ineffectiveness can be caused by mis-assignments, which are the result of school district decisions, not state law.

But under cross-examination she conceded that mis-assignments can also occur because of layoffs and a reduction in class size.

She also clarified that the statistics in the study were not absolute, that while a phys ed teacher leading five periods of math would represent one mis-assignment, the same teacher assigned to math, biology and history classes would represent three.

“So they all over the ball park,” said Judge Rolf Treu, who seemed as skeptical as anyone in the room.

“Yes,” she said.

Previous Posts: Teachers refute ‘ineffective’ charges by Vergara witnesses; Witnesses in Vergara v. California hail collaboration despite API gaps; Three more witnesses in Vergara v California say collaboration works.

Dawna Watty

The defense in Vergara vs. California today put more distance between student-plaintiffs who described their teachers as ineffective and the teachers, by calling them to the stand to defend their effectiveness.

Both teachers, Dawna Watty and Anthony Mize, directly challenged the assertions of their former students — Brandon DeBose and Elizabeth Vegara, whose sister Beatriz is the lead plaintiff in the case.

Watty, who was DeBose’s fifth-grade teacher at Ruby Bridges Elementary School in Alameda, told the court that she never told DeBose he wouldn’t amount to anything, as he testified earlier in the case.

“That’s not something I would say to anybody,” she said.

DeBose and Vergara are among nine students challenging state laws on teacher dismissal, seniority and tenure that they say violate their right to an effective education. As chief defendant in the case, the state contends that to prevail, the students must demonstrate they have been directly harmed by the ineffective teachers the statutes ostensibly protect.

The state, and as intervening defendants, the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, have now solicited testimony disputing allegations from four of the five students — all but Beatriz Vergara — who have testified, one of them through her father.

Watty said she is evaluated every two years and never received a negative evaluation. She also told the court that she never received complaints from DeBose’s parents about her teaching.

Anthony Mize, who was Elizabeth Vergara’s eighth-grade English teacher at Maclay Middle School in Pacoima, offered a starkly different version of events  from what she described on the stand.

While Vergara had told the court she only read one chapter of one book in Mize’s class, he recalled in detail lessons based on novels, reading assignments and writing exercises in which she participated.

In contrast to her characterization of him as an ineffective teacher, testifying at one point, “He didn’t teach us anything like how to structure like an essay, how to analyze a story, what an English teacher is supposed to do,” Mize was almost kind in his recollection of her.

“Academically, she definitely needed some support in writing,” he told the court. “But I would definitely say she had a thirst for knowledge. What she lacked in grade-level academics, she made up for in desire.”

He also told the court her score on the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test that year improved by 134 points, the equivalent to a year-and-a-half gain in reading comprehension.

The defense is expecting to wrap up its case by late next week, after which the plaintiffs plan to spend two to three days of rebuttal.

Previous Posts: Witnesses in Vergara v. California hail collaboration despite API gaps; Ex-district chief tells Vergara court teacher laws don’t interfere.

Shannan Brown

Two witnesses from the same California school district told the court in Vergara vs. California today that collaborative efforts have enabled the district to deal smoothly with ineffective teachers without constrictions from the laws at issue in the case.

Shannan Brown, the head of the San Juan Unified School District’s teachers union, and Elizabeth Davies, an assistant superintendent for elementary schools, described programs and protocols that helped teachers overcome the outside influences of drugs, gangs and lack of parental supervision that undermine student achievement.

Together, theirs was more testimony in support of the defendants’ position that well-managed schools can overcome state laws that plaintiffs argue protect ineffective teachers and deny California students a quality education.

Brown, one of five California Teacher of the Year honorees in 2011, said poor leadership influences student learning, telling the court, “when adults can’t figure out how to work together, it will always impact students.”

The case has been brought by nine students against the state, with the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers joining the defense.  The lawsuit focuses on five California statutes that govern tenure, dismissal and seniority as a criterion for layoffs.

The defense contends there are a number of factors, besides the contested laws, that affect students’ ability to gain an effective education.

Brown testified that many of the students in her school district lack food, clothing and parental supervision and are often subjected to violence on a daily basis, all of which impacts teacher effectiveness.

She said schools “must address these issues in order to deal with learning gains.”

Brown also testified that the teachers union and the district have worked together to address these problems and have implemented programs in low-income schools to improve student learning.

One such program, “Capacity Building,” she said, allows for more teacher leadership, feedback and observation. The results, she explained, have led to a more focused and calmer school culture with greater emphasis on student learning.

Davies added, “We put our strongest principals” at lower-income schools, and provide additional funding to reduce class size and target student needs.

She also testified that 18 months was a sufficient time to decide whether to grant tenure to new teachers — a period that the plaintiffs are arguing is much too short.  Davies attributed that to a well-organized evaluation system that also included determining whether teachers were adhering to the California teaching standards.

Another defense witness, Peggy Raun-Linde, former principal at Fremont High School in Sunnyvale, also testified that the statutory time period was sufficient for making tenure decisions.

By observing teachers in the classroom, and maintaining a detailed evaluation system beginning at the start of each school year, Raun-Linde testified there was enough time to determine whether teachers should be granted tenure.

On cross examination, plaintiffs’ lawyers reprised the same point they have used with other witnesses who extol strategies to blunt teacher ineffectiveness by pointing out that whatever they do, the achievement gap between white and minority students remains.

In the case of the San Juan district, Marcellus McRae asserted that in 2012 the  Academic Performance Index gap between white and African American students was about 130 points and the gap between whites and Latino students was about 100 points.

Likewise, Josh Lipshutz called attention to the API  gap of nearly 200 points between white and Latino students at Fremont High School during Raun-Linde’s last year as principal in 2009 and that in each of her six years in the job, the gap was never less than 170 points.

