There is an interesting ruling in California where Los Angeles County Judge Rolf Treu has issued a decision that is a condemnation of teacher tenure. Treu found that the tenure laws violate the right to equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution because they make it so difficult to remove substandard teachers that students are being denied equality of education. Regardless of whether this novel decision will be upheld on appeal, it is an indictment of tenure rules where school districts have little ability to fire teachers who then end up being moved around to the harm of students. In reviewing the poor teachers and the inability to get rid of them, Treu called the system something that truly “shocks the conscience.” He struck down the tenure rules as unconstitutional, a decision which should face a determined challenge on appeal and one that breaks new ground in the area.
The lawsuit in Vergara v. California was brought on behalf of nine public school students. California gives teachers tenure after two years or less. Only four other states have such a rule — a reflection of the powerful teachers union in the state. Treu found that, once given tenure, it is simply too difficult for the district to get rid of terrible teachers: “The evidence this court heard was that it could take anywhere from two to almost 10 years and cost $50,000 to $450,000 to bring these cases to conclusion.”
The decision is likely to trigger other lawsuits around the country. However, the decision will likely face a serious challenge given cases like Fontana Unified School District v. Burman 45 Ca1.3d 208 (1988) where the Supreme Court held that the Education Code gives a local school district “substantial leeway in determining when to take disciplinary action against a permanent employee and what action to take.”
We previously discussed a case where a teacher stayed at home for seven years on full salary and benefits while his fitness was being reviewed under these rules.
The reactions to the opinion were both predictable and unpredictable. On the predictable side were union leaders who insisted that the judge was hoodwinked and that there is no such problem with the tenure system. Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, is quoted as saying the judge “fell victim to anti-union, anti-teacher rhetoric of one of America’s best corporate law firms.”
However, United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a rather unexpected response for an administration with very close lies to the teacher unions: “The students who brought this lawsuit are, unfortunately, just nine out of millions of young people in America who are disadvantaged by laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students. Today’s court decision is a mandate to fix these problems.”
The California Teachers Associations is one of the most powerful unions in the world and a reportedly number one on the “Billion Dollar Club” — the top spenders in California politics. Indeed, the CTA spent ($211,849,298) twice as much as the next highest campaign contributor: the California State Council of Service Employees ($107,467,272). It also spent more than the contributions of Chevron, AT&T, and Philip Morris combined.
1. California Teachers Association $ 211,849,298
2. California State Council of Service Employees $ 107,467,272
3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America $ 104,912,997
4. Morongo Band of Mission Indians $ 83,600,438
5. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians $ 69,298,909
6. Pacific Gas & Electric Company $ 69,240,759
7. Chevron Corporation $ 66,257,132
8. AT&T Inc. $ 59,619,677
9. Philip Morris USA $ 50,756,360
10. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians $ 49,078,448
11. Southern California Edison $ 43,412,031
12. California Hospital Association $ 43,281,456
13. California Chamber of Commerce $ 39,065,861
14. Western States Petroleum Association $ 35,214,325
15. Aera Energy LLC $ 34,671,163
GRAND TOTAL $1,067,726,126
For the most part, the real problem with education is not so much the teachers but rather the administration. Even this article points out, albeit briefly, that the administration can’t be bothered documenting a teacher’s teaching abilities whether it be of a positive or negative nature. Most administrators don’t give a damn whether a teacher is effective or not just as long as the teacher caters to their demands which rarely falls in line with student needs. The educational system has been broken a very long time.
Can a state nullify a citizens constitutional right to private property, including moveable property (i.e. money), to confiscate money from one man to give it to another in any form or for any purpose, including to pay another man’s tuition bill?
Did the party have standing to prosecute the Fourteenth Amendment? Does an amendment have to be passed on behalf of a citizen? Can an amendment be constitutional if it is brought on behalf of a foreign citizen or parties without citizen status?
Nick Spinelli
Anon, And there in lies the problem. Good people leave govt. work and the deadbeats cling to those jobs. The same is true to a great extent in teaching. That is where our children’s future is destroyed.
====================
Your history teachers were Luddites who did not understand history.
One of the hallmarks of feudalism, and your capture by neo-feudalists, is the privitization of things that should be public:
(American Feudalism – 6). Join the 21st Century scholarship next time you get a chance.
davidm2575
…
Dredd wrote: “Wrong. The decision is not about a right to education per se, it is about the right to equal education.”
You can’t have a fundamental right to EQUAL education without first having a fundamental right to education. In this particular case, we are talking about an alleged fundamental right to free public education. The Judge basically tries to establish this right from Article 9 of the California Constitution which reads:
“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.”
===================
Wrong again (and much worse this time).
The court begins by citing Brown v Board of Education:
(JT’s Link to opinion).
Study up on the 14th Amendment, which has nothing to do with a right to education, and neither does this case.
The gravamen of the case is that once states mandate education for children and all that entails, it must do so without discriminating directly or indirectly.
