EdSource staff
January 31, 2014
42 Comments

EdSource Today editor John Fensterwald was featured on KQED’s Forum program Friday, answering questions about a closely watched trial under way in Los Angeles that challenges teacher job protections.

Vergara v. California is seeking to overturn state laws governing teacher tenure, seniority and dismissal procedures.

The nonprofit group that brought the suit, Student Matters, says the laws protect poor teachers and make it too difficult to dismiss them, to the detriment of California children. But the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, who are joining in the defense of the case, say the lawsuit is an attack on essential workplace protections that ultimately benefit the education system.

Fensterwald was joined on Forum by James Finberg, lead attorney representing the teachers’ associations, and plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Boutrous.

Listen to the segment here, and read EdSource Today coverage of the trial here and here.

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (42)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Gary Ravani 10 years ago10 years ago

    Recall that the former Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to pass initiatives with the probationary/permanent status and teacher due process as their topics and was trounced at the polls. As the "good" Governor later announced that he considered his time in office pretty much a "lark," everyone on either side of those issues should feel duly insulted. The Arnold was to be the "silver bullet" governor. The easy solution to the difficult choices presented by democracy. He was … Read More

    Recall that the former Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to pass initiatives with the probationary/permanent status and teacher due process as their topics and was trounced at the polls. As the “good” Governor later announced that he considered his time in office pretty much a “lark,” everyone on either side of those issues should feel duly insulted.

    The Arnold was to be the “silver bullet” governor. The easy solution to the difficult choices presented by democracy. He was going to handle complex problems with that same, simple methods he tackled terrorists and other “bad guys” (with special effects) in the movies. Well that, like other silver bullets was make believe. His efforts to make teachers the bad guys also echo the efforts of the other self-styled reformers and initiatives both in CA and other states in their endless quest for the holy grail of all self-styled reformers: vouchers. Vouchers have never won the vote of the public anywhere. They are always imposed by conservative governors and legislatures and they never demonstrate any success in improving education. Which does’t slow the pseudo-refomers down at all.

    Note that Schwarzenegger’s efforts are now being mimicked in court. That’s why they are not on the ballot. The public has high confidence in teachers and schools and the confidence grows the closer the public gets to the schools. (See Phi Delta Kappan polling.) The question is, will endlessly deep pockets funding ideological efforts of tycoons be as effective in the courts as the have been ineffective in real democratic contests?

  2. Andrew 10 years ago10 years ago

    So what I'm hearing from some is that it is impossible for learned educators to find a better system for determining who should be laid off, when layoffs are necessary, than LIFO. That no utilization of technology, no utilization of assessments, no utilization of reviews and reports, no utilization of common sense, no application of science or social science, no professional judgment calls, could do better. In effect, no application of the supposed … Read More

    So what I’m hearing from some is that it is impossible for learned educators to find a better system for determining who should be laid off, when layoffs are necessary, than LIFO. That no utilization of technology, no utilization of assessments, no utilization of reviews and reports, no utilization of common sense, no application of science or social science, no professional judgment calls, could do better. In effect, no application of the supposed benefits of even higher education could do better than rote layoffs of the last hired.

    This is the best that education can do, and yet we are implored to respect it more?

    Replies

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      Andrew, I think there are two components: capacity and intention. I think you are highlighting issues of capacity. I currently don't think our school districts are staffed adequately (in either numbers or ability, though admittedly the latter is partly a function of the former) to do what you say. This is one reason I think we have to be careful about the changes we make. It's also a reason we need to look more closely … Read More

      Andrew, I think there are two components: capacity and intention. I think you are highlighting issues of capacity. I currently don’t think our school districts are staffed adequately (in either numbers or ability, though admittedly the latter is partly a function of the former) to do what you say. This is one reason I think we have to be careful about the changes we make. It’s also a reason we need to look more closely at administration. Talking about what could happen and what does happen or two different things. And especially in the current funding environment.

      There’s also the issue of intention. There are people who truly believe that education doesn’t really matter because the home environment trumps everything. Some of those people will argue that because of that we don’t need to fund education, at least not for people who were already destined to fail. Some people are even willing to say that explicitly. But most others just say it implicitly by the priorities they make in the voting booth. In that case, the alternative will actually work against most kids. So although Howard Jarvis might have considered some of those approaches ‘better’, whether they actually benefit kids’ educational environment is very debatable. IMHO.

    • el 10 years ago10 years ago

      Here's what I think: creating statewide rules, whether by court case or initiative, based on one anecdote, is not a way to improve the system. I'm up in the north coast region, and my district is small and rural. Our issues and needs are often quite different from that of LAUSD or SFUSD. I've also said many times that I think that LAUSD in particular is too large, and many of the complaints about teacher staffing … Read More

      Here’s what I think: creating statewide rules, whether by court case or initiative, based on one anecdote, is not a way to improve the system.

      I’m up in the north coast region, and my district is small and rural. Our issues and needs are often quite different from that of LAUSD or SFUSD. I’ve also said many times that I think that LAUSD in particular is too large, and many of the complaints about teacher staffing rules are actually complaints about LAUSD being a 700+ school behemoth spanning pretty much every possible kind of urban community there is. I grew up in a medium sized suburban district. But my experience colors my view too.

      As I’ve said: any time you get to needing to cut so many positions that you have to dip into your core staff, that’s going to hurt the kids and the school. We should argue less about the exact shape of the chainsaw cut and more about not doing it at all. Unless there are fewer kids or you’ve changed the services they need, we shouldn’t be doing layoffs.

      I do have a problem with strategies that end up staffing particular disadvantaged schools as some sort of ‘farm team’ or reservoir for the rest of the district, such that teachers are constantly leaving them. It occurs to me that changing a layoff strategy a la LCFF – bringing decisions more local – would be beneficial, such that maybe seniority for layoffs is not just at a districtwide level, but is considered within a local school or a K-12 feeder block (a high school and all the schools that feed into it). Or simply that no school can lose more than say double the percentage of layoffs districtwide.

      Lots of staff turnover is bad for schools and in my mind generally indicates some problem in need of fixing.

      There are a lot of circumstances to account for and I don’t know all of them. I don’t think the people bringing this suit know them or have thought about them, either.

    • Manuel 10 years ago10 years ago

      Andrew, I hope you are not talking about me as I am not an educator. And neither are several who participate, but I won't speak for them. LIFO is the simplest because it assumes that seniority confers enough skill that a senior teacher will be more able than a wet-behind-the-ears-just-out-of-5-weeks-training TFAer. I've never heard of a "junior partner" trumping a "senior partner" in any profession. Let's now examine the list you proposed to evaluate teachers: 1) Technology: Uh? … Read More

      Andrew, I hope you are not talking about me as I am not an educator. And neither are several who participate, but I won’t speak for them.

      LIFO is the simplest because it assumes that seniority confers enough skill that a senior teacher will be more able than a wet-behind-the-ears-just-out-of-5-weeks-training TFAer. I’ve never heard of a “junior partner” trumping a “senior partner” in any profession.

      Let’s now examine the list you proposed to evaluate teachers:

      1) Technology: Uh? I am not aware of any newfangled technology that can asses the “effectiveness” of a teacher.

      2) Assessments: no, no, a non-starter. Why? Because for assessments to be “acurate” they must measure what goes on in the classroom and there is no way that any assessment can be synchronized with what goes on in the classroom. Besides, this assumes that the classroom mark, given for work in class as well as competency in class, will strongly correlate with the assessment results. That doesn’t happen in the real world. Or at least it doesn’t happen in LAUSD.

      3) Reviews and reports: that’s what is used to define the competency of a teacher to be retained past the probationary period. You seem to be saying that they are no used to grade teachers. Yet, the proponents of this lawsuit seem to be claiming that such reviews are useless. So which side are you on? Pro or con on reviews?

      4) Common sense: define that in this context.

      5) Science: what science? Physics? Chemistry? Biology? Geology?

      6) Social science: OK, you lost me there. Which social science? What principles?

      7) Professional judgement calls: why should they be used if “you people” do not believe that professional judgement calls are sufficient to define a teachers effectiveness at the end of the probationary period? You can’t have it both ways.

      What does this have to do with “higher education?” Why should that have anything to do with what is a legal and labor issue? I have yet to see anyone from a university wade in here and argue the merits of the Vergara lawsuit, so why are you throwing potshots at them? Two of the people posting here are teachers (or recently retired) and three are just citizens with an interest on education. None of of us are in higher education, so why the needless swipe?

  3. Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

    Kids need to work harder and have teachers that convince them and their parents how important it is to work over 15 hours a week in high school and middle school and look at your parents, if they're poor, if you study 5 hours, you'll be poor too, turn off the TV, set aside Saturday for homework, read over the Summer, study 3-4 hours a day. It works. Not much focus is given … Read More

    Kids need to work harder and have teachers that convince them and their parents how important it is to work over 15 hours a week in high school and middle school and look at your parents, if they’re poor, if you study 5 hours, you’ll be poor too, turn off the TV, set aside Saturday for homework, read over the Summer, study 3-4 hours a day. It works. Not much focus is given to this aspect of child development, that it takes work, and most kids don’t want to put it in. It’s the elephant in the room.

    Replies

    • Manuel 10 years ago10 years ago

      I'd hate to be your child, "Floyd," because you are robbing them of their childhood on the belief that they must bust their asses to get into a UC, come hell or high water. What's the point of being forced to succeed when the success comes at that price? Your children are not getting knowledge. They are being forced-fed text-book wisdom much the same way that ducks are fattened for foie-grass. Studying until you fall down … Read More

      I’d hate to be your child, “Floyd,” because you are robbing them of their childhood on the belief that they must bust their asses to get into a UC, come hell or high water.

      What’s the point of being forced to succeed when the success comes at that price? Your children are not getting knowledge. They are being forced-fed text-book wisdom much the same way that ducks are fattened for foie-grass. Studying until you fall down does not give you understanding. All it does is give you brain constipation. You become a repository of facts without being able to establish connections and see the big picture.

      Besides, if and when they get to a UC or any of the high-flying privates, they will meet with others who are just like them. And then what are they going to do when they are asked to think for themselves and not just regurgitate endless facts?

      But, hey, I am not your child so good luck with them.

  4. Andrew 10 years ago10 years ago

    In defense of teachers, while skeptical of LIFO, I made the point in a post some time ago that California's underfunding of education could make it difficult to distinguish between a mediocre teacher and one who is simply overworked and burned out as a result of underfunding. As I pointed out, not only is California nearly worst of all states in per pupil funding, but high school teacher staffing ratios are half, yes half, … Read More

    In defense of teachers, while skeptical of LIFO, I made the point in a post some time ago that California’s underfunding of education could make it difficult to distinguish between a mediocre teacher and one who is simply overworked and burned out as a result of underfunding. As I pointed out, not only is California nearly worst of all states in per pupil funding, but high school teacher staffing ratios are half, yes half, of the national average and dead last among states.

    Wyoming, the most conservative and Republican dominated state, spends roughly double per pupil what California does. And Wyoming has a 4% sales tax rate and no corporate or individual income tax. When I last checked, California was 6th highest in the nation in state and local tax collections per capita. Wyoming was 24th. Since it is near last in per pupil education funding, California apparently has other priorities for its collected tax money, notwithstanding the supposed power and effectiveness of the teacher’s unions and control of the state by supposedly sympathetic Democrats.

    Navigo’s humor, above, is appreciated and we need some of that notwithstanding the seriousness of the subject. This might be the point at which I should confess that I’ve been won over, chuckle, by the irrefutable logic of the arguments of the proponents of strict LIFO.

    Indeed, since LIFO works so well in education, I’m proposing a state law that mandates LIFO in the practice of dentistry. Especially in orthodontics when it is determined that the patient’s mouth is overcrowded with teeth and that some teeth must be pulled.

    We all know that we can’t trust trained professionals to make complex decisions about which tooth to pull when teeth must be pulled to ease overcrowding. Rather than pulling the least useful tooth, the tooth with a toothache, an abscessed tooth, a decayed or overfilled tooth or one needing a root canal, I propose that we require the dentists to determine the order in which teeth emerged. Then, when teeth must be pulled, we can strictly require dentists to pull those teeth that emerged last, in last to first order. It will make dentistry simple and fair and eliminate the need for tough decisions about which teeth to pull.

    I expect lots of vocal and vigorous support from old bad teeth that don’t want to be pulled.

    Replies

    • el 10 years ago10 years ago

      My wordy comment with links to Bruce Baker/School Finance 101 is awaiting moderation, so I will summarize it with what I probably should have written instead. In a district that employs hundreds or thousands of teachers, there is no one person that knows all their work, and no way to accurately stack-rank them. (IE, the PE teacher at GW elementary is better than the 4th grade teacher at TJ elementary.) If you use test scores, you … Read More

      My wordy comment with links to Bruce Baker/School Finance 101 is awaiting moderation, so I will summarize it with what I probably should have written instead.

      In a district that employs hundreds or thousands of teachers, there is no one person that knows all their work, and no way to accurately stack-rank them. (IE, the PE teacher at GW elementary is better than the 4th grade teacher at TJ elementary.) If you use test scores, you don’t have test scores on all of them. To the extent you have test scores, there are huge error bars, much much larger than the difference between adjacent ranks. You can’t even be certain that the people towards the top are better than the people towards the bottom.

      The end result is that you’re proposing to replace an orderly (if deeply unsatisfying) system of seniority with a system of choosing teachers at random. The new arrangement is still unsatisfying, is more expensive, exposes you to more litigation, and is harder for clever administrators to work around to save their best teachers.

      • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

        It won’t be random. We should trust principals. And one key stat should be how many days they miss. 7.5 percent is atrocious and shouldn’t be tolerated. It’s the norm many places. I feel embarrassed when I call in sick, but some have no shame.

        • el 10 years ago10 years ago

          How does the principal at George Washington Elementary know if her 4th grade teacher is better or worse than the kindergarten teacher at James Monroe Elementary across town?

          Also, I recommend occasionally posting comments that aren’t about sick days. I think we all get by now that that’s important to you. I’m sure when your favorite teacher is fired under your new rules because she missed 10 days after an auto accident, you’ll still be very glad about it.

        • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

          We should trust principals but not teachers? Why?

          • TheMorrigan 10 years ago10 years ago

            But only some principals, right? Some of us are in Floyd’s “you people” group.

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      are we carnivores or herbavores? kind of depends. perhaps instead of wasting time trying to decide which is higher priority, or on an expensive x-ray machines, we should just pull all the teeth and replace them with something else. its someone else’s mouth anyway. i’d say old, dead wood was good enough for george washington, but that’s a myth..

    • Manuel 10 years ago10 years ago

      I have a better solution. Since it has been argued that hard working students who spend almost all their time awake studying can make up for bad teachers, why not demand that only the best qualified students who contractually agree to do all work required of them are eligible to be taught? The rest can be warehoused in institutions where they will be taught the three Rs and then be pushed into occupations that will use those … Read More

      I have a better solution.

      Since it has been argued that hard working students who spend almost all their time awake studying can make up for bad teachers, why not demand that only the best qualified students who contractually agree to do all work required of them are eligible to be taught?

      The rest can be warehoused in institutions where they will be taught the three Rs and then be pushed into occupations that will use those skills.

      It is time that we go back to the education methods that served us well for so many years back in the Golden Days of the Republic. Why should we coddle children when they are unproductive and have no way of guaranteeing a proper return on investment? Children are chattel legally anyway, right?

  5. Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

    Basically any side that says all teachers should be fired is wrong, and any side that says it should never or almost never happen is wrong. It should be close to industry. If you see absenteeism triple what it is in industry, you can see that the employees do take liberties when they now their job security is a higher priority than the quality of their work. In any side, the extremes … Read More

    Basically any side that says all teachers should be fired is wrong, and any side that says it should never or almost never happen is wrong. It should be close to industry. If you see absenteeism triple what it is in industry, you can see that the employees do take liberties when they now their job security is a higher priority than the quality of their work. In any side, the extremes are going to be wrong. There’s no balance in the status quo/union position most of the contributors to this blog are pushing for.

    Replies

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      The argument is not between firing all teachers or firing no teachers, the argument is about what legal environment creates the most effective learning environment for students. It should not matter what your political beliefs are if the students are really what you care about.

      • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

        Navigio, that's the point, clearly the union and the school boards have not been focused on creating the best environment for children. No one would make it that hard to fire a bad teacher if your first concern were children, and no one would let a system drag on fifty years in which the norm is 7.5% missing work on any given day vs. 2.5% in industry. This is being done because an … Read More

        Navigio, that’s the point, clearly the union and the school boards have not been focused on creating the best environment for children. No one would make it that hard to fire a bad teacher if your first concern were children, and no one would let a system drag on fifty years in which the norm is 7.5% missing work on any given day vs. 2.5% in industry. This is being done because an adult interest group is the priority under the status quo. Then when people try to change it, you nitpick about it and try to find an excuse to oppose it while pretending children are your #1 priority. Clearly, they are not. I’m not buying it.

        • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

          actually, more accurately, it is because opposing adult interest groups (note the use of the plural) are fighting polarized political battles. that game turns into one that is about the issue and not the kids.

  6. Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

    You're absolutely right Andrew, the union lost me because they are very knee-jerk, and not only the union but the pro-union bloggers. You can tell because they make claims, and then stay silent when disproven. They always find some round about excuse to defend the status quo which is really hurting children. I swear I think some of them watched 'Waiting for Superman' and were rooting against Geoffrey Canada and Michelle Rhee. … Read More

    You’re absolutely right Andrew, the union lost me because they are very knee-jerk, and not only the union but the pro-union bloggers. You can tell because they make claims, and then stay silent when disproven. They always find some round about excuse to defend the status quo which is really hurting children. I swear I think some of them watched ‘Waiting for Superman’ and were rooting against Geoffrey Canada and Michelle Rhee. They’re so biased. They don’t acknowledge how much this hurts children. You make another great point that districts simply don’t have enough money to fire the bad teachers, and the union knows this will protect bad teachers. If it costs 100k, cash-strapped districts will just let it go. In my view, the union had a chance to maintain power but went intellectually brain-dead, intentionally, went all out to defend the status quo, and hurt a lot of people during the lay offs. It doesn’t help or hurt teachers as a whole to fire the worst instead of the younger, in fact it helps teachers and students because it puts pressure on all to minimize sick days, work hard, embrace reforms and honestly give their best, one teacher will be laid off either way, but any time you can lay off by quality not seniority, you improve the work ethic of all. It’s clear based on the 7.5% absence vs. 2.5% corporate absence rates that many teachers are not just using seniority to take a sick day when they truly need it but are taking it on as a right, with the union backing them blindly. When was the last time the union called out a teacher for faking a sickness, or spent some of it’s dues to catch a teacher going shopping or at the park, or as I saw, at a cafe, on a day they called in sick? They save all their money to knee-jerk defend all teachers no matter what and maintain seniority.