Previous posts: Three more witnesses in Vergara v California say collaboration works; Vergara witness says district, teachers in San Diego worked together; Teacher in Vergara v California denies that she was ineffective.

Former El Monte City School Superintendent Jeff Seymour

A former superintendent of the El Monte City School District today became the latest defense witness in Vergara v California to describe how school administrators can work within state laws to craft policies and strategies for dealing with ineffective teachers.

Jeff Seymour, who spent 25 years as the superintendent, told the court that a well-defined teacher evaluation system, including what the district calls “compelling conversations” and “performance plans,” allows administrators to monitor teachers’ progress and eliminate the ineffective ones from the classroom.

“If teachers are struggling one way or another and they need support, we make sure teachers get what is needed to be successful,” he said.

Seymour’s testimony added one more voice to the defense’s strategy in the case, calling on a witness from yet another California school district to describe innovative strategies that enable districts to overcome the laws plaintiffs charge protect ineffective teachers and deny children a quality education.

The case has been brought by nine students against the state, with the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers joining the defense. It is focusing on statutes that govern tenure, dismissal and seniority as the sole criterion for layoffs.

Seymour testified that the El Monte district, which is east of downtown Los Angeles,  implemented a number of policies to track and monitor both teachers’ and students’ performance, all with the goal of preventing teachers from becoming ineffective.

One policy, he explained, has students, parents and the teacher sign a contract that articulates performance goals for the student. In another teachers and principles meet three times a year to discuss teacher performance, the so-called “compelling conversations.”

He also said the the district carefully monitors probationary teachers, telling the court that new teachers receive two formal observations during the year along with a number of informal observations each semester.

As part of the evaluation process, he said, principals must observe new teachers once a week. When asked by defense lawyer Glenn Rothner, “Do site administrators have too much to do to devote that kind of time,” Seymour said, “No.”

Seymour’s testimony also helped support the defense’s position that the contested tenure law doesn’t provide for enough time to make an informed decision on a teacher’s potential for success.

Rothner asked “If you had doubts about a teacher’s effectiveness what would you do?”

“Generally,” he answered, “we would not retain a teacher if we had doubts about her effectiveness.”

In a series of questions about the state’s dismissal laws, and whether they serve a useful purpose, Seymour agreed that they do, saying they help “protect teachers from arbitrary decisions that might be made by a principal or district for reasons not related to their teaching competence.”

Seymour also said that using reverse-seniority for layoff considerations served the district better than teacher evaluations based on student standardized test scores.

With such a change, he said, “teachers would be far less willing to work together cooperatively.”

In his cross-examination, Marcellus McRae, took aim at Seymour’s assertion that the district didn’t use test scores to make employment decisions on teachers and that despite the district’s innovative policies, achievement gaps between ethnic groups persisted.

He also tried to undercut the former superintendent’s testimony that school administrators had sufficient time to make tenure decisions, pointing out that most of the teachers whom Seymour evaluated were already experienced teachers, which required less time.

After Seymour, the defense shifted its focus to the Oakland Unified School District, attempting to show that inadequate resources was a primary reason for ineffective teachers.

Betty Olson-Jones, a teacher and former President of the Oakland Education Association, the city’s teacher union, testified about poor working conditions in the district and the high rate of teacher turnover and burnout.

When asked by defense attorney Eileen Goldsmith about the district’s system of teacher evaluations, Olson-Jones said it was “inconsistent at best,” and more recently “spotty.”

But on cross examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Josh Lipshutz attempted to show that poverty and lack of money are no excuses for ineffective teaching. Olson-Jones conceded the district needs additional funding as well as effective teachers.

Before court concluded, the defense called Theresa Clark, Director of Professional Services with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Through her testimony, Deputy State Attorney Nimrod Elias attempted to show that teachers who go through the state two-year induction program and receive their teaching credentials, are considered effective.

The defense contends the induction period gives school administrators another tool to determine whether to grant tenure to new teachers within the statutory framework of two years.

But plaintiffs maintain that acquiring a teaching credential doesn’t ensure a teacher will be effective, especially because the induction period runs beyond the March 15 date in a probationary teacher’s second year of teaching when school officials have to decide whether to offer tenure.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Kyle Withers, on cross examination, asked Clarke whether any of the strategies in the induction program guaranteed a teacher will achieve student learning gains.

“No,” she said.

Previous Posts: Vergara witness says district, teachers in San Diego worked together; Teacher in Vergara v California denies that she was ineffective; Vergara witness says state laws governing teachers work.

Susan Mills

The defense in the Vergara vs. California trial got a boost today from witnesses involved with three different school districts – Riverside, La Habra and Long Beach — each describing how collaboration and professional development helps deal with ineffective teachers without any difficulties from the challenged laws in the case.

Susan Mills, Assistant Superintendent of the Riverside Unified School District, testified that district policies have created a collaborative environment, reducing any problems and impact on learning caused by ineffective teachers.

She told the court that a culture of teamwork in which teachers share data and strategies would be disrupted if the criteria for layoffs were changed from seniority to a measure of teacher effectiveness.

“Our district is so based in collaboration, people working together,” she said. If the system changed, she added, teachers “would not be willing to work together and share best practices. People would become competitive.”

Mills’ observations focused on one of the key issues of a case, in which Beatriz Vergara and eight other students are challenging state laws that govern teachers. One statute requires that only reverse seniority to be considered in times of layoffs, rather that measures of teacher effectiveness that depend on student test scores.

Mills also supported the defense — the state and its two biggest teacher unions — on another key issue in the case, asserting that officials in her district have little difficulty identifying ineffective probationary teachers by the state deadline of March 15 in their second year.

