In 'Vergara' arguments, unions say courts should stay away from teacher tenure debate
Brandon DeBose, who was a K-12 student when he joined the Vergara v. California case as a plaintiff, speaks during a press conference after oral arguments in the case at the California Court of Appeals. KYLE STOKES/KPCC
Three state appellate justices heard oral arguments Thursday morning about whether a lower court overstepped in moving to strike down three job protections California teachers have enjoyed for decades.
It’s the latest chapter in the Vergara v. California case, in which plaintiffs charge these job protections — including teacher tenure, a lengthy process for firing teachers and protections for senior teachers against layoffs — leave too many poor and minority students in the care of “grossly ineffective" teachers.
The case, which many see as ultimately headed for the California Supreme Court, has become a flashpoint in the national debate that's engaged powerful political players from national teachers unions, civil rights groups, advocacy organizations — and statehouses. (Gov. Jerry Brown sided with the unions in this case.)
In their Los Angeles County Superior Court trial two years ago, Vergara plaintiffs presented evidence that poor or minority students were more likely to be taught by "ineffective" teachers. The plaintiffs — nine public school students represented by the advocacy group Students Matter — said the state's teacher tenure rules and seniority protections caused the disparity.
"Together, they’re putting unqualified teachers who are not [effectively] teaching children into the classroom. The administrators are saying, 'We want change this, we want to have great teachers, but we can’t,'" Boutros told KPCC afterward. "That means students are having their rights violated, they’re being harmed."
In June 2014, Judge Rolf Treu agreed with the plaintiffs, writing that the evidence "shocks the conscience." He struck down the state's teacher job protections as infringing upon students' rights to an equal education, but stayed the effect of his ruling pending appeal.
Much of Thursday morning's oral arguments in the California Court of Appeals was spent wrangling over whether it was appropriate for a court to weigh in — or whether teacher job protection laws were a matter of policy best left to the state legislature.
Attorney Michael Rubin — representing the state's two largest teachers unions — argued the lower court ruling doesn't establish that teacher job protections are to blame for disparities in the quality of students' education. Without establishing this causal link, Rubin argued, it would be inappropriate for the court to step in.
"These are legislative decisions," Rubin told reporters outside the court afterward. "One superior court judge should not be striking down five of the most important In 'Vergara' arguments, unions say courts should stay away from teacher tenure debate | 89.3 KPCC:
