Knowledge (XXG)

Vergara v. California

Source đź“ť

413:, Second Appellate District, Division Two. On April 14, 2016 the Court of Appeal's three judge panel unanimously overturned the trial court's ruling, finding that the attorneys for the plaintiff school students "failed to show that the statutes themselves make any certain group of students more likely to be taught by ineffective teachers than any other group of students," and that the job of the appellate judges was "merely to determine whether the statutes are constitutional, not if they are 'a good idea.'" Instead of focusing on the statutes alone, the Court of Appeal found that "he evidence . . . revealed deplorable staffing decisions being made by some local administrators that have a deleterious impact on poor and minority students." 31: 100:
trial court's decision and held that the challenged statutes did not violate the California Constitution. In May 2016, lawyers for the school students asked the California Supreme Court to reconsider the Court of Appeal reversal and reinstate the trial court's ruling in their favor. On August 22, 2016 the State's highest court declined to review the case in a 4-3 decision, thus permitting the Court of Appeal decision upholding the statutes to stand.
367:(Harvard University) testified on the distribution of ineffective teachers in California and particularly in Los Angeles. Dan Goldhaber (University of Washington) testified on the impact of LIFO layoff statutes. Plaintiff rebuttal testimony was provided by Eric Hanushek and by Dr. Anthony Smith, former superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District. 511:
denial of review effectively upheld the validity of those same statutes, the leaders of the Students Matter group that initiated and funded the lawsuit signaled that the next battles might be legislative: "The Supreme Court’s decision places the responsibility for improving the state’s teacher retention, evaluation and dismissal laws squarely with the
303:
The court noted that school administrators and teachers unions had raised "the entirely legitimate issue" of protecting a teacher's due process rights when she or he was faced with the possibility of being fired. However, the court decided that "given the evidence . . . the Dismissal Statutes present
138:
A series of three statutes in California specified a series of procedural requirements that had to be satisfied if a tenured teacher was to be dismissed. These requirements, the plaintiffs argued, put undue cost on districts if they wished to remove a teacher. They were also considerably beyond the
112:
decisions had to be made too quickly, and that once tenure was granted it was too difficult to remove a teacher if a mistake had been made in granting tenure. The presence of ineffective teachers necessarily meant that some students were denied their constitutional right to a quality education. The
99:
On June 10, 2014, after a two-month trial, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the California Superior Court ruled that all of the statutes challenged by the student plaintiffs were unconstitutional; the ruling was finalized in August 2014. On April 14, 2016, a three judge panel on the Court of Appeal reversed the
286:
were experts who testified for the defendant school officials during the trial. Both stated that two years was not the optimal amount of time needed to make a tenure decision. Three years to five years was instead suggested as a better time frame to make the tenure decision for the mutual benefit of
425:
to reconsider the Court of Appeal's reversal, however, on August 22, 2016, California's highest court declined to review the case in a 4-3 split decision, thereby upholding the challenged statutes. The four justice majority which denied review did so without comment, other than issuing a standard
299:
Lawyers for the plaintiff school students alleged that it was "too time consuming and too expensive to go through the dismissal process as required by the Dismissal Statutes to rid school districts of grossly ineffective teachers." The court agreed, concluding that "such time and cost constraints
549:
Editorial Board concluded that "California’s tenure and seniority laws do tend to protect the worst teachers at the expense of students. The Legislature, always too obliging to the desires of the teachers unions, must gather its strength on behalf of the state’s children to reform bad laws." The
510:
When the trial court judge determined that the tenure, dismissal and layoff statutes were unconstitutional, he also conceded that "it is not the function of this Court to dictate or even to advise the legislature . . . how to replace the Challenged Statutes." After the California Supreme Court's
459:
Officials from the teachers' union criticized the trial court's decision, saying that insufficient evidence was provided by the plaintiffs to show that the statutes being challenged were harmful for students, and further that the court "blatantly ignored" evidence to the contrary, saying that in
272:
The court found that California's tenure period was actually less than the two-year period ostensibly outlined in the statute. This was because a tenure decision had to be made in March, before the end of a new teacher's second school year. In contrast, the credentialing induction period for new
501:
lawsuit for fostering a teacher shortage in the state, and then said, "e can now turn closer attention to solving the actual problems we confront in our schools, such as securing adequate funding . . . reducing class sizes, promoting and strengthening peer assistance and review, and reinforcing
434:
wrote, "s the state's highest court, we owe the . . . schoolchildren throughout California, our transparent and reasoned judgment on whether the challenged statutes deprive a significant subset of students of their fundamental right to education and violate the constitutional guarantee of equal
335:
Surveying layoff rules for teachers in other U.S. jurisdictions, the court found that as of the trial (January 27 to March 27, 2014) 2 states provided that seniority could not be considered; 18 states and the District of Columbia left the layoff criteria to school district discretion; 20 states
290:
Surveying tenure periods in other U.S. states, the court found that as of the trial (January 27 to March 27, 2014) 4 states had no tenure system at all, 9 states had tenure periods of four to five years, 32 had a three-year period, and 5 (including California) had a period of two years or less.