Even when State Attorney Susan Carson asked, “Were there any close cases?” Mills said,“No.”

The plaintiffs are challenging the state’s tenure period of two years as being too short for school districts to make proper judgements on a teacher’s ability to enhance student performance.

Plaintiffs also contend that lower income schools receive a greater share of ineffective teachers due to the contested laws. But Mills challenged that assumption, as well, stating that building strong relationships between school administrators and teachers can minimize the disparity in quality teachers between lower-income and more affluent schools.

On cross examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae attempted to demonstrate that the contested statutes place limitations on even well managed school districts.

He asked Mills, “Riverside Unified School District can’t counsel out all of the ineffective school teachers?” She agreed.

Danette Brown, a veteran of 18 years in the La Habra Elementary School District who currently works as an “academic coach” for the district, also testified that support from her school district has resulted in greater teacher satisfaction.

“Professional development and support for teachers is woven into the fiber of the school district,” she told the court. She said a district policy of designating times for teachers to meet and discuss goals and practices allows them to develop as professionals and improve their craft.

The end result of teacher collaboration, she explained, is “improvement with students,” adding, “In my opinion, teacher development enhances student learning.”

Josh Lipshutz, a plaintiffs’ lawyer, attempted to undercut her, by referring to an interview she gave to a local newspaper in which she stated “Teachers have expressed a lot of frustration with the lack of support they received from the district administration.” She conceded she was quoted accurately.

Lipshutz also pointed out that as former president of the La Habra Education Association, a union, Brown was biased in her testimony. When he asked whether she opposed an effort in the state Assembly efforts to streamline the dismissal process in cases of teacher involvement with drugs, sex with students and child abuse, she said she didn’t recall.

The defense also relied on the testimony of Joe Boyd, Executive Director of the Teacher’s Association of Long Beach, a union, to demonstrate how teacher unions and school districts can work within the parameters of the contested laws.

Boyd testified that in his experience support for teachers and administrators helps resolve problems before school districts must issue notices of unsatisfactory performance.

When asked by defense attorney Glenn Rothner as to the number of cases resolved before going to hearing, he indicated “95 percent.”

Once again, plaintiffs tried to point out that even with cooperation from both teachers and school districts, that the contested statutes are cumbersome and still leave ineffective teachers in the classroom.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Kyle Withers asked Boyd whether he knows the number of times the school district refrained to dismiss due to cost and time. He responded, “I do.”

Asked by Rothner on re-direct how often it has happened, Boyd smiled and said, “Never.”

Previous Posts: Teacher in Vergara v California denies that she was ineffective; Vergara witness says state laws governing teachers work; In Vergara, a defense witness defends districts’ teacher management.

Richard Barrera

A member of the San Diego Unified School District board testified today in the Vergara v California trial that the district increased student achievement scores while managing deep budgetary cutbacks.

Richard Barrera, who has served on the board since 2008, told the court that he attributed the academic gains to creating “a culture of collaboration and teamwork between teachers and school administrators.”

The testimony by Barrera, who is also a member of the local teachers union, plays a central role for the defense case, showing that well-run school districts can close achievement gaps and overcome the state laws that plaintiffs contend deny California public school children a quality education by protecting ineffective teachers.

The case has been brought by nine students against the state, with the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers joining the defense.

Barrera, who also serves as Secretary-Treasurer on the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, testified that a number of policies were put in place to assist schools with lower income and minority students.

He said principals were encouraged to create a teamwork approach with teachers by providing coaching and mentoring when needed. He also said additional money was devoted to English language learning classes school technology and K-3 class sizes were reduced in 30 schools.

The overall benefit of the policies, he testified, helped reduce the achievement gap between ethnic groups, resulting in greater school stability and fewer teachers electing to leave low-income schools.

Under direct examination by defense attorney Glenn Rothner, Barrera described how the district managed to avoid teacher layoffs during the state financial crisis of a few years ago.

“We had an expansion of a culture that promotes collaboration and teamwork,” Barrera said, citing a four-point strategy: Offering teachers early retirement packages; reaching agreement with the teachers’ unions on an annual five-day furlough; extending the furloughs so the district could recall teachers who were laid off; and anticipating developments in the state budget.

As a result, Barrera said between 2009-2012, most teachers who had been laid off were either recalled or had the opportunity to come back.

On cross examination, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Josh Lipshutz, asked, “The use of the collaborative model doesn’t eliminate the need for effective teachers?” Barrera agreed.

Lipshutz then asked whether the achievement gap between Latinos and white students in the San Diego school district was still one of the highest in California. He said, “Yes.”

Previous Posts: Teacher in Vergara v California denies that she was ineffective Vergara witness says state laws governing teachers work In Vergara, a defense witness defends districts’ teacher management.

Vickie Decker

For the second time this week, the defense in Vergara vs. California today turned to a teacher characterized as “ineffective” by a plaintiff in the case to show a starkly different picture.

Vickie Decker, a middle school math teacher, refuted assertions by Jose Macias, the father of student plaintiff, Julia Macias, who had claimed in earlier testimony that Decker was harmful to his daughter’s education.

Decker, who has spent nearly 20 years in the Los Angeles Unified School District, challenged those accusations, saying Julia had performed poorly in her class and did not accept her offers to help her with the work.

“In her first semester she did fairly well,” Decker said of Julia, then adding her tests and quiz results in the second semester “were very poor.”

Jose Macias had testified that Decker “demoralized” and “intimidated” his daughter, making her “afraid to ask questions,” prompting her to seek moving to a different class.

Decker’s testimony is important to the defense — the state, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) — in trying to show that students in the case had not suffered with ineffective teachers, and certainly not to the extent that five state laws governing teachers should be struck down.

Beatriz Vergara, Julia Macias and seven other student-plaintiffs are trying to show that their own experiences are evidence of why laws on seniority, dismissals and tenure should be changed to help guarantee access to quality public education for all California students.

In 2011, Decker taught Julia, then 13, at Lawrence Middle School for gifted students in Chatsworth.

Attempting to undercut earlier testimony that described Decker as a non-caring,  intimidating teacher, defense attorney Constance Hsaio asked her what assistance she offers her students struggling in math. Decker said she holds lunch workshops twice a week, and that she has an after-school, open-door policy.

After meeting with Julia’s parents, Decker said she told them their daughter was welcome to get the help but couldn’t recall if Julia ever made it to any of the sessions. She also said she provides monthly progress reports to parents, and in Julia’s case, weekly updates.

Hsaio then asked whether Julia returned all the weekly progress reports signed by her parents, as Decker required. She said Julia did not.

When asked whether she ever told Julia’s parents. “You should know your child’s problems, she’s your daughter,” Ms. Decker replied, “I would never say anything like that to a parent.”

Plaintiffs elected not to cross examine her.

Earlier, plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae finished his cross examination of Jesse Rothstein, a professor of economics and labor at Cal-Berkeley called by the defense as an expert witness.

McRae tried to demonstrate that Rothstein’s expertise and conclusions were limited and largely theoretical, as applied to California law and that alternative approaches to getting rid of ineffective teachers might be at least no worse, and maybe better, than current the current law.

“You are not an expert on California goals with respect to public education, are you?” McRae asked Rothstein at one point.

“Correct,” he said.

Previous Posts: Judge in Vergara v California rules that case will go on; In Vergara, witness says districts can overcome ineffective teachers; Analysis: Legal positions in Vergara trial a universe apart

Cal-Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No one likes getting fired,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Fraisse

The defense in Vergara v California began its case today, calling to the witness stand a veteran educator whose testimony about identifying and dealing with ineffective teachers came in stark contrast to the views of earlier witnesses in the case.

Robert Fraisse, whose career included serving as superintendent in three California school districts, appeared to give the defense a boost by testifying that the five laws under challenge in the trial — governing teacher seniority, tenure and dismissal — are not to blame for the presence of ineffective teachers, that well-managed districts can operate smoothly within the laws and that the statutes don’t infringe on students’ rights to a quality education.

Point by point, his comments contradicted many of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, who appeared over the first four weeks of the case. Fraisse was the first to the stand for the defendants — the state and its two biggest teacher unions — after Judge Rolf Treu ruled yesterday that the case would proceed.

Among other things, Fraisse said appropriately trained evaluators can identify ineffective teachers within two years if the school district’s human resource plan is working properly. He said standardized test scores are not necessarily the major factors in making teacher evaluations and that alternative data is vital to consider as well, including local standardized exams, portfolio assessments and teacher evaluations.

In countering another major contention of the nine students who are the plaintiffs, Fraisse told the court that while superintendent for the Hueneme Elementary School District, he never experienced an unequal distribution of ineffective teachers in lower-income schools.

Glenn Rothner, a lawyer for the unions, asked Fraisse, “Did you do anything to encourage highly effective teachers to teach in lower income schools?’ Fraisse said he would assign the best principals to the neediest schools as a way to attract effective teachers to those campuses.

Fraisse also told the court that if principals did not adequately perform their job functions, including evaluating teachers for tenure, he would have them removed.

Rothner then asked Fraisse whether a system that determines teacher layoffs based on effectiveness was preferable to one based on seniority. Fraisse’s response: “I have not seen a better or more objective system than seniority.”

On cross examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae tried to chip away at the heft of Fraisse’s testimony by having the witness concede that the districts he led were relatively small with few schools and had student populations that were largely white, with much smaller percentages of blacks and African Americans.

Attempting to show that even a well-managed school district can’t close achievement gaps in student learning, McRae showed Fraisse data from the state Department of Education showing significant differences in test scores between African-American and Latino students and white students in some of the administrator’s former school districts. Fraisse said even looking at the material, he could not recollect the actual figures.

Christine McLoughlin, an award-winning teacher at Blair Middle School in Pasadena, took the stand next. Earlier in the trial, one of the four student-plaintiffs who testified in the case, Raylene Monterroza, described difficulties she had with McLoughlin, her eighth-grade English teacher.

Under questioning from Rothner, McLaughlin refuted almost everything Monterroza had said, testifying that she had given her students texts, that she had her students read novels, that the class had discussed short stories they read — all the opposite of what Monterroza had testified.

When Rothner asked whether Raylene completed all of her homework, McLoughlin said, “No.” Rothner followed up by asking whether she believed that Raylene put forth her best efforts in her class. McLoughlin responded, “It was less than her best.”

Previous Posts: Judge in Vergara v California rules that case will go on Vergara plaintiffs file a response, asking that the case continues; In Vergara trial, legals positions are a universe apart.

Judge Rolf Treu, L.A. Superior Court

After giving lawyers one more chance to make their arguments today, Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu ruled that Vergara v California will proceed, denying the defendants’ request to throw the case out.

As defendants, the state and its two biggest teachers unions tried to persuade the judge that in four weeks of testimony, the plaintiffs — nine students — did not present enough evidence to prove that the five contested statutes governing teacher dismissal, tenure and layoffs deny students right to an effective education.

As a result, Treu invited the defendants to start presenting their own witnesses, the first of whom, Robert Fraisse, a former teacher, principal and superintendent, will take the stand tomorrow morning.

Fraisse,who served as superintendent in three California school districts — Laguna Beach, Conejo Valley and Hueneme Elementary — is the defense’s second witness. Due to a scheduling issue, the first — Susan Moore Johnson, a professor of Education at Harvard — testified several weeks ago.

In the oral arguments, Jim Finberg, a lawyer for the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association, and Deputy State Attorney Nimrod Elias insisted that plaintiffs have not shown that the statutes are unconstitutional on their face or have caused the plaintiffs any significant harm. They further said the testimony 22 educators, experts and student litigants was not enough to establish a direct link between the contested laws and the individual plaintiffs.

Ted Boutrous, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, responded by telling the court they have provided overwhelming and compelling evidence that demonstrates the challenged statutes impose a “real and appreciable” impact on students’ fundamental right to an education. He said testimony from educators and experts in labor economics and statistical research had shown that the statutes result in students not getting the educational opportunities they deserve.

After Treu’s ruling, Boutrous issued a statement, saying, “We are very pleased with Judge Treu’s ruling and look forward to the rest of the trial.” He added “These arbitrary laws are hurting kids every day. We do not believe the State and the teachers unions will be able to prove otherwise.”

Treu’s ruling was the fifth time defendants were denied in a request to have the case dismissed.

Previous Posts: Vergara plaintiffs file a response, asking that the case continues; Vergara lawyers preview their case, the one they might need.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Marcellus McRae

After a one-week recess, the court resumes tomorrow in the case of Vergara vs. California. Attorneys for both the defense and the nine student plaintiffs are gearing up for what could turn out to be a critical juncture in this landmark case.

Before Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu is whether to throw the case out or let it proceed with the defense calling its series of witnesses.

As they have before, the defendants — the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the state — are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed. They filed a Motion for Judgment, claiming the plaintiffs have not proven that five statutes governing teacher dismissals, tenure and layoffs deny California students their fundamental right to a quality education.

The unions and the state maintain that after four weeks of testimony from educators, experts and some of the student litigants, there are still “serious and insurmountable” gaps in the plaintiffs’ case.

As part of their argument, the defendants are claiming that the laws themselves have not caused harm to the student-plaintiffs. They contend poorly managed school districts and inadequate resources are the real problem with California’s public school system. According to the defendants, the statutes provide key safeguards that help to attract and retain quality teachers.

Attorneys for Elizabeth Vergara and the eight other plaintiffs assert that they have met their burden of proof, showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged laws impose a “severe and unjustifiable” harm on children. In a response to the defense motion, plaintiffs claim that the contested statutes result in keeping ineffective teachers in the classroom and have a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority students.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae told LA School Report he would be “highly surprised” if Judge Treu dismisses the lawsuit. The defense has now argued for dismissal five times, but now, McRae said, there are four weeks of testimony to demonstrate why the case should proceed.

Beginning tomorrow afternoon, Judge Treu is expected to hear oral arguments from both sides. Should he deny the motion to dismiss, the defense will proceed with their case, which is expected to take another two or three weeks.

According to McRae, if plaintiffs ultimately win the lawsuit, and the statutes are struck down, the court cannot mandate that the legislature enact new laws. But the court can maintain an oversight to insure that any new legislation does not countermand the findings of the court.

Previous Posts: Vergara plaintiffs file a response, asking that the case continues; Vergara lawyers preview their case, the one they might need; The Vergara defense team has asked the court to thrown the case out.

Judge Rolf Treu, L.A. Superior Court

At 10:25 this morning, after they got their final documents entered into evidence, the plaintiffs in Vergara vs. California rested.

That was the signal to Susan Carson, a lawyer for the state, to inform Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu that the state and teachers’ unions would file papers later in the day, asking him to toss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof and therefore the lawsuit should not proceed.

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the state’s request for a motion for judgment is a routine defense tactic. Nonetheless, the request prompted Treu to halt further proceedings until the defense submits the motion, and he has an opportunity to hear arguments from both sides.

It is the fifth time since the case was originally filed in 2012 that the defendants have moved to have the case thrown out. They have been denied each previous time.

For the last three weeks, lawyers for the nine-student plaintiffs have presented testimony from educators, experts and students along with a mountain of exhibits to prove the California teachers’ seniority, tenure and dismissal laws violate the students’ constitutional right to equality of education.

According to McRae, the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof, showing by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the challenged statutes have a real and appreciable impact on the student-plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Throughout the trial, the plaintiffs have maintained that the contested laws push effective teachers out of the classroom with devastating consequences for students. McRae also pointed out that plaintiffs’ evidence proves that the statutes have a disproportionate and adverse impact on low-income and minority children.

But in disputing the claims, the California Teachers Association (CTA), California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the state say the plaintiffs’ evidence doesn’t support striking down state laws and the case should now be thrown out. Throughout the trial, it has been the defense’s position that the challenged statutes don’t infringe on students’ rights and that well managed school districts can work within the contested rules.

Jim Finberg, a lawyer for the teachers’ unions, said the plaintiffs have not met all the elements of their case. He said defense lawyers will argue that that the plaintiffs must prove that each of the nine plaintiff-students not only have suffered real and appreciable harm from the state laws and the harm was caused by the statutes. The defense contends that statutes are not at fault. The real problem rests with school districts that are poorly run.

The case is scheduled to resume on March 4, when Treu will consider arguments on the defendants’ request. The court is not in session next week.

Frank Fekete, a lawyer specializing in education law

Plaintiffs called their final witnesses in Vergara v California today, putting on the stand two experts who offered testimony designed to show negative consequences of the state statutes under challenge. It’s a case that could overhaul major parts of state laws that govern teacher dismissal and tenure opportunities.

Frank Fekete, a lawyer from Redondo Beach who specializes in education law, walked the court through teacher dismissal laws that the nine student-plaintiffs are contending deny many California public school students a quality education.

The state laws are not the problem, say the defendants — the California Teachers Association (CTA), the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the state — who are expected to call their first witness on Thursday. They have been countering that well-run, well-organized schools and districts have the ability to get rid of the ineffective teachers who the plaintiffs say are protected by the current state laws.

Under questioning from plaintiffs’ attorney Marcellus McRae, Fekete described difficulties that school districts face in going through the dismissal process, including the need to build a long evidentiary record and dedicate the time and money to see through a process than can take years.

When asked to estimate the average cost for seeking dismissal of teachers for unsatisfactory performance, Fekete said $100,000 to $200,000, a more modest estimate than the one offered by the plaintiffs’ first witness, LA Unified Superintendent John Deasy, who told the court three weeks ago it can cost as much as $450,000.

Fekete testified that given the costs involved and school districts’ finite resources, administrators can only go after “the worst of the worst.” As a result, he said, districts become discouraged from pursuing more cases.

“It all results in districts being extremely reluctant to fire grossly ineffective teachers,” he said, making a point at the heart of the plaintiffs’ case.

At plaintiffs’ request, Fekete said he read 10 years of decisions rendered by the state Commission On Professional Competence, the body that handles cases brought by all of California’s school districts against teachers they want to remove. The reviews sat before Fekete at the stand in two thick binders, and after he assured Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu that he had read them, Treu drew laughter in the room, saying, “You’re a better man than me.”

Fekete told the court that he believed the CPC panels, which are comprised of two educators and an administrative law judge, often have a bias in favor of the teachers and that the panel’s decision are often difficult to rebut.

Based on his review, Fekete testified that districts had brought 36 cases for unsatisfactory performance between 2003 and 2013, with 22 leading to dismissal. He characterized that as a low success rate and one that demonstrates how districts only go after the worst cases because of the time, effort and cost involved.

Defense attorneys tried hard to disqualify Fekete as an expert witness, asking questions that suggested he was little more than a “megaphone” for positions of others and that he had not taken a recent case through the CPC process.

But Treu dismissed the attempt, telling the lawyers that Fekete “ has a wide range of experience and therefore his testimony is of assistance to the court.”

Later, on cross-examination, Supervising State Attorney Susan Carson, returned to the same themes, questioning Fekete about his depth of his experience.

When she asked him about the number of cases he’s handled before the CPC involving unsatisfactory performance, Fekete testified he couldn’t exactly recall “maybe five or six.” Carson then asked about his testimony regarding CPC bias towards teachers.

“Are you saying [an administrative law judge] isn’t objective?”

Fekete said, “No.”

Earlier in the day, Sandi Jacobs, Vice President and Managing Director for State Policy for the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research organization, described the Council’s analysis of California teacher policies and how they compare with other states.

Basing all her testimony on the Council’s most recent annual report, the 2013 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, Ms. Jacobs gave California poor marks on its teacher tenure, dismissal and layoffs policies, with an overall grade of D+.

Regarding the timeframe for conferring teacher tenure, Jacobs testified “California law is worse for students” when compared with the laws in most other states. She said California was one of only five states that made such decisions within two years, and only one state — Mississippi — did it within one year.

She told the court NCTQ recommends four-to-five years before granting tenure.

When asked by plaintiffs’ attorney Kyle Withers how California stacks up against other states regarding its laws on teachers’ dismissals, Jacobs said, “We see multiple opportunities for appeal which don’t included expedited processes.”

Jacobs was also critical of California law on teacher dismissal, pointing the report’s finding that California is among 22 states that do not consider ineffectiveness in dismissal. Twenty-nine states do, she said. (Neither she nor lawyers accounted for which group includes the District of Columbia, which is part of the report.)

According to Jacobs, California didn’t fare much better on its seniority-based layoff policy, know as last-in, first-out.

Pointing to another finding in the report, she explained that California is one of 10 states where seniority “must be considered” while another 20 say seniority “”cannot be sole factor” in teacher layoffs.

To gain back some ground, Deputy State Attorney Jennifer Bunshoft asked Jacobs on cross examination whether California’s position on providing multiple appeals in the dismissal process was consistent with 33 states, as the report found. She answered “Yes.”

Jacobs then conceded that, yes, California was consistent with the majority of states.

Previous Posts: Vergara witness says schools can deal with teacher ineffectiveness; Defendants tried hard to undermine an expert in the Vergara trial; Vergara sisters recall the teachers who inspired them to sue.

Susan Moore Johnson, a Professor of Education Policy at Harvard

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging state laws that govern teacher employment put their case on pause today, allowing the defense team to call one of its key experts to the witness stand.

But it turned out far more challenging than Dr. Susan Moore Johnson, a respected Harvard professor, and the former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, might have anticipated.

In the landmark case, Vergara vs. California, nine student-plaintiffs, are arguing that the California teachers’ seniority, tenure and dismissal laws violate their fundamental, constitutional right to a quality education. The defendants in the suit, the California Teachers Association (CTA), the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the state called Johnson to the stand to help support their argument that well-managed schools and districts and properly trained administrators can handle problems with ineffective teachers as they arise.

During a relatively uneventful morning session, she offered testimony attempting to undermine many of the plaintiffs’ key points, including the contention that school administrators don’t have enough time to identify ineffective teachers.

She testified that if principals take their responsibilities seriously, “there is no question” they can do so within sixteen months. She said administrators trained to observe teachers can identify poorly performing teachers within a year.

Several expert witnesses for the plaintiffs previously testified that the law requiring tenure decisions to be made after 16 month is ill-conceived, that it’s too short a time to grant tenure.