Concerning the California Constitution, the court went on to point out California law to wit:
(JT’s Link to opinion). Your bias and prejudice against minority children is showing through.
Don’t feel like the long Stranger though, check out how the other righties have misconstrued the case in the comments above, and no doubt below.
Dredd, I appreciate your effort to educate me.
I have often stated in this forum my dissatisfaction with the Fourteenth Amendment and how a civil war amendment meant to secure rights for blacks has through the last century been twisted and abused to invent all kinds of rights that were never written into our Constitution. In this particular case, the reasoning leads to the conclusion that any mistakes a State makes in attempting to educate children, if it results in some kids learning less than other kids, then the State’s laws and rules are unconstitutional. That kind of reasoning basically leads to the Federal Government basically needing to try to take over education and tell the States exactly how to do it. They are going to have to micromanage education for everyone in the end, but there is nobody to police them, so that approach doesn’t really do any good. It just moves the solution solvers further away from the problem to the people who are least likely going to be able to fix it.
I hope future generations will repeal or modify the 14th Amendment, but that is probably not very likely so we will either have to get use to federalism or start over.
DavidM2575: The California State Constitution provides for the establishment of free schools.
blhlls wrote: “The California State Constitution provides for the establishment of free schools.”
I get that, but that does not carte blanche make it a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are inherent and not created by positive law. They are rights recognized by law.
If the right under review here is a fundamental right, then it requires the burden of strict scrutiny, and the Judge in this case makes it very clear that this is what applies here. He made it very clear that he was not judging the wisdom of the law, but only its constitutionality. In my opinion, there is too much emphasis on equality and not enough emphasis on the category of rights which relates to the burden of proof and the freedom the State has to define the terms and regulate it.
When I read the decision, I can’t help but think that despite all his statements to contrary, the Judge ruled on what appears to be an unwise system of hiring and firing. He just didn’t like the gross injustice that he saw. He clothes the decision in terms of constitutional equality, but I suspect that is merely because that is what gives him authority to act. It is the same duplicity that we see with gay marriage decisions.
Paul, I agree there are lazy, incompetent employees in the private sector. There is just a MUCH higher % in the public sector.
Anon, And there in lies the problem. Good people leave govt. work and the deadbeats cling to those jobs. The same is true to a great extent in teaching. That is where our children’s future is destroyed.
Nick-Thanks, but I’m not sure how much of it I can handle (I took the position 5 years ago). I’ve grown weary of spending ungodly amounts of taxpayer dollars defending completely justified employment decisions. That’s money my agency could be using to actually enforce the laws we’re mandated to enforce.
And Paul, I completely agree re the private sector. I worked with some real dregs in the private sector as well. The main difference, however, is that it does not take 1.5 years to terminate someone in the private sector.
Civil service reform would be a giant win for everyone (except for unions). You’d get rid of the most incompetent of the incompenent and could use the money they’re currently getting paid for doing nothing to train and retain your best. It would be addition by subtraction and I’d love it.
California better increase taxes because there is an unrestricted flow of thousands of new “poor” “students” pouring over the “border” from Mexico, Central and South America as we speak. There is no control of the “border.” California taxpayers better get their checkbooks out to pay for the new “poor” “students.” Every person in the third world is an American-In-Waiting, a Californian-In-Waiting – waiting for their (insert benefit du jour) free tuition.
These must be the “blessings of liberty” and the right to private property.
PRIVATIZATION. Has anyone ever thought of that? Oh yeah, the Founders.
John – the Obama administration has been flying some of the kids from Texas to Arizona and dropping them off at bus stops.
Anon, Like yourself, my wife was a hardworking dedicated Federal Employee. She worked 60 hour weeks routinely, while some of her colleagues just scratched their nuts all day. I worked for the govt. for several years and could not take it. I commend people like you and my wife who were able to block out what you saw daily and just focused on doing good work. People who do poor work hate themselves, they just don’t know it.
Nick – I would like to say that the only place there are poor workers is in the federal, state, or local government, but I have worked with them in the private sector as well. Sadly, a few of them got promoted while the hard workers did not.
davidm2575
Although I agree that the tenure Statute is a bad law, I disagree with the court’s reasoning. The court somehow found a fundamental right to education in our Constitution. I don’t see it.
…
======================
Wrong.
The decision is not about a right to education per se, it is about the right to equal education.
DavidM wrote: “Although I agree that the tenure Statute is a bad law, I disagree with the court’s reasoning. The court somehow found a fundamental right to education in our Constitution. I don’t see it.”
Dredd wrote: “Wrong. The decision is not about a right to education per se, it is about the right to equal education.”
You can’t have a fundamental right to EQUAL education without first having a fundamental right to education. In this particular case, we are talking about an alleged fundamental right to free public education. The Judge basically tries to establish this right from Article 9 of the California Constitution which reads:
“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.”