125:) on any teacher who had not been informed that his or her teaching contract had been canceled by March of the second year of teaching. Permanent status required school districts to follow specific evidentiary and procedural requirements before firing a teacher. Lawyers for teachers unions in 476:
An article published in the Washington Post on April 14, 2016 said that the Court of Appeal's decision reversing the trial court handed "a major victory to teachers unions." A subsequent report on National Public Radio used similar language (albeit limited to California) when discussing the
534:
In the days after the California Supreme Court denied review, leading newspapers in California's two largest metropolitan areas (Los Angeles and San Francisco) published editorials which called on the state's legislature and teachers unions to address the issues raised in the
492:
a "case brought by wealthy anti-public education millionaires who spent millions of dollars to bypass voters, parents, and the legislature in an attempt to impose their harmful education agenda on local schools." The president of the California Federation of Teachers (the
156:, or LIFO. With a few exceptions, before any tenured teacher could be laid off, the district had to remove all of the more junior, nontenured teachers. According to LIFO, it is impermissible to use information about teacher effectiveness in making layoff decisions. 311:"This Court is confident that the independent judiciary of this state is no less dedicated to the protection of reasonable due process rights of teachers than it is of protecting the rights of children to constitutionally mandated equal education opportunities." 264:, an expert called by , testified that 1 - 3% of teachers in California are grossly ineffective. Given that the evidence showed roughly 275,000 active teachers in this state, the extrapolated number of grossly ineffective teachers ranges from 2,750 to 8,250." 242:
School administrators asked the judge to review a copy of "California Standards for the Teaching Profession" (2009 Edition) as evidence. The court pointed out that the opening sentence of those Standards state: "A growing body of research confirms that the
443:
case amounted only to "the usual blemishes in governance left as institutions implement statutes or engage in routine trade-offs staggering failures that threaten to turn the right to education for California schoolchildren into an empty promise."
273:
teachers lasted two full school years. "Thus, a teacher reelected in March may not be recommended for credentialing after the close of the induction program in May, leaving the applicable district with a non-credentialed teacher with tenure."
129:
argued that this was not equivalent to lifetime employment, but instead just recognition of the due process requirements that would have to be satisfied even if teachers were to be fired for any one of a number of specified reasons.
564:
asserted that it should be "the Legislature the tenure rules," but they also noted that "teacher groups are among California’s biggest political spenders and have gutted past efforts at addressing these educational inequities."
151:
The final challenged statute dictates how district administrators prioritize which teachers are to be laid off if they were to reduce the size of their teaching staff. The California law required strict application of
1877: 329:"No matter how gifted the junior teacher, and no matter how grossly ineffective the senior teacher, the junior gifted one . . . is separated from and a senior grossly ineffective one . . . is left in place." 518:
Many proponents from both sides of the dispute agreed that the legislature, and not the courts, was the appropriate venue for further deliberation to take place. Assistant professor in public policy at the
88:. The suit was filed in May 2012 by lawyers on behalf of nine California public school student plaintiffs. It alleged that several California statutes on teacher tenure, layoffs, and dismissal violated the 429:
Two out of the three justices who disagreed with the decision to deny review submitted dissenting statements outlining why they believed the Court of Appeal decision should have been re-examined. Justice
276:"There was extensive evidence presented, including some from provide nearly enough time for an informed decision to be made regarding the decision of tenure (critical for both students and teachers)." 2017: 473:, was filed in New York State. And, on April 13, 2016 another lawsuit was filed in Minnesota which challenged teacher tenure rules and layoff procedures giving preference to more senior teachers. 456:
trial court decision in June 2014, the Associated Press described it in a USA Today article as "a landmark decision that could influence the gathering debate over tenure across the country."