Returning to the defense’s main contention that well-run schools, and not the challenged statutes, are the real problem, Johnson told the court that an effective Peer & Assistance Review programs (PAR), which most districts have, can contribute to efficient and effective dismissal processes. Relying upon her research, which included only one school district in California — San Juan Unified, just east of Sacramento — she explained that well-run PAR programs ensure due process rights of teachers and “didn’t lead to expensive arbitration process[es].”

When asked by Jim Finberg, attorney for the teachers’ unions, would dismissal processes contribute to teacher satisfaction, Johnson said they would, adding, “teachers want to be assured they’re treated fairly” and can’t be summarily dismissed for their performance.

But under an intense cross examination by Marcellus McRae, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, Johnson became clearly uncomfortable as McRae attempted to show the limitations of her expertise and research as they relate to the very laws she was testifying against.

McRae fired off a series of rapid questions calling into question the extent of the professor’s research and knowledge of California school districts. He pointed out that Johnson’s research was primarily limited to a study that only included the one California school system.

When asked if she had any specific knowledge of how the California dismissal and tenure statutes benefit students, she replied no. As for the seniority laws, her answer was also no. McRae then underscored the point that the professor hadn’t published anything on teacher layoffs in California. Did Johnson know the average cost associated with the dismissal statute? Again, she said she did not.

Finberg did his best to buoy Johnson’s credibility on re-direct, pointing out she is currently undertaking a study which includes the Long Beach school district, and that in conjunction with her work at the Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard, she has done informal consulting work with members of both Los Angeles Unified and San Francisco Unified school districts.

Before court concluded, Sandi Jacobs, the Vice President and Managing Director for State Policy at the National Council on Teacher Quality took the stand. The Council is a research group that focuses on quality of teachers in classrooms, nationwide. But before she got into details of her work, court adjourned for the day. She resumes her testimony tomorrow.

Arun Ramanathan was back on the stand.

Arun Ramanathan, Executive Director of The Education Trust–West, a group that works for high academic achievement, returned to the witness stand today for more questions by the defense, aimed at undermining his credibility, research and right to be considered an expert.

As one of the plaintiffs’ key experts in the landmark trial, Vergara vs. California, Ramanathan’s offered testimony that suggested a significant gap statewide in student achievement between ethnic and socio-economic groups in California. Defense lawyers did what they could to undermine what he had to say.

Nine student-plaintiffs are claiming that the current teacher dismissal, seniority and tenure laws don’t work and violate a student’s constitutional right to a quality education by keeping ineffective teachers in the job. The California Teachers Association (CTA), the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the state, as defendants, claim the statutes don’t infringe on students’ rights and that well managed school districts can work within the rules under challenge.

Glenn Rothner, a lawyer for the unions, and Jennifer Bunshoft, a deputy state attorney, used their cross examinations to try shooting holes through Ramanathan’s testimony with questions suggesting that he hadn’t done research himself and that his own knowledge of issues was insufficient for the court to consider him an expert.

Back in the hands of plaintiff lawyer Marcellus McRae for re-direct, Ramanathan recovered as McRae walked him through another series of questions designed to clean up any damage he suffered under defense questioning. McRae gave him a chance to describe more fully his work experience and skill sets that would enable Judge Rolf Treu to look more favorably upon him as a witness.

When asked about the defense’s contention that he lacks expertise as a budget analyst, Ramanathan responded, that’s “utterly illogical,” telling the court that some of the most informed people analyzing budgets are policy people.

“Are you a policy person?” McRae asked him. “Yes,” he replied.

Court adjourned at mid-day for a three-day weekend, with testimony scheduled to resume on Tuesday. McRae told Treu he expects to wrap up the plaintiffs’ case by Thursday.

Dan Goldhaber

As plaintiffs come down the home stretch in the landmark trial Vergara vs. California, attorneys for the nine-student litigants are attempting to underscore key points in their case by calling more expert witnesses.

For two of them, at least, defense lawyers made it as challenging for them as they could today, peppering testimony with objections that called into question the validity of evidence and even the credibility of the witness.

The lawsuit centers on five statutes written into the California education code that the students claim protect ineffective teachers, thereby violating their constitutional right to a quality education. The defendants in the case — the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the state — are trying to show that school districts have other means to get rid of ineffective teachers.

The day started with the return of Dan Goldhaber, a labor-economist at the University of Washington. He had testified on Tuesday that seniority based layoffs that do not take classroom effectiveness into account have harmful effects on student achievement and that value added method is preferable.

But on cross examination today, the defense team scored some points, as Jim Finberg, a lawyer for the unions, asked whether a method that just relies upon student test scores tells the whole story. He asked Goldhaber to confirm an observation he made, writing in a 2002 paper, “The Mystery Of Good Teaching,” that out-of-school factors impact student learning.

Goldhaber conceded that 60 percent of differences in student test scores may be explained by individual and family background characteristics. When asked by Finberg whether teachers become more effective after six-years on the job, Goldhaber said “yes, if value-added” method is used.

Deputy State Attorney Susan Carson followed up, asking about his opinion that seniority based layoffs have even more harmful effects on minority students because younger teachers who may be more effective are often employed in low-income schools. Carson tried to drive her point with statistics showing that in several of 15 California school districts for which they had data, the largest number of teachers with two years of experience or less were not employed in the highest poverty schools.

Goldhaber conceded the point. But what he and Carson both failed to note was that in eight of the 15 districts — including Oakland, San Francisco and San Diego — the largest percentage of such teachers were working in the highest-poverty schools

The defense made plaintiffs’ lawyer Marcellus McRae work even harder with the next witness, Arun Ramanathan, Executive Director of The Education Trust–West, an advocacy group that works to help close the opportunity and achievement gaps for minority and lower income students. Previously, he held teaching and administrative positions in Vermont, New Hampshire and California — including San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles.

Ramanathan’s time on the stand became a protracted procedural battle, as defense lawyers challenged his credentials, with arguments that they do not qualify him as an expert for the issues in the case. But when Judge Rolf Treu let him answer — which was most of the time — Ramanathan offered opinions that appeared to help the plaintiffs establish their case.

The thrust of Ramanathan’s testimony was that by a series of measures, African American and Latino students perform worse in the classroom than their white and Asian counterparts, a reality that he insisted was ‘“exacerbated” in high-poverty schools.

Layoffs based on seniority rather than teacher effectiveness erode academic performance even further in those schools, he said.

But on another point, Ramanathan gave the defense some help, acknowledging that school districts have used existing state law to deviate from seniority-based layoffs. As one example, he said the Pasadena Unified School District avoided laying off more senior teachers to retain younger ones involved in a partnership program with California State University.

Cross examination of Ramanathan resumes tomorrow.

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

Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara, sisters at the center of a state lawsuit in their name, Vergara vs. California, took the witness stand today, describing chaotic classrooms with inattentive and hurtful teachers in their middle school.

The sisters, who now attend high school at Cesar Chavez Learning Academies, an LA Unified school in San Fernando, are two of nine student-plaintiffs challenging state laws on teacher seniority, tenure and dismissal that they say violate their constitutional right to a quality education. Beatriz, the lead plaintiff, is 15; Elizabeth, 16.

The defendants in the case, California Teachers Association (CTA), the California Federation of Teachers (CFA) and the state, claim the statutes don’t infringe on students’ rights and that well managed school districts can work within challenged rules.

Ted Boutrous, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, handled the examination of the sisters, and began with Beatriz, for whom the case is known informally, asking if she ever had bad teachers. Three, she told him, at Maclay Middle School in Pacoima — for sixth grade math, for seventh grade history and for eighth grade science. Boutrous asked for her memories of each class.

Of the first, she said: “It was always loud in there. He couldn’t control the class. I couldn’t hear anything because of how loud it was.”

She went onto tell the court how her seventh grade history class was a free-for-all with a teacher who didn’t care. “ He didn’t teach well and let students do what they want, kids smoking marijuana and he didn’t mind. He didn’t care what we did.”

He also berated his students, she said: “He made rude comments. He would call us stupid and told us we would clean houses for a living and called us cholos.”

“That made me feel bad about myself because I am a Latina,” she added. “I had to work harder, show him I’m not a cholo.”

Cholo is a derogatory term often used to describe Latinos as low-class and inferior.

According to Beatriz, her eighth grade science teacher wasn’t much better. She testified: “I was scared to ask her questions because she would insult me. She always made fun of students, calling one girl a stick figure and whore.”

Beatriz told the court that she would like to go to college and become a nurse, and said, “Teachers are supposed to motivate you, encourage you and not put you down.”

Elizabeth also painted a bleak picture at Maclay, telling the court that her that time spent in a number of classes was a missed opportunity for learning.

Once an avid reader, she recalled how she stopped reading and attributed her lack of motivation to her eighth grade English teacher. She testified she only read one chapter of one book all year long. She further testified that her seventh grade history teacher, the same one Beatriz had, often left the class in disarray, with students reading magazines, talking on their phones “and throwing food.”

When asked why good teachers are important, Elizabeth said “If you have a good teacher, you can have a good education. You can go to college and have a good life.”

Representing the teachers’ unions, Eileen Goldsmith attempted to undercut the sisters’ testimony to show their dislike of certain teachers was more about style than substance. She also elicited testimony from Beatriz that showed it had not been hard to switch programs at her current school to find better teachers.

Goldsmith asked Elizabeth if her dislike of her eighth grade English teacher was more about his approach to teaching. She said, “He cared too much. He was a very caring person, but his focus should have been more on learning the subject and not our feelings.”

Goldsmith also pointed out that Elizabeth received an “A” from her seventh grade history teacher, whom she described as bad, and a “B” from another teacher the following year.

She explained that sometimes it’s easier to get a good grade from a teacher who doesn’t care, saying, “He just wants to get you out of his class.”

Glenn Rothner, a lawyer for the unions, seemed to make inroads in his cross examination of another plaintiff in the case, Raylene Monterroza,16, who testified about difficulties she had with an eighth grade English teacher at Blair Middle School in Pasadena.

While she claimed to have learned very little in class, Rothner mentioned a series of books and projects that purported to be part of the class syllabus, and she recalled none of it.

“Did you attend class every day?” he asked at one point. “Yes,” she said.

But when he asked about her seventh grade English teacher, whom Raylene described as her favorite, she held her ground by saying she was not disappointed with her grade, a B-minus. “He helped me achieve better so I wasn’t disappointed,” she said.

Nicholas Melvoin, a 2008 Harvard graduate and a former Teach for America teacher at Markham Middle School in Watts, followed the students to the stand. He testified that teacher layoffs in 2009 resulted in effective teachers being dismissed and destroyed school morale. “It was a toxic environment,” he said.

He further explained that teachers had become more concerned with job security than student achievement. Melvoin also described the impact of seniority-based layoffs on minority students, recalling that after one layoff period, students didn’t have a history teacher for seven weeks.

The final witness of the day was Dan Goldhaber, a labor-economist and professor at the University of Washington, who offered more testimony on the effects of seniority based layoffs on student achievement. He said such policies have harmful effects, and even more so on minority and low income students.

Goldhaber returns to the stand on Thursday, when the trial resumes.