California teacher tenure laws ruled unconstitutional
Bill Hetherman, Los Angeles Daily News
In a major blow to teachers’ unions, a Los Angeles judge ruled Tuesday that state laws governing tenure and the firing of teachers are unconstitutional, saying students and educators alike are “disadvantaged” by the statutes.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu issued an injunction blocking tenure laws for public school teachers but placed a stay on the ruling pending an appeal.
“This court finds that both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily and, for no legally cognizable reason — let alone a compelling one — disadvantaged by the current permanent employment statute,” the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling.
Treu noted that teachers have a right to due process when they are being targeted for dismissal.
“However, based on the evidence before this court, it finds 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,” he wrote.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2012 by an advocacy group called Students Matter on behalf of nine young plaintiffs, alleging the laws violate students’ constitutional rights to an equal education. The suit named the state and two teachers’ unions that later intervened as defendants — the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous argued during the trial that five laws should be deemed unconstitutional, saying tenure and other laws made it too time consuming and expensive to dismiss ineffective educators.
“Teaching is the one profession in the world where you cannot tell a person they are not doing a good job,” he said in his closing argument.
But lawyer James Finberg, representing the teachers’ unions, countered that the laws help prevent faculty from being hired and retained for reasons involving favoritism and politics. In as little as three months, he argued, an administrator can make a “well-informed decision” as to whether a probationary teacher should be retained.
“The statutes should not be struck down on the basis of a handful of anecdotes,” Finberg said.
Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, condemned the ruling.
“We are clearly disappointed by the decision of this judge,” he said. “We’re disappointed, but not particularly surprised, given his comments during the trial. We believe the judge fell victim to the anti-union, anti-teacher rhetoric of one of America’s finest corporate law firms.”
Alex Caputo-Pearl, president-elect of United Teachers Los Angeles, the union representing Los Angeles Unified School District teachers, also blasted the decision. “This decision today is an attack on teachers, which is a socially acceptable way to attack students,” he told KABC (Channel 7).
Boutrous, however, hailed the decision as a “monumental day for California’s public-education system.”
“By striking down these irrational laws, the court has recognized that all students deserve a quality education,” he said. “Today’s ruling is a victory not only for our nine plaintiffs, it is a victory for students, parents and teachers across California.”
LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy called the ruling “historic,” adding, “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.”
Deasy said he’ll be calling on legislators to create new laws and “a more expedited way to dismiss folks who are either incompetent or committed egregious acts.”
Still, he opposes plans to appeal the ruling, which leaves existing tenure laws in place. “I think it’s a shame for students. We’re going to go down the route of an appeal and continue to watch unconstitutional laws remain on the books.”
School board member Tamar Galatzan also supported the judge’s decision. “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,” she said.
“It is now up to the Legislature to pass laws that provide equal opportunity and provide equal access to a high-quality education.”
Today’s ruling will not affect ongoing negotiations with the district’s teachers’ union, United Teachers Los Angeles, Deasy said.
One of the plaintiffs, high school freshman Julia Macias, said the ruling “means that kids like me will have a real chance to get a great education and succeed in life. With this case, we have shown that students have a voice and can demand change when we stand together.”
Finberg, the unions’ attorney, argued during the trial that the plaintiffs based much of their arguments on teacher tenure histories in Los Angeles and Oakland and did not take into sufficient consideration how their performances are overseen in the more than 1,000 other districts statewide.
He pointed to testimony of former El Monte Union High School District Superintendent Jeff Seymour, who said new teachers are carefully screened by administrators to ensure they are meeting the proper standards.
In his Jan. 27 opening statement, Deputy Attorney General Nimrod Elias said the laws protecting teacher tenure help school districts statewide attract educators who might otherwise be dissuaded by what they may consider low pay and difficult working conditions.
Elias said there is no evidence of a connection between the laws and the poor academic performances by students at some poor and minority schools.
In his ruling, Treu wrote that the plaintiffs proved the tenure statutes “impose a real and appreciable impact on students’ fundamental right to equality of education and that they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.”
Treu also lambasted “last-in, first-out,” the rules that govern seniority and teacher layoffs.
“The last-hired teacher is the statutorily mandated first-fired one when layoffs occur,” the judge wrote. “No matter how gifted the junior teacher, and no matter how grossly ineffective the senior teacher, the junior gifted one, who all parties agree is creating a positive atmosphere for his/her students, is separated from them,, and a senior, grossly ineffective one who all parties agree is harming the students entrusted to her/him is left in place.
“The result is a classroom disruption on two fronts — a lose-lose situation. Contrast this to the junior efficient teacher remaining and a senior incompetent teacher being removed — a win-win situation — and the point is clear.”
Daily News education reporter Thomas Himes contributed to this report.
