The Los Angeles-based Parent Revolution group, which focuses on improving education and increasing educational opportunities for poor minority students, analyzed 44 LAUSD schools with weak test scores last school year. At these schools, only 20 percent of students met or did better than state math standards and only 28 percent in English.

Yet last school year, 68 percent of teachers in these schools were not subject to official evaluations – either through oversight or via exemptions ordered by their principals. Of teachers who were evaluated, 96 percent were found to meet or do better than district performance standards. Over the past three school years, the figure edged up to 97 percent getting positive evaluations – meaning only about one in every 30 evaluated teachers is found wanting.

“We do see this in other districts, where almost everyone has a satisfactory rating and it’s disconnected from student achievement,” Seth Litt, Parent Revolution’s executive director, told the Los Angeles Times. “It shouldn’t be disconnected.”

The findings parallel those that emerged from the landmark Vergara v. California lawsuit, in which nine students from state public schools represented by civil-rights attorneys hired by the Students Matter group alleged five state teacher job protection laws were so powerful that they had the unconstitutional effect of keeping incompetent teachers on the job and funneling them toward schools in poor communities.

Evidence presented by the plaintiffs in the case showed that only 2.2 teachers on average are fired each year for unsatisfactory performance in a state with 275,000 teachers at its public schools.

The case’s primary focus was on Los Angeles Unified. In a twist that few expected, some of the most powerful testimony against the teacher protection laws came from then-LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy. He testified in early 2014 that even if a teacher were “grossly ineffective,” it could cost the district millions in legal bills to fire the teacher.

Later that year, state Judge Rolf Treu agreed with the plaintiffs that the five teacher protection laws unconstitutionally deprived the students of their right to a good public education. Treu likened the laws’ effects to those of segregation before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Treu’s decision was overturned on appeal on the grounds that the trial failed to clearly establish a factual nexus between student performance and the job protection laws.

3 state justices wanted to hear teacher tenure case

But education reformers were somewhat heartened by what happened next. Three members of the California Supreme Court wanted to hear an appeal of the appellate ruling, suggesting at the least some interest in Treu’s reasoning, which was mocked as novel and weak by attorneys for teacher unions. While they were voted down by the state high court’s other four justices, they could be a factor in future litigation.

As for Los Angeles Unified, litigation over school practices affecting minorities and high-needs students has been common for decades. In September 2017, for a recent example, the district reached a $151 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU over the improper diversion of Local Control Funding Formula dollars that were supposed to be used to help struggling students in poor communities, especially English-language learners.

LAUSD was also the target in 2010 of what a federal government statement called “the first proactive civil rights enforcement action taken by the Department of Education under the Obama administration” – prompted by what then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the district’s failure to adequately educate many Latino and African-American students. The case was settled in 2011 after the district agreed to make several substantial changes meant to improve these students’ performance.

But evidence presented in the Vergara case showed no subsequent gains by these student groups.

Los Angeles Unified has 640,000 students, making it by far the largest school district in California. Only the New York City school system, which has about 1 million students, is larger in the U.S.

By BRIAN CALLE

It is no big surprise that, in recent years, California has been far from a leader in public policy and good governance reforms.

Every once and awhile there is an exception. Last year’s exception came when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature passed an education reform — the parent trigger — in the face of union opposition which has good potential for giving parents, rather than unions, more control over the direction of their children’s schools.

The parent trigger law allows parents of children in a failing school to petition for the school to be transformed into a charter school, reformed or closed altogether. But now that it is being utilized in failing districts, unions and bureaucrats are trying to undermine the reform.

Other states are now considering similar laws modeled after the parent trigger, while some within the education establishment in California, including teachers unions, are attempting to subvert the law. Compton, California has become ground zero for the protecting the important reform; so far parents are winning.

Parents of students at McKinley Elementary in Compton won a decisive battle March 21 for school-reform advocates, parents and students alike. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr ruled that the Compton district violated the First Amendment rights of parents who petitioned to reform the school when the district administrators imposed onerous standards for verifying parent petitions. Parents, by a 61 percent majority, invoked the parent trigger petitioning the district to turn McKinley into a charter school.

The Compton Education Association, the teachers union, vigorously opposed the petition, citing recent performance gains and contending that the law was not meant for schools that are improving. But McKinley is one of the worst-performing schools in California, ranking in the bottom 10 percent of all schools.

Regulatory Impositions

Aside from union opposition, parents had to endure draconian procedures imposed by district administrators to verify their signatures on petitions. They forced petitioning parents to present a photo ID and participate in an interview with administrators.

Going further, on Feb. 24, the Compton district’s Board of Trustees voted unanimously to oppose the parent petitions, for a variety of reasons, all without substance: Some of the signatures might not have been valid, dates were missing, birthdates were incorrect, there were typos on the petition, and parents did not provide enough supporting documentation.

In a statement, the School Board said they did so because had the petition taken effect McKinley Elementary School would have been removed from “CUSD oversight” with authority being transferred “to a Los Angeles-based charter school organization designated by ‘parent trigger’ petitioners.” The school district did not want to lose control of McKinley, and surely the union did not want to lose the teaching positions.

Parents, with the help of a local advocacy group, Parent Revolution, sued the district over the petition verification process, calling it unconstitutional. Judge Mohr agreed.

The battle over McKinley Elementary in Compton has statewide and national implications. If the parents are successful in using the parent trigger, they open the door for parents and students in other failing school districts throughout California

And they illustrate to elected officials in other states that reforms geared at giving parents more choice and voice in education are essential.