People always ask what is wrong with gay marriage, well this case illustrates yet another way in which gays have reached into our culture to destroy our civilization. The Judge quotes the Supreme Court of California on gay marriage to explain his approach to his decision. It is contorted logic which brings education under strict scrutiny review the same way gay marriage is brought under it, even though gay advocates try to make out how marriage is merely a contract (contracts generally use rational review instead of strict scrutiny).
There is a fundamental flaw in jurisprudence with the logic concerning equality, but it seems a large number of people cannot see it. Fortunately in this case the error happens to coincide with justice, but this will not hold true in all cases.
This is a practical demonstration of the existence and effect of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” from the Communist Manifesto in violation of the Constitution which secures “the blessings of liberty and provides the right to private property (i.e. money or moveable property) which cannot be taken from one man to give it to another whereby it becomes public property.
Comm – union – ism. Is there or is there not a difference between the Constitution and the Communist Manifesto? Are they the same?
There is no section of the Constitution titled “The Poor.” There is no mandate for superior consideration for the “poor” in the Constitution. There is no such thing as “poor.” “Whatever you have is enough.” If you want more, if you are ambitious, if you endeavor, you will find a way to achieve your goals. “Poor” suggests deliberate action to deny; to oppress, which would be a waste of time if not illegal under current law. “Poor” is an excuse; a contrived rationale.
It is unconstitutional redistribution of wealth to take money from one man to give it to another man. It is unconstitutional to compel a citizen to pay the tuition for the children of another man. People, even the “poor,” who have children must be responsible for those children…food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.
Parents with 5 children obtain 5 times the benefit of those with 1. People with no children are forced to pay for nothing. With tuition at $10K, parents with 5 children enjoy the equivalent of $50K annual tuition paid by other citizens. If tuition is $25K, parents with 5 children enjoy $125K of free tuition annually – that would be $1.5 Million over 12 years of public school.
In America, founded on freedom and self-reliance, compulsory redistribution of wealth for education is preposterous.
Unconstitutional.
Those who can: do.
Those who cant: teach.
Those who cant teach: teach teachers.
—
Go to your high school reunion and see which of your classmates ended up as teachers. Nuff said.
Oh, there are some good ones. I had excellent teachers in a public school. One or two were bad. But some schools today…..
Anon:
That is so TRUE. The dead weight are a burden to the truly excellent teachers and government workers out there. And if there are no negative consequences to their actions, we have to depend on their inherent good character to do a good job.
It’s absurd, and it abuses the taxpayers who pay their salaries.
rafflaw:
“Tenure is a necessary ingredient in order to have qualified and experienced teachers in your district.”
Why??? Tenure is not a requirement to get excellent employees in private industry. Most employment is at will.
And why does it have to be 100% federal or state control? I am for states having leeway in some cases, but if they get it wrong, I object.
The best part of this decision was how the Judge shredded the myriad procedural roadblocks one must pass before actually being able to fire someone. It is a joke and it’s the same problem we have with the civil service rules in the federal government. I currently work at a federal agency with some of the finest men and women I know. Unfortunately, I also work with some of the laziest and incompetent ne-er-do-wells I have EVER seen. While these people comprise about 10% of the federal workforce (I joke that 10% of our workers create 90% of my problems), they are nearly impossible to fire. And when you actually do build enough of a case to fire them, the Agency has to spend tens of thousands of dollars (that’s your money we are using to defend these actions), justifying our decisions. It takes years. And it involves malfeasance that would not be tolerated for a split-second in the private sector. Hopefully this decision is a wake up call, but I doubt it.
I was pretty sure Obama would appoint the superb Arne Duncan as Ed Sec. That’s a major reason why I voted for Obama. The despicable head of the Chicago Teacher’s Union has mocked Duncan because he has a lisp. if people would read up on Duncan’s background and learn why he is so committed for reform, they would reject the people who mock him and accuse him of being corrupt. Despicable!
Karen, Teacher’s unions have been heavy Dem contributors. But, there is so much righteous pressure on politicians by parents that they are abandoning the teacher’s union. Teachers unions gave a lot of money to Obama, but they despise the righteous changes he has made. They pray Hillary will rescue them. They don’t know Hillary if they think she is their savior.
Two years for tenure is pretty short, but the real issue would be what is required by their rules to fire or discipline a tenured teacher. It is interesting how many here are always clamoring for states rights and local control and when you have a locally controlled or state controlled system, you cry foul. Tenure is a necessary ingredient in order to have qualified and experienced teachers in your district. It is not the only ingredient, but an important one. I do think the Fontana case will control.
One more thing, I do not consider Arne Duncan an expert in anything except in accepting money from corporate interests.
rafflaw wrote: “It is interesting how many here are always clamoring for states rights and local control and when you have a locally controlled or state controlled system, you cry foul.”
I do not agree with the federal government stepping in here. I see nothing in the Constitution about education.
I do disagree with how the State has managed this. The problem here is caused by public money, including federal money, and unions. All schools should be privatized if this problem is going to be fixed. Spending other people’s money which was taken by force is why this doesn’t work.