    When you have no balance, you are unreasonable and the public sees you as unreasonable, and votes against you. I believe the union made a strategic error when it decided to be so automatic. They literally lobbied to stop a bill to make it easier to fire Berndt. You can say Berndt was a one off, but no, they knew LAUSD had little money to fire him, and when a law was proposed to prevent it from happening again, they didn’t use their power to say you know what, you’re right about Berndt, we won’t defend him, fire him, they used it to pressure the State Assembly to kill the bill in committee and prevent it from even being voted upon. When you go 100% one way, you lose everyone in the middle. Many people agree, the union can’t be trusted because they put children second, not even equal, clearly second. If they have a choice of an 80k bad teacher or a 45k good one, they go with the bad one every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Supporting seniority hurts children and was a bad idea, a key mistake historically that lost them a lot of support. I support most unions, but when I’ve seen the outrageous people they defend, I can’t support this union. They don’t have the kids in their hearts. They have the adults.

    Replies

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      Thank you for recognizing that the state could fix every problem you believe exists by nothing more than properly funding schools. Perhaps what will come out of this lawsuit is not a change in law, but a realization that when you make laws, you actually have to fund their implementation.

      Equally as theoretically valid: If they have a choice of an 80k good teacher or a 45k bad one, they go with the good one every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

        Navigio, I speak with a lot of parents and voters about these issues. I agree with you we should spend far more on education and far less on prisons, defense (offense?), and many other things. However, I hear from a lot of people and I partially agree, they don't want to see across the board pay increases for teachers until they do something about the seniority/tenure/due process issue. I meet parents who … Read More

        Navigio, I speak with a lot of parents and voters about these issues. I agree with you we should spend far more on education and far less on prisons, defense (offense?), and many other things. However, I hear from a lot of people and I partially agree, they don’t want to see across the board pay increases for teachers until they do something about the seniority/tenure/due process issue. I meet parents who say not until they make it so so and so is fired, and tell the story of one or two or three bad teachers they or their kids had. I think the knowledge that there are really bad teachers who can’t be fired no matter what makes some oppose salary increases. I agree most teachers are underpaid, probably 80% are underpaid, but reading the posts here, I am reluctant to trust that we should do an across the board raise now and trust the union and establishment, mostly controlled by the union, to do something about the Geoffrey Canada/Waiting for Superman problem at a later date. Someday may never come. I agree, if an 80k teacher is better, great, teachers should be able to make that and more if they are truly great and call in sick under 2.5% and their students have above average test scores, I just oppose the blind, across the board raises. About letting teachers go, I think we need to make it far less expensive so that it happens more, and less burdensome. The union kind of wants it both ways, they say it’s not that hard, principals just need to follow procedure, but at every step of the way they make it as hard as possible. They don’t even want bad teachers to be embarrassed. I’ve been to school board meetings where they will stand up and instruct the board to turn off the microphone if people who have given up their evening to come testify as to a problem teacher or principal, and principals are union, use their name. There is no law that they can’t in a public forum, but they control the board, so the board will turn off the microphone if they use their name. The union also prevents parents from finding out if there were complaints about a teacher in a previous position. We don’t need to set aside millions to fire bad teachers, we need to set aside millions to tutor under-performing students and for supplies, and make it less expensive and time-consuming to fire a bad teacher. That is the solution. There is always a limit to money. We need to make it much more common that teachers are fired, numerically.

        • el 10 years ago10 years ago

          One reason why districts don't push out mediocre teachers (as opposed to actively bad teachers) is because administration doesn't believe (rightly or wrongly) that they can get anyone better. If your position is, "we should underpay all teachers until I personally am satisfied that every teacher is above average" it is not likely to change. If you want to underpay them and take away seniority, then the situation will probably be worse, as teachers just short … Read More

          One reason why districts don’t push out mediocre teachers (as opposed to actively bad teachers) is because administration doesn’t believe (rightly or wrongly) that they can get anyone better. If your position is, “we should underpay all teachers until I personally am satisfied that every teacher is above average” it is not likely to change.

          If you want to underpay them and take away seniority, then the situation will probably be worse, as teachers just short of vesting in their pension and with no portability to Social Security and who have invested decades at low pay will realize just how thoroughly they can be screwed.

          To you point about discussing a particular teacher in an open board meeting: While certainly in some districts it may be your last line, I have been taught that allegations/complaints about a personnel matter regarding a specific person in a public board meeting can perversely make it more difficult to remove them. The board and administrators are not generally able to answer such complaints in public, because the matters are confidential. Pestering a principal, superintendent, and board members privately is likely to be much more effective.

        • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

          curious that you mention ‘across the board raises’. this is not an issue related to the current lawsuit, but is more something that might be addressed during a discussion of lcff priorities…

          you also mentioned you are hearing these things from other people. are you representing your own views here or are you a mouthpiece for someone else? hopefully that is considered a fair question..

          • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

            I found out SF teachers earn under half what police make, vs. 73% in San Diego, and more in Pleasanton, Ripon, Manteca, almost everywhere, 48.3%, vs. 56.8 in San Jose. Salaries are higher due to cost of living, but not for teachers. When I used that to argue teachers should be paid more, many parents told me they agreed in principle but wouldn't vote for it until the school board did something about … Read More

            I found out SF teachers earn under half what police make, vs. 73% in San Diego, and more in Pleasanton, Ripon, Manteca, almost everywhere, 48.3%, vs. 56.8 in San Jose. Salaries are higher due to cost of living, but not for teachers. When I used that to argue teachers should be paid more, many parents told me they agreed in principle but wouldn’t vote for it until the school board did something about it being so hard to fire bad teachers and seniority being the only basis for pay. They said they increased teacher pay 18% over inflation in the early 1980s due to complaints, but then soon after heard the same complaints as if it hadn’t happened. I agree that most teachers are underpaid, but the lemons hold back desire to pay more. The sad thing is bad teachers don’t like being disliked, so they can be pressured out…of one school to another with less influential parents. This is sad and exacerbates inequality. It’s not liberal. It’s conservative to keep bad teachers, it maintains the status quo and hurts the poor. It’s not liberal to call in sick when you aren’t.

        • Manuel 10 years ago10 years ago

          Hey, "Floyd," since you brought up Geoffrey Canada, I assume that you are an admirer of his. Are you aware of what it costs to run Harlem Children's Zone? If that model was implemented across the US, it would bankrupt us, regardless of what teachers get paid. Besides, if the model were scaled up, it would require many executives with the same skills and level of pay (he was paid $336,455 in 2011, $469,614 in 2010, … Read More

          Hey, “Floyd,” since you brought up Geoffrey Canada, I assume that you are an admirer of his.

          Are you aware of what it costs to run Harlem Children’s Zone? If that model was implemented across the US, it would bankrupt us, regardless of what teachers get paid. Besides, if the model were scaled up, it would require many executives with the same skills and level of pay (he was paid $336,455 in 2011, $469,614 in 2010, and $450,872 in 2009).

          So, yeah, how dare teachers ask for a pay raise when they haven’t had any in many years (LAUSD’s last raise was seven years ago; and, no, the maximum salary for an LAUSD teacher doesn’t make it above $80k). Money should go to the Superintendent and her/his staff. And your Board is being legally stupid by talking about personnel matters in an open meeting. What kind of hick town are you at? Didn’t you say Frisco?

          • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

            He's worth every penny, he's turned so many lives around. He's great because he points out how more work equals better results and notices what Asians are doing. He doesn't let poverty be a catch all excuse. He makes those kids study as much as Asians do and they become very successful. He's a great American. Yes, SF, they don't talk about them, they prevent others, but sometimes 10-15 parents go … Read More

            He’s worth every penny, he’s turned so many lives around. He’s great because he points out how more work equals better results and notices what Asians are doing. He doesn’t let poverty be a catch all excuse. He makes those kids study as much as Asians do and they become very successful. He’s a great American. Yes, SF, they don’t talk about them, they prevent others, but sometimes 10-15 parents go to speak because they know the board won’t do anything to fire the teacher because of the rules. That’s what this is about, making the rules for the children, not the teachers. Trust me, when you have a bad teacher, there were a lot of better people with 10% unemployment willing to take that job. We lost a great opportunity.

          • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

            wait, north carolina? or colorado?

  7. Andrew 10 years ago10 years ago

    Real life LIFO: A K-8 school in a small district. A dozen teachers, most of them very good. A couple of the teachers are at best mediocre in terms of competence and/or motivation and most everyone knows it. When they were hired and obtained tenure many years ago, maybe teachers were in very short supply. Or administration and the board were asleep at the switch. Or there was some political pull at … Read More

    Real life LIFO:

    A K-8 school in a small district. A dozen teachers, most of them very good. A couple of the teachers are at best mediocre in terms of competence and/or motivation and most everyone knows it. When they were hired and obtained tenure many years ago, maybe teachers were in very short supply. Or administration and the board were asleep at the switch. Or there was some political pull at the time.

    Layoffs came. First to go is a young, energetic and much loved and appreciated teacher with only a couple of years of experience, teaching in the lower grades. One of the older mediocre teachers is moved into that slot. Mothers are mortified, some actually crying on learning which teacher their young children are getting.

    There are charter schools trolling for students in the region and in order to avoid the mediocre teacher, parents jump ship and enroll their children in one of the charters. Happens to be the charter where the young laid off star teacher was hired. Once in the charter, the kids are likely to stay there for the remaining grades. The charter, following a corporate model, is great at public relations and keeping parents (its customers) happy, even though it treats its teachers relatively poorly in many ways.

    The exodus to the charters results in sharply declining enrollment for the district school. Not only is the mediocre teacher a primary cause of the exodus, but the other district teachers have to pick up the slack by working hard to help the students catch up after they emerge from that mediocre classroom.

    You can look at the budget for the district and see that there is absolutely no money to pay for the legal process to try to fire a mediocre teacher. The district struggles to find money to replace burned out light bulbs. But there isn’t a teacher in the district with less than 10 or 15 years seniority, and many of them, including the mediocre teachers, make approximately double what the young fired teacher cost. Two newer teachers could be hired with what one of the mediocre teachers cost, one new teacher to take over the vacated classroom and another to ease the burden of a horribly overcrowded classroom.

    The competing charter schools tout their supposed academics, but their achievement is actually very modest when you consider the self-selected highly motivated parents and students they get. The charter teacher turnover is high and teacher satisfaction is low. In this regard, the charters deviate from even their corporate model. Astute corporations value good employees and take good care of them, and have low turnover. No so the charters.

    One is left to wonder what will happen first. Will the district school obtain the right and summon the will to put the problem teachers out to pasture, and begin to thrive? Or will the charter schools learn that taking great care of good teachers is good business and begin to achieve their full potential in education, and siphon off even more of the district school’s students. When LIFO was instituted, there were no charter school alternatives.

    And the unions? They made a judgment that the mediocre teacher with seniority was more important to them than the young highly competent teacher in a zero sum game, and that nothing anyone could say, or do, or prove would ever change this.

    Replies

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      Paragraph 1: admin and board at fault.
      Paragraph 2: state legislators and gov at fault.
      Paragraph 3: Media, Voters and Michelle Rhee’s fault.
      Paragraph 4: parents’ fault.
      Paragraph 5: state legislators and gov at fault.
      Paragraph 6: Michelle Rhee’s and Bill Gates’ fault.
      Paragraph 7: ibid.
      Paragraph 8: Misunderstanding the law’s fault.
      Conclusion: blame the teachers.

      • Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

        Navigio, Andrew is providing the real world. Rhee and Gates are working hard to change this, give them credit. The backers of the status quo profess a fantasy that bad teachers are fired or improved. Most of us in the real world say that's nonsense, we've seen bad teachers last and last and last. You say nothing about it, but then when people try to change it, you say poor teachers, … Read More

        Navigio, Andrew is providing the real world. Rhee and Gates are working hard to change this, give them credit. The backers of the status quo profess a fantasy that bad teachers are fired or improved. Most of us in the real world say that’s nonsense, we’ve seen bad teachers last and last and last. You say nothing about it, but then when people try to change it, you say poor teachers, don’t blame them. You have to make it easier to fire the bad ones or it won’t happen. It’s clear with 7.5% missing work on an average day vs. 2.5% in corporate America, a lot are taking advantage of seniority / tenure for immoral and unethical purposes, in the real world. You’d just say, the administrators should deal with that, but they can’t, the contract says it’s OK. A principal trying to choose the best could say not at my school, if you think you are going to take 14 days off and no one will ask any questions, don’t work for me, just like a good CEO does. You live in a fantasy. I oppose segregation, but maintaining the status quo makes many whites leave or go private, you hear whites who go private and they have a story of a bad teacher. If we fire that teacher, they don’t, and we get more integration. And now they want to ban suspensions, which will send more private or white flighting, which is sad, you need to enforce rules to keep those with options in the school, rules teachers have to actually be sick to miss work, and kids get suspended if they disrupt others’ learning.

        • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

          Yes, I am all too familiar with the real world. Andrew's post was great, but personally I think it highlighted a whole slew of things that have either nothing to do with the tenure or seniority laws (except perhaps the last paragraph) or dont explain why teachers should bear the brunt of these attacks, your continued anecdotes notwithstanding. Gates deserves at least a little credit because he appears willing to admit when he is wrong (though … Read More

          Yes, I am all too familiar with the real world. Andrew’s post was great, but personally I think it highlighted a whole slew of things that have either nothing to do with the tenure or seniority laws (except perhaps the last paragraph) or dont explain why teachers should bear the brunt of these attacks, your continued anecdotes notwithstanding.

          Gates deserves at least a little credit because he appears willing to admit when he is wrong (though his actions havent yet necessarily reflected that admission).

          Rhee has done a lot of work, you’re right, but its been for her organization and for political factions that believe in the privatization of public education. She admits she runs a single-issue organization and thus cant be responsible for the things that might come along with the policies she pursues, but personally I think she is smarter than that. She is a perfect example of someone who tries to apply process x to a problem, and when it fails simply tries the same thing twice as hard. She gets an A+ for determination. An F for improving education. (that’s a binary statement because im lazy, she probably deserves some credit for bringing discussions more mainstream, but only a bit.. I’d have to waste a lot more ink to explain that in a more nuanced manner).

          When you talk about admins having their hands tied, thats not a by-product of tenure or seniority, rather its a by-product of negotiated contracts. Those wont cease to exist unless the union is done away with or severely de-clawed. So maybe thats what this is all about after all?

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      Despite my earlier sarcasm, I think yours is an important post. charters have largely become a segregation tool, so i think they have a long ways to go before they will feel any pressure to change their own ways. the district currently does have the right, though sometimes not the will. this, imho, is more of a problem than the laws. however, it is important to note that many districts would not behave any differently if the … Read More

      Despite my earlier sarcasm, I think yours is an important post.

      charters have largely become a segregation tool, so i think they have a long ways to go before they will feel any pressure to change their own ways.

      the district currently does have the right, though sometimes not the will. this, imho, is more of a problem than the laws. however, it is important to note that many districts would not behave any differently if the law were changed anyway.

      i also dont think lifo was designed with the expectation of many straight years of cuts. it would be interesting to see how its designers would approach it after having seen the past 5 years.

      Lastly, I think your point about the value of simply trading expensive teachers for multiple cheaper ones is crucial. That is what I think this lawsuit is ultimately about, ie the ability to do that at-will. And ironically, because class size is one of the highest priorities for parents, it is likely that what will end up happening is, given the choice, we will gladly choose worse teachers for no other reason than to reduce both cost and class size. 3 mediocre teachers with 20 kids or 1 excellent one with 60 kids. You decide.

  8. Paul 10 years ago10 years ago

    Well said, Navigio. The other mistake that's being made in the commentary is the persistent comparison of a teacher who was alleged to be incompetent with a teacher who was alleged to have done illegal activities. The former is certainly entitled to union representation in dealings with the school district, and in the US, even the latter would be entitled to legal representation in dealings with the justice system. We can't do away with principles of balance … Read More

    Well said, Navigio.

    The other mistake that’s being made in the commentary is the persistent comparison of a teacher who was alleged to be incompetent with a teacher who was alleged to have done illegal activities. The former is certainly entitled to union representation in dealings with the school district, and in the US, even the latter would be entitled to legal representation in dealings with the justice system.

    We can’t do away with principles of balance and fairness just because they are inconvenient (dismissal *for cause* rather than *without cause* in the former case; “innocent until proven guilty” in the latter case — speaking theoretically here because I honestly don’t know whether Berndt was charged and convicted of anything, and in mass media coverage of such cases, that crucial, final detail is always less important than the initial allegations. I am making a general observation, and it is not my goal to defend Berndt, especially if he was convicted of wrongdoing.).

    On the question of the teacher whom 22 parents, and an administrator, disliked, even this is not prima facie evidence of the teacher’s incompetence. For example, a teacher who was particularly strict in assigning homework, who didn’t accede to grade change requests or offer “extra credit” opportunities, and who set very high academic performance standards, would be liable to be disliked by many parents (whose children might not receive automatically high grades), and by site and district administrators (who would have to field the complaints from parents who wanted higher grades, less homework, make-up work/exceptions not required by the Education Code, etc.). Parents are not the only stakeholders, even if it seems so. Teachers are bound to uphold professional, federal, state, and school district standards and, I might add, not to put any one parent/student or group of parents/students above another. Here too, I am making a general observation, and I don’t know the details of this specific case of alleged teacher incompetence.

  9. Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

    Paul, I don't want an automatic number terminated, but I don't think pay, promotion, and assignment should hinge on seniority rather than reference checks, test score averages, real evaluations (such as one with 5 ratings and over 10% in each rating), etc. When you say 98-99% are satisfactory, you are basically saying screw the idea of an evaluation, all teachers are the same, I refuse to participate in the idea teachers should be evaluated. … Read More

    Paul, I don’t want an automatic number terminated, but I don’t think pay, promotion, and assignment should hinge on seniority rather than reference checks, test score averages, real evaluations (such as one with 5 ratings and over 10% in each rating), etc. When you say 98-99% are satisfactory, you are basically saying screw the idea of an evaluation, all teachers are the same, I refuse to participate in the idea teachers should be evaluated. When those on the inside are basically refusing to participate, marking all as satisfactory when the U.S. and California are near the bottom, I don’t trust them when they say this lawsuit or measure are slightly wrong, trust us to do the same thing and address your concerns slightly differently. The union defended Mark Berndt. It defended the teacher of my child who all 22 wanted out. If the union were able to take a step back and say to itself, is this intellectually sound or are we defending this teacher because we are being intellectually biased, I would trust it more. When it automatically defends each case, it’s opinion loses my respect, not to mention it automatically opposes virtually every reform in a knee jerk manner. In San Francisco, families moved out because they lived a block from a school and were assigned by lottery to schools over 5 miles away, and some couldn’t drive and had to take two buses. Some would move to a community where their language was spoken, like Russian, but couldn’t drive, and it took so long to take their kids across town they’d have to hang out in the neighborhood all day. The union donated a lot of money and told lies that kids would switch mid year if a measure advocating changing this passed, just because they believed no one from outside their power structure should change anything, even assignment. It was automatic, and they lied to get there, they were challenged to bet $1,000 they couldn’t pass a lie detector test not that what they said was true, but that they honestly believed it was true when they signed onto it, if they were telling the truth they could have made an easy thousand, but of course they ignored it. They defended molesters. When it comes to negotiating, they say each district should do it, but they often endorse and donate to school board candidates which controls who gets on, and makes them own the candidate, it’s a conflict of interest when the person supposed to negotiate on behalf of the children is put in their position by the union, it should be seen as unethical. The union is not neutral. They want no teachers to ever be fired. They disallow from checking references, even on principals. Schools are told who they must transfer in, rather than letting the principal choose, which would pressure teachers to work hard to get a good reference.

    Also, in other nations teachers come from the top half of graduates. Here, the majority are from the bottom half. This hurts when it comes time to advise children. Any good teacher should tell kids, the average UC entrant studies 20-25 hours a week, and in California, Asians study an average of 15 hours a week vs. 5.6 for whites, and 33.5 % of Asians make it to a UC or better vs. 8.7% of whites, so you need to go to the library Saturdays, get every tutor you can, study Summers, if you want to get ahead. Most teachers didn’t do this if they were below average graduates, and then they emphasize the things kids can’t control. These things are true, richer kids do better, it’s an advantage to buy an SAT prep course, nepotism is a factor in hiring, we have less class mobility than Europe, inheritance is a big factor, and our schools are deplorably segregated due to private schools, residential patterns, etc. However, immigrants prove they are not the whole story and long hours studying can help you improve your, and your children’s, future, and teachers should emphasize the parts a child can control, because that makes kids work harder and the teachers have a higher test improvement average, rather than what one cannot, such as IQ, racism, historical racism, nepotism, etc. Teachers should try to help kids get out of poverty and have a better future. They don’t. Many teachers are pessimistic.

    I think it should require a 3.2 or higher from State, maybe any UC graduate, etc.

    I don’t want any specific number, but it should be possible to be fired.

    Also, many leave early because teachers aren’t paid well the first year, because of seniority. The pay is high with experience. Maybe it should be based on productivity meaning good young teachers can earn as much as or more than mediocre older teachers. Merit pay could achieve this but the union opposes it.

    The rules are rigged in favor of the teacher they want to fire, the union has too many rules, which Vergara and Davis wish to change. Only 11 states have this, and California should remove themselves from this list. It will help children if teachers know they have to embrace reforms and can’t resist and get away with it. Currently, teachers don’t have to follow reforms.

    It’s not how many years to tenure, it’s changing what it means. Some are good for 30 years, then go bad. If a salesman is good for 30 years, or a lawyer, or an engineer, then bad, they get fired. If a teacher does this, good luck firing them. Present law prioritizes rights of an adult over children. This must change. And it will. These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

    Replies

    • navigio 10 years ago10 years ago

      The union has a fiduciary responsibility to defend it’s members. It’s paid to do that. It cannot become a judge without destroying that reason for existing. In the court system, should the public defender be able to say, ‘sorry, I’m not going to defend you because you are clearly guilty’ ?

  10. Paul 10 years ago10 years ago

    Floyd, national research found that 50% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years. (The figure for California is unknown, and our state has no tracking system to determine it.) Isn't that high enough for you? I know of no learned profession, 20% of whose practitioners are "fired" on a periodic basis. This is because the practitioners are carefully selected, and because they must invest so much time in mastering their profession. If you contend … Read More

    Floyd, national research found that 50% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years. (The figure for California is unknown, and our state has no tracking system to determine it.) Isn’t that high enough for you?

    I know of no learned profession, 20% of whose practitioners are “fired” on a periodic basis. This is because the practitioners are carefully selected, and because they must invest so much time in mastering their profession.

    If you contend that there are so many bad teachers, why not work to “improve” the selection process? It operates on multiple levels.

    First, there are economic criteria. It’s a high-skill but relatively low-compensation profession. This has historically favored young, single people, married people — once women were allowed to continue teaching after they got married — and, as McKinsey researchers concluded, women and minorities in general, in the days when they had few professional employment opportunities. By tinkering with training costs, wages and benefits, and unemployment levels, you could get the people you want, be they the economically dependent or the independent.

    Second, there are general educational criteria. NCLB, for example, has required all teachers to have bachelors’ degrees. In some northeastern states, a master’s degree is required. You could achieve different results by tightening or loosening the requirements (easy firing, which you favor, is incompatible with stringent preparation requirements). You could also consider whether the degrees should be in education, in the liberal arts, or in specific subject matter fields.

    Third, there are state-level program admission requirements: a minimum undergraduate GPA (or waiver) and numerous standardized tests (which, given your support of testing, I assume you would favor).

    Fourth, there are local institutional admission requirements: essays/personal statements, interviews, writing samples, etc.

    Fifth, there is a hiring process, which is completely at the discretion of each school district. No job, not teaching career.

    Sixth, there is a period of several years of employment in “temporary” and/or “probationary” status — in each school district worked for. During this period of at-will employment, school districts again have complete discretion.

    It seems to me a pretty stringent and pretty long process, affording all stakeholders — the state, universities, school districts/principals/parents, and candidates for “permanent” status many chances to sound each other out.

    Periodically dumping a large swath of your workforce, instead of providing feedback, support and time to improve, becomes particularly wasteful when the state, through subsidies to its public universities, is on the hook for most training costs (and school districts, on the other hand, save on salaries when turnover is quick).

    You also make at least two errors in discussing your anecdote about a teacher whom you thought was bad. First, this was your personal experience, and it cannot readily be generalized to a whole segment of the teaching profession. Second, just as you and your fellow parents advocated dismissal of the teacher, it was the union’s role to provide a defense. Our society favors balance, rather than letting one stakeholder completely overpower another.

  11. Floyd Thursby 10 years ago10 years ago

    Where the union defenders lose me is they pretty much defend every teacher, every time. If the union, say, agreed with firing 12% of teachers over the course of a career and the opponents wanted 21, maye you look at both sides. I've seen really obviously bad ones, I mean 22 of 22 parents and a principal coming to meetings wanting to fire them, and the union defended them like it was a … Read More

    Where the union defenders lose me is they pretty much defend every teacher, every time. If the union, say, agreed with firing 12% of teachers over the course of a career and the opponents wanted 21, maye you look at both sides. I’ve seen really obviously bad ones, I mean 22 of 22 parents and a principal coming to meetings wanting to fire them, and the union defended them like it was a noble cause at every step of the way. They even fought for Mark Berndt and made LAUSD feel they had to pay him $40,000 to leave after he molested children. They even fought a law to make it easier to fire molesters, and won by getting it out of committee. They have no process to oppose bad teachers.

    You’ll never convince me seniority has any value. It doesn’t matter if tenure went from 2 to 10 or 20 years. Some teachers after 30 refuse to do what a principal says knowing the union will back them. For instance, school loop is a great reform in SF, but some teachers refuse to do it and have no consequence. They say they should get more pay for the extra work, but don’t count that online homework programs have saved them a lot of work over the past 5 years, only looking at one side of it.

    We have to put children first. If a teacher is senior and getting a much higher salary, they should be very productive and held to a higher standard. Always, those on a higher salary are held to a higher standard. Principals can make a better decision than just blindly looking at years in. LIFO has to go. It really hurts innocent children. We have less class mobility than Europe and Asia.

  12. Andrew 10 years ago10 years ago

    While the plaintiffs have superb legal representation, I'm not sure they really expect to win the lawsuit on constitutional grounds and preserve a victory on appeal. I suspect they would view it as a gift if that happened. But the lawsuit and its appellate aftermath provide lots of publicity. Making it a perfect strategic first punch in a one-two punch, the second punch of which is putting an initiative before the California voters, which … Read More

    While the plaintiffs have superb legal representation, I’m not sure they really expect to win the lawsuit on constitutional grounds and preserve a victory on appeal. I suspect they would view it as a gift if that happened.

    But the lawsuit and its appellate aftermath provide lots of publicity. Making it a perfect strategic first punch in a one-two punch, the second punch of which is putting an initiative before the California voters, which would be touted as giving the voters an opportunity to pick up where the courts conspicuously “failed.”

    In terms of persuasive force of the arguments in favor of the present system, I’m not seeing anything that would persuade me (or many voters) that layoffs should be based 100% on seniority when they must occur, rather than used as an opportunity to cull a few of the most mediocre teachers.

    Replies

    • John Fensterwald 10 years ago10 years ago

      You are correct that Students Matter founder David Welch has a huge PR campaign surrounding the case (Louis Freedberg will be writing about that soon). But I seriously doubt he would use the courts as a vehicle to build a case for the public, when the initiative process is already at his disposal. I assume that his impressive legal team has weighed the danger of losing the case before the state Supreme Court, with the … Read More

      You are correct that Students Matter founder David Welch has a huge PR campaign surrounding the case (Louis Freedberg will be writing about that soon). But I seriously doubt he would use the courts as a vehicle to build a case for the public, when the initiative process is already at his disposal. I assume that his impressive legal team has weighed the danger of losing the case before the state Supreme Court, with the adverse impact on future cases, and decided the risks are worth it. Other civil rights attorneys who have toiled this legal vineyard for decades are worried that such a sweeping challenge will not win.
      Regarding the last-in-first-out statute, the defense in the case makes the argument that the layoffs should be based on clear rules and shouldn’t be used as a “backstop” to fire teachers based on perceptions of effectiveness or big salaries. That’s why seniority protections are needed.
      The plaintiffs counter that a bad tenure law (too short a probationary period) and a convoluted dismissal law protect, compounded by an ineffective evaluation system, shield clearly ineffective performers who then are protected come layoffs.

      • Paul 10 years ago10 years ago

        John, I want to commend you for your superb writing and your superb journalism. In the space of a single paragraph in the comment above, you give a clear and balanced explanation of the lawsuit. You should shop that paragraph around to every news outlet in the state!

        Thanks for your work, which is always worth reading, and thanks for providing a forum for thoutghtful discussion, in addition.

        • John Fensterwald 10 years ago10 years ago

          Thanks, Paul. And one back at you: Your comments and reflections as a former teacher have enriched the discussion. Your comments, too, Floyd. Please continue …