Vergara: An Opportunity for Teacher Voice
1
The current Calif. statutes, which give “permanent status” to teachers after less than two years, deprive teachers of adequate time to demonstrate competence and students of potentially competent teachers, and are therefore depriving students of their right to an equal education. Witnesses from both sides agreed that an ideal timeframe for establishing tenure should be longer. The current Calif. statutes, which mandate so many extra layers of proceedings that dismissals can take two to ten years and cost up to $450,000, are so burdensome that they encourage districts to keep ineffective teachers. The statutes go above and beyond the normal “due process” of classified school employees, which the judge refers to as “uber due process.” Witnesses from both sides agreed that in most school districts, administrators do not bother to remove ineffective teachers because the process is so difficult. The current Calif. statutes, which demand that during budget-driven reductions in force, teachers be laid off in reverse order of hire date (so the newest teacher is let go first), are too inflexible. These laws can even force districts to retain ineffective teachers and let go of effective ones, simply based on hiring date. Given that teachers in high-poverty schools tend to be newer, this law disproportionately impacts those students, and therefore violates the constitutional right to an equal education. The decision did not specify what the new process or timeline for granting tenure should be. The decision did not say that teachers lose their due process right. In fact, it calls for equity and fair due process rights for all employees throughout California’s school buildings. The decision did not say that seniority could not or should not be one factor taken into consideration, simply that it should not be the only factor. Tenure Dismissal Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) What the decision says What the decision says What the decision says What the decision does not say What the decision does not say What the decision does not say “As educators, we demand a system that restores professionalism to education by reestablishing tenure as a significant professional milestone through use of a comprehensive teacher evaluation system.” “As educators, we demand a system that places student achievement first by displaying more transparency in both fiscal choices and decision-making processes; and adopting higher standards for students and teachers.” “As educators, we demand a system that restores professionalism to education by eliminating the practice of “Last In, First Out” for teacher layoffs.” • State legislators could proactively work with teachers to create a new system for earning and maintaining tenure. • Union leadership could lead the charge in crafting a more rigorous, thoughtful and student-focused tenure system that rewards excellence. • Teachers and other school-based staff may demand that administrators and officials define and clarify the dismissal process and their due process rights, including the role of evaluations in dismissal decisions, and appoint colleagues to ensure that due process is carried out faithfully. • State legislators and unions could work with classroom educators to ensure the dismissal process of teachers reflects the complexity of the teaching profession. • State legislators could proactively work with teachers to create a multi-measure and thoughtful system for handling lay-offs that includes seniority, among other factors, including performance. • Unions at the state and local level could poll their teachers to find out what kinds of factors teachers would want considered during times of layoffs. E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs Key opportunities for teacher voice Key opportunities for teacher voice Key opportunities for teacher voice X X X On June 10, 2014, California judge Rolf Treu handed down a decision on the historic education case Vergara v. California. Educators 4 Excellence teachers seek every opportunity available to elevate the teaching profession and student achievement, as reflected in the E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs, which advocates for an inclusive education system that recruits and retains the best teachers, respects the teaching profession and places students first. Below, we present some background information on what the Vergara decision actually means, what E4E teachers believe and, most importantly, how teachers can stay involved moving forward. Learn more: E4E.org/tenure
-
Upload
educators-4-excellence -
Category
Documents
-
view
579 -
download
1
description
On June 10, 2014, California judge Rolf Treu handed down a decision on the historic education case Vergara v. California. Educators 4 Excellence teachers seek every opportunity available to elevate the teaching profession and student achievement, as reflected in the E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs, which advocates for an inclusive education system that recruits and retains the best teachers, respects the teaching profession and places students first.Below, we present some background information on what the Vergara decision actually means, what E4E teachers believe and, most importantly, how teachers can stay involved moving forward.
Transcript of Vergara: An Opportunity for Teacher Voice
The current Calif. statutes, which give “permanent status” to teachers after less than two years, deprive teachers of adequate time to demonstrate competence and students of potentially competent teachers, and are therefore depriving students of their right to an equal education. Witnesses from both sides agreed that an ideal timeframe for establishing tenure should be longer.
The current Calif. statutes, which mandate so many extra layers of proceedings that dismissals can take two to ten years and cost up to $450,000, are so burdensome that they encourage districts to keep ineffective teachers. The statutes go above and beyond the normal “due process” of classified school employees, which the judge refers to as “uber due process.” Witnesses from both sides agreed that in most school districts, administrators do not bother to remove ineffective teachers because the process is so difficult.
The current Calif. statutes, which demand that during budget-driven reductions in force, teachers be laid off in reverse order of hire date (so the newest teacher is let go first), are too inflexible. These laws can even force districts to retain ineffective teachers and let go of effective ones, simply based on hiring date. Given that teachers in high-poverty schools tend to be newer, this law disproportionately impacts those students, and therefore violates the constitutional right to an equal education.
The decision did not specify what the new process or timeline for granting tenure should be.
The decision did not say that teachers lose their due process right. In fact, it calls for equity and fair due process rights for all employees throughout California’s school buildings.
The decision did not say that seniority could not or should not be one factor taken into consideration, simply that it should not be the only factor.
Tenure
Dismissal
Last-In-First-Out (LIFO)
What the decision says
What the decision says
What the decision says
What the decision does not say
What the decision does not say
What the decision does not say
“As educators, we demand a system that restores professionalism to education by reestablishing tenure as a significant professional milestone through use of a comprehensive teacher evaluation system.”
“As educators, we demand a system that places student achievement first by displaying more transparency in both fiscal choices and decision-making processes; and adopting higher standards for students and teachers.”
“As educators, we demand a system that restores professionalism to education by eliminating the practice of “Last In, First Out” for teacher layoffs.”
• State legislators could proactively work with teachers to create a new system for earning and maintaining tenure.
• Union leadership could lead the charge in crafting a more rigorous, thoughtful and student-focused tenure system that rewards excellence.
• Teachers and other school-based staff may demand that administrators and officials define and clarify the dismissal process and their due process rights, including the role of evaluations in dismissal decisions, and appoint colleagues to ensure that due process is carried out faithfully.
• State legislators and unions could work with classroom educators to ensure the dismissal process of teachers reflects the complexity of the teaching profession.
• State legislators could proactively work with teachers to create a multi-measure and thoughtful system for handling lay-offs that includes seniority, among other factors, including performance.
• Unions at the state and local level could poll their teachers to find out what kinds of factors teachers would want considered during times of layoffs.
E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs
E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs
E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs
Key opportunities for teacher voice
Key opportunities for teacher voice
Key opportunities for teacher voice
X
X
X
On June 10, 2014, California judge Rolf Treu handed down a decision on the historic education case Vergara v. California. Educators 4 Excellence teachers seek every opportunity available to elevate the teaching profession and student achievement, as reflected in the E4E Declaration of Teachers’ Principles and Beliefs, which advocates for an inclusive education system that recruits and retains the best teachers, respects the teaching profession and places students first.
Below, we present some background information on what the Vergara decision actually means, what E4E teachers believe and, most importantly, how teachers can stay involved moving forward.
Learn more: E4E.org/tenure
