Teaching

Bill simplifying teacher firings now law



Credit Lillian Mongeau/EdSource Today

Joan Buchanan negotiated with adversaries on the issue, EdVoice and the California Teachers Association.

Gov. Jerry Brown ended three years of high-decibel battles in the Legislature on Wednesday by signing a bill he helped shape that should make it quicker and easier to fire teachers accused of the most abhorrent forms of misconduct. Although it also includes other changes to the state’s dismissal laws, the group that successfully persuaded a Superior Court judge this month to declare those laws unconstitutional charged that the bill doesn’t do anything to make it less onerous to fire teachers for poor performance – the bulk of dismissal cases.

Assembly Bill 215 “ is a step in the right direction in streamlining dismissal in cases of egregious classroom misconduct,”said Students Matter, the group that filed Vergara v. State of California. “However, the proposed changes related to dismissal in cases of poor performance do nothing to alleviate the burdensome dismissal process outlined during weeks of testimony” in the case.

In his preliminary decision, Judge Rolf Treu invalidated three laws governing teacher dismissal and laws granting tenure after two years of probation and requiring layoffs by seniority, but put his ruling on hold pending the outcome of an expected appeal.

Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, authored AB 215 after Brown vetoed her dismissal bill last year, saying some of the changes would have worsened an already complex process. But he also encouraged her to try again, and she did so by bringing together two adversaries on the issue, the California Teachers Association and the nonprofit advocacy group EdVoice, and narrowing the scope to focus on “egregious misconduct” cases – those involving sex crimes and abuse in the classroom and some drug offenses. She also ran the bill by Brown before going public with it.

By cutting the time and expense of litigating these types of cases, districts should be able to avoid out-of-court settlements like the one between the Los Angeles Unified School District and Mark Berndt, an elementary school teacher accused in 2012 of sexually abusing dozens of students. In that case L.A. Unified paid Berndt $40,000 to not appeal his firing. He was sentenced in 2013 to 25 years in prison for committing lewd acts on children. The law will also prohibit districts from agreeing to nondisclosure agreements and expunging accusations of abuse from personnel records if teachers agree to quit.

Buchanan narrowed the scope to deal primarily with ‘egregious misconduct’ cases – those involving sex crimes and abuse in the classroom and some drug offenses. She also ran the bill by Brown before going public with it.

Key ways that AB 215 will expedite and simplify the dismissal process in egregious misconduct cases include:

  • Creating a separate hearing process after a school board has voted to fire a teacher for egregious misconduct. The case would go before an administrative law judge, whose decision would be binding. Cases not involving egregious misconduct would continue as before, with hearings by a three-person panel consisting of an administrative law judge and two educators, one chosen by the district and one by the teacher. The CTA opposes eliminating the panel, called a Commission on Professional Competence, for dismissals based on charges of poor performance.
  • Giving a teacher 30 days to appeal a firing by the district; the hearing before the administrative law judge would then begin within 60 days;
  • Allowing evidence of egregious misconduct older than four years to be used as evidence;
  • Permitting charges of egregious misconduct to be filed over the summer. Notice of dismissal for unsatisfactory performance must be filed during the school year.

AB 215 also addresses some of the complaints from school districts about red tape impeding dismissals for non-egregious misconduct and unsatisfactory performance.

  • Hearings in non-egregious conduct cases must begin within six months of a school board’s vote to dismiss, with a decision reached within seven months. A judge could grant a continuance after certifying that there had been significant progress. The California School Boards Association, in opposing the bill, predicted that routine extensions will result in longer cases with higher costs, but Brown and EdVoice CEO Bill Lucia disagreed.
  • There will be limits on the number of depositions that can be entered as evidence and on the discovery process. An administrative law judge, not a Superior Court judge, will settle evidence disputes.

Lawyers for Students Matter dismissed these changes to the process of firing teachers for poor performance as inconsequential. But courts could determine that the Legislature went far enough with AB 215 to fix a convoluted process. And Treu’s decision could be overturned on appeal.

“The public has long demanded that we improve this process and both school districts and employees deserve a dismissal process that is fair, efficient and cost-effective,” Buchanan said in a statement Wednesday. “The provisions of this bill achieve these aims.”

Filed under: Legislation, Teaching

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments. EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

4 Responses to “Bill simplifying teacher firings now law”

  1. Gary Ravani said

    on June 26, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    “The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[16] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.”

    For those whose understanding of “due process” is vague, they can read the above definition.

    The origination of teachers’ due process began long before teachers’ unions had much power or even collective bargaining rights. And, again, it must be understood that dismissal is not a collective bargaining issue.

    Legislation around the issue began to coalesce around 1920 and paralleled legislation around other women’s rights issues. Legislators could readily see that teachers (predominantly women then as now) were being fired for being “too high” on the salary schedule, getting married or pregnant, speaking out at a board meeting, writing the “wrong” kind of letter to the editor, being known to be supporting the “wrong” political candidate, or other arbitrary and capricious “reasons.”

    Over time it also became fairly common for teachers to be fired for advocating for their students or for teaching controversial subject matter (infamously: the Scopes Trial), or a “banned” book. During the 1950s McCarthy period teachers were fired for having “un-American” political viewpoints.

    Some criticism is leveled at statues that give teachers extra layers of due process rights, but it can plainly be seen that teachers have “extra layers” of political (and budgetary) vulnerability.

    It does not take much in the way of “connecting the dots” to see today’s attacks from deeply conservative forces and their deep pockets to very much have tinges of “McCarthy” style mindlessness or the more contemporary “war on women.”

    In a more pragmatic vein, the critics of teachers’ due process rights have yet to explain just how so many districts in the state are so successful and efficient in their personnel endeavors when they operate under the same statutes as districts that seem to struggle? Could it have something to do with the relative competence of management? Certainly the judge’s ruling in the Vergara case added nothing to that pertinent question.

    • navigio replied

      on June 26, 2014 at 5:26 pm

      In my opinion, the judges ruling seemed to say that he didn’t care why things were different in different districts, just that they were different and that that was all that mattered. While I guess you can get away with that from a legal perspective, if you fail to take that into account during any corrective action process, you’re likely to end up “fixing” the wrong thing. But of course the ruling was not about fixing anything anyway.

      • Gary Ravani replied

        on June 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm

        It’s obvious you are right about this judge. The questions remains that without any causal relationship that can be drawn between the statutes and student low achievement can the statues be declared a violation of said student’s rights and therefore the statutes are unconstitutional? Now, the law doesn’t always require rationality which is why we get bad laws and worse interpretations. See “Citizens United” and the unraveling of Voter Rights.

  2. Frances ONeill Zimmerman said

    on June 26, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Better than what went before, but still a big win for CTA whose basic system continues to protect teacher/miscreants.

    CTA should be called CYA for its role in blocking this long-overdue reform.

    No other class of persons accused of wrong-doing is treated with such official deference as credentialed teachers.

    It is objectionable that a ludicrously lopsided
    final “review” panel of one judge and two teachers has been maintained and that
    complaints against an accused teacher should be heard and settled in out-of-sight-out-of-mind Sacramento rather than in the school district where the action originates.

Template last modified: