The California Court of Appeal, Second District, will take up the closely followed appeal in its Los Angeles courtroom.

The 2014 decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Rolf Treu made headlines across the nation. After the judge cited evidence showing the near-impossibility of firing incompetent teachers in California, he wrote, “All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience. There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms” — with most working in largely minority schools.

The result, said Treu, was a de facto segregated system that reminded him of the circumstances in Kansas that led to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that led to the end of segregated schools. He wrote that evidence presented by the Vergara plaintiffs — nine students in predominantly minority schools in Los Angeles Unified — showed California had failed to provide “a student’s fundamental right to equality of the educational experience.”

Poor teaching a ‘deep-rooted inequity’

The ruling was depicted by the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers as an outrageous exaggeration of problems in state public schools and a de facto attack on teachers and unions. Nevertheless, the ruling prompted the New York Times to run an editorial lambasting California’s schools for neglecting Latino and African American students:

When states are sued for providing inferior education to poor and minority children, the issue is usually money — disproportionately more money for white students, less for others. A California judge has now brought another deep-rooted inequity to light: poor teaching.

In an important decision issued on Tuesday, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that state laws governing the hiring, firing and job security of teachers violate the California Constitution and disproportionately saddle poor and minority children with ineffective teachers.

The ruling opens a new chapter in the equal education struggle. It also underscores a shameful problem that has cast a long shadow over the lives of children, not just in California but in the rest of the country as well.

Treu stayed his invalidation of the teacher-protection laws pending appeal.

The state government’s appeal of the ruling, filed by Attorney General Kamala Harris, questioned Treu’s assumptions about the effects of state law:

The notice of appeal cited several issues, including that “changes of this magnitude, as a matter of law and policy, require appellate review.”

 

The notice also faulted the trial judge, saying that he had “declined to provide a detailed statement of the factual and legal bases for [his] ruling.”

That’s from the Los Angeles Times.

High-profile law professors split on ruling

A powerhouse group of law professors, led by Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe, supported Treu’s decision in a friend of the court brief:

The California Constitution establishes public schools for the benefit of children, not teachers, and the State Education Clause talks about the right to public education as “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people,” not as a right essential to the economic security of the teachers selected by the state to make that right a reality. Public schools exist to educate students, not to provide jobs, and job security, to teachers.

 

Another group of high-profile law professors, including Harvard’s Charles Ogletree and UC Irvine’s Erwin Chemerinsky, criticized Treu’s reasoning in their brief opposing the ruling:

Even if the record supported and the trial court found that the statutes caused the harms to the education of poor and minority students, that would not be sufficient to find the statutes invalid on their face and enjoin their enforcement. There also would need to be proof that striking down these statutes would remedy the harms and improve the education for these students. … There is no basis in the trial court’s decision, or in the voluminous record of an eight-week trial, for concluding that education of any identifiable group of students would be improved by the elimination of tenure, the prohibition on considering seniority in layoffs, or the injunction against enforcement of the procedural requirements for performance-based dismissal.

 

For more on the various friend of the court briefs — including one filed by former GOP Govs. Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger — go here for an EdSource overview.

But Torlakson’s specific reaction to the finalizing of the ruling was less predictable. Remember the context here: From President Barack Obama on down, many Democrats have said tenure laws are unfair to minorities and need to be changed. They may not call them unconstitutional and compare modern schools to those seen in segregated black America of the Jim Crow era. But they don’t like them.

Torlakson, however, didn’t even acknowledge this sentiment. Instead, he offered this comment:

“We do not fault doctors when emergency rooms are full. We do not criticize the firefighters whose supply of water runs dry. Yet while we crowd our classrooms and fail to properly equip them with adequate resources, those who filed and support this case shamelessly seek to blame teachers who step forward every day to make a difference for our children.”

So the real problem, you see, is that taxes are too low!

Teacher is most important classroom ‘resource’

There are two huge problems with this argument. The first is that the most important “resource,” so far as a student is concerned, is the teacher. And kids in minority schools are far more likely to have teachers who barely make the grade or who don’t even teach in the subject they were trained to teach. The second is that it’s pretty galling for a teachers union supporter to complain about adequate resources which the overwhelming majority of the operating budgets in most California school districts goes to compensation, primarily for teachers. In San Diego Unified, the state’s second largest school district, 92 percent of the operating budget goes to compensation.

So Torlakson’s reaction to the problems outlined during the Vergara trial amounts to saying the real problem is that teachers aren’t paid enough!

As for the CTA and the CFT, the real issue here isn’t about all the poor teachers that are foisted on the students who most need good teachers. Instead, it’s about a right wing plot to shut down discussion of topics important to well-meaning Californians:

A law firm representing the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers asserted that without tenure and other protections, teachers “may not teach topics such as Islam or global warming that might be considered controversial.”

Oh, my.

Establishment: Teachers matter, students don’t

I am skeptical the Vergara case will stand up on the appeal filed by the state. The bad laws Treu wants banned are effectively anti-minority, but not explicitly, and I think that point will rescue the CTA and CFT at some point.

Nevertheless, this has been a very worthy lawsuit. It underlines how horrible the California education status quo has become, and how relentlessly it sides with the needs of teachers over those of students.

That’s the sliver of good news. The bad news is that the law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday actually makes it even tougher to fire violent teachers and gives all teachers still more job protections. In an editorial urging Brown to veto the teacher-discipline bill earlier this month, the Contra Costa Times pointed out its huge shortcomings:

“The bill would establish a new set of expedited suspension and dismissal procedures for teachers who engage in ‘egregious misconduct,’ but it would limit the definition to specific child abuse, sexual misconduct and drug cases.

“It would not, for example, apply to teachers suspected of violent crimes. While it would immediately remove a teacher charged with murder from the classroom, that provision would first require the filing of criminal charges. Thus, a suspect could remain in the classroom during a police investigation.

“Here’s another example: Suppose a district attempted to dismiss a teacher for sexual misconduct but an administrative law judge hearing the case issued only a suspension. If there were subsequently another similar incident, the district could not use the prior suspension as evidence in the new case.

“Similarly, evidence of past violent behavior that was more than four years old could not be used in proceedings to bolster a dismissal case against a teacher for recent sexual abuse.”

More obstacles to ousting violent teachers

So while the Mark Berndts of the world — and common drug dealers — can get the boot relatively quickly under the new law, all other criminal teachers suddenly have many more tools to push back at attempts to discipline or fire them. As the Contra Costa Times notes …

” … the bill starts to extend criminal due process protections to teacher employment cases, even though courts have previously correctly said that the same standards should not apply. In a court of law, for example, a criminal defendant can remain silent. But in the workplace, and in discipline cases, a worker is expected to explain his or her actions.”

This is the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers letting everyone in Sacramento know they’re still in charge, Vergara or no Vergara.

That Jerry Brown would sign this atrocity into law is still more evidence that his carefully crafted media image as a noble genius governor is badly lacking in substance. Only a craven governor eager to kiss up to the CTA and CFT would have signed this bill.