545:
acknowledged that labor statutes protecting teachers may not be the most significant contributors to the educational difficulties encountered by California's students. Nonetheless, the
92:
by retaining some "grossly ineffective" teachers and thus denying equal protection to students assigned to the teachers. Furthermore, according to the complaint, the statutes had a
336:
provided that seniority could be considered among other factors; and 10 states (including California) provided that seniority was the sole factor, or one that had to be considered.
1458: 378:(Arizona State University), and Susan Moore Johnson (Harvard University), who testified on their understanding of the problems of tenure and of the impact of ineffective teachers. 348:, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Welch is the founder of a nonprofit education reform organization called Students Matter through which the plaintiffs' attorney's fees were paid. 1642: 480:
California's two largest teachers unions issued triumphant press releases after the California Supreme Court precluded further state court review. The president of the
556:
also reproved California's teachers unions for keeping "profoundly rigid rules that protect incompetent classroom instructors and harm low-income students." Like the
59: 426:
statement that "an order denying review represents only a determination that, for whatever reason, a grant of review is not appropriate at the time of the order."
1766: 108:
The lawsuit identified five separate statutes that kept ineffective teachers in the classroom. The argument by the student plaintiffs in the lawsuit was that
531:
matters." He continued, "The trial court decision was an example of an activist court. The opinion lodged the trial court in the middle of a policy matter."
2027: 1826:"New York State Challenge Planned on Teacher Tenure Law: Advocacy Group Contends Laws Violate Children's Constitutional Right to a Sound Basic Education" 1528: 409:, who reasoned that "hanges of this magnitude, as a matter of law and policy, require appellate review." The case was heard on February 25, 2016 by the 658: 477:
California Supreme Court's refusal to review the appellate decision, calling the denial of review "a major victory for teachers unions in California."
2263: 257:
who are taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared to students with average teachers."
2076: 2273: 2248: 2243: 746: 684: 1726: 1708: 1690: 1672: 1628: 1610: 732: 714: 2268: 2151: 2123: 1488: 1444: 1426: 1408: 644: 520: 523:
Mark Paige said of the state court's decision, "This was an appropriate move by the Supreme Court and really a victory for the idea of a
355:". The original complaint was built on the analyses of teacher effectiveness and the estimated economic cost of ineffective teachers by 351:
The plaintiff school students' trial experts included a group of economists who examined various aspects of teacher effectiveness under "
601: 460:
actuality, the laws improve public education. They further criticized the decision for "intrud on an inherently legislative function."
255: 1851: 1799: 63: 2258: 180: 1903: 1825: 1350: 113:
defendants argued that it was possible to remove bad teachers and that these laws did not cause bad teachers to be in the schools.
2253: 2050: 1991: 1554: 494: 485: 394: 481: 345: 1740: 1335: 436: 382:
of the University of California, Berkeley, testified that tenure restrictions served the interest of student achievement.
1378: 1330: 1196: 772: 512: 2109: 1741:"Judge strikes down California teacher tenure: Judge also took issue with laws that say last hired must be first fired" 2278: 1977: 1182: 1164: 1146: 1128: 1110: 1092: 1074: 1056: 1038: 1020: 1002: 984: 966: 948: 930: 912: 894: 876: 858: 822: 804: 626: 410: 390: 323:-only layoff statute required "the last-hired teacher the statutorily-mandated first-fired one when lay-offs occur." 191: 184: 41: 1776: 2283: 439:
wrote that he and his fellow justices should have had the opportunity to determine if the flaws highlighted in the
220:. . . here this Court is directly faced with issues that compel it to apply these constitutional principles to the 169: 89: 1224: 143:, Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), testified that the statutes harmed students. 422: 2137: 1928: 587: 552: 364: 251: 247:
is what matters most for the students' development and learning in schools." (Emphasis added by the court).
30: 1992:"California state Supreme Court declines to take up Vergara case, which targeted teacher job protections" 2143: 2115: 371: 165: 140: 1704:
Vergara v. California - Supreme Court docket {see DISSENTING STATEMENT by Cuéllar, J., final paragraph}
1579: 1502: 524: 352: 96:
on poor and minority students, who were more likely to be assigned to a grossly-ineffective teacher.
1950: 1668:
Vergara v. California - Supreme Court docket {see DISSENTING STATEMENT by Liu, J., final paragraph}
1258: 1201: 840: 1771: 1722:
Vergara v. California - Denial of Review {see Dissenting Statement Cuéllar, J., final paragraph}
1355: 1326:"Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher value-added and the student outcomes in adulthood" 1303: 1254: 643: (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 2 April 14, 2016), 625: (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles August 27, 2014), 606: 469: 1459:"In a win for unions, appeals court reverses ruling that threw out teacher tenure in California" 121:
Certain provisions of the California Education Code conferred "permanent employment" status (or
2018:"In a major win for teachers unions, California Supreme Court lets teacher tenure ruling stand" 586: (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles June 10, 2014), 2147: 2119: 2022: 777: 541: 202: 195: 1686:
Vergara v. California - Denial of Review {see DISSENTING STATEMENT Liu, J., final paragraph}
1295: 528: 320: 153: 93: 300:
cause districts in many cases to be very reluctant to even commence dismissal procedures."
1529:"In a major win for teachers unions, state Supreme Court lets teacher tenure ruling stand" 379: 279: 231: 228: 747:"JUST IN: Vergara ends — California Supreme Court refuses to take up teacher tenure case" 164:
On June 10, 2014, the court ruled that the statutes at issue produced disparities that "
2105: 375: 283: 261: 405:
Soon after the trial court's ruling was issued it was appealed by California Governor
2237: 2133: 1606:
Vergara v. California - Supreme Court docket {see STATEMENT by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.}
1299: 1279: 1238: 356: 326:
The statute did not contain "an exception or waiver based on teacher effectiveness."
1307: 1929:"Victory for Students as California Supreme Court Rejects Review of Vergara Appeal" 1379:"Judges weigh arguments over teacher vs. student rights in landmark tenure lawsuit" 685:"California's teacher tenure battle is reignited by Vergara appeal and a new bill" 1951:"California Supreme Court affirms appeal court decision: 'Vergara v. CA' is over" 710:
Vergara v. California - Supreme Court docket showing "Petition for review denied"
431: 406: 397:
intervened on the side of the defense and was represented by Altschuler Berzon.
386: 1624:
Vergara v. California - Denial of Review {see STATEMENT Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.}
1351:"California Governor Appeals Court Ruling Overturning Protections for Teachers" 1643:"California Supreme Court decision leaves state's teacher tenure law in place" 1503:"Lawyer for students calls California court's landmark tenure decision unfair" 1321: 360: 332:"The logic of is unfathomable and therefore constitutionally unsupportable." 77: 1878:"California appeals court upholds teacher tenure, a major victory for unions" 1325: 1242: 659:"California Appeals Court Reverses Decision to Overturn Teacher Tenure Rules" 2182: 81: 1291: 85: 160:
The trial court decision: the challenged statutes "shock the conscience"
1767:"Activists look to courts to weaken grip of California teachers union" 773:"Op-Ed: L.A. Unified's Deasy applauds Vergara ruling on teacher rules" 401:
The appeals court reversal: the challenged statutes are constitutional
2051:"Now that the Vergara case is over, let's reform teacher tenure laws" 389:
law firm. The defense for school administrators was provided by the
122: 109: 2177: 2077:"State Supreme Court action means status quo on teacher tenure wins" 1953:(Press release). California Federation of Teachers. August 22, 2016 502:
collaborative district practices with a proven record of success."
295:
Firing a teacher in California was too expensive and time consuming
2111:
The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession
139:
normal due process rights for other civil servants in California.
1931:(Press release). California Teachers Association. August 22, 2016 2173:
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
1457:
Blume, Howard; Resmovits, Joy; Kohli, Sonali (April 14, 2016).
1555:"California Supreme Court allows teacher tenure laws to stand" 1282:(June 2011). "The economic value of higher teacher quality". 315:
Teacher layoffs prioritized solely by seniority harm students
2194: 2139:
Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School
1725: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1707: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1689: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1671: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1627: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1609: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 1197:"Meet the Tech Entrepreneur Putting Teacher Tenure on Trial" 731: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 713: (Supreme Court of California August 22, 2016), 227:
The court examined the challenged California statutes under
212:(1992). "While these cases addressed the issue of a lack of 1852:"Teacher Tenure Is Challenged Again in a Minnesota Lawsuit" 2172: 344:
Funding for the plaintiff school students was provided by
2211: 2206: 417:
The California Supreme Court's refusal to review the case
2228: 340:
Funding, experts and attorneys at the trial court level
268:
A tenure period of less than two years was insufficient
1324:; Friedman, John N.; Rockoff, Jonah (September 2014). 1580:"California Supreme Court upholds teacher tenure law" 1243:"Valuing teachers: How much is a good teacher worth?" 1800:"Lawsuit Challenges New York's Teacher Tenure Laws" 1377:Blume, Howard; Resmovits, Joy (February 25, 2016). 1225:"David Welch: The Man Behind Vergara v. California" 841:
Volume 4, California 4th Reporter, page 668
55: 47: 37: 23: 2223: 2178:California Court of Appeal for the Second District 515:. And that’s where we intend to take this fight." 506:Possible pivot to the California State Legislature 1527:Blume, Howard; Resmovits, Joy (August 22, 2016). 657:Medina, Jennifer; Rich, Motoko (April 14, 2016). 463:On July 3, 2014 a similar lawsuit modeled on the 370:Other expert witnesses during the trial included 168:" and violate the equal protection clause of the 80:state courts which dealt with a child's right to 2016:Howard Blume; Joy Resmovits (August 23, 2016). 435:protection of the laws." Additionally, Justice 421:Attorneys for the student plaintiffs asked the 1223:Raden, Bill; Cohn, Gary (February 20, 2014). 602:"Judge Rejects Teacher Tenure for California" 8: 2049:LA Times Editorial Board (August 24, 2016). 385:The school students were represented by the 1037:, page 10, line 25 to page 11, line 3, 640:Vergara v. California - Appellate Decision 583:Vergara v. California - Tentative Decision 416: 147:Last In, First Out ("LIFO") layoff statute 29: 20: 728:Vergara v. California - Denial of Review 238:Evidence regarding teacher effectiveness 64:Docket No. B258589S (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) 1996:KPCC / Southern California Public Radio 1904:"California Teacher Tenure Laws Upheld" 574: 117:Permanent Employment ("Tenure") statute 1765:Cadelago, Christopher (May 16, 2015). 1902:Gonzales, Richard (August 22, 2016). 1227:. Capital & Main online magazine. 521:University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 7: 1501:Dobuzinskis, Alex (April 15, 2016). 1195:Callahan, David (February 3, 2014). 497:'s California affiliate) blamed the 2207:Los Angeles Unified School District 2026:. Los Angeles Times. Archived from 1908:National Public Radio / The Two-Way 1484:Vergara (2016) - Appellate Decision 1440:Vergara (2016) - Appellate Decision 1422:Vergara (2016) - Appellate Decision 1404:Vergara (2016) - Appellate Decision 1349:Nagourney, Adam (August 30, 2014). 175:As background, the court began the 2212:California Department of Education 1739:Associated Press (June 11, 2014). 600:Medina, Jennifer (June 10, 2014). 14: 2224:California Federation of Teachers 254:testified that students in LAUSD 179:opinion with a discussion of the 2264:United States education case law 1990:Stokes, Kyle (August 22, 2016). 1559:San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate 1300:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006 745:Favot, Sarah (August 22, 2016). 622:Vergara v. California - Judgment 224:of the educational experience." 84:and to instruction by effective 16:2012 California state court case 2229:California Teachers Association 1850:Rich, Motoko (April 13, 2016). 1824:Brody, Leslie (June 23, 2014). 1641:Brown, Emma (August 22, 2016). 1553:Egelko, Bob (August 22, 2016). 683:Resmovits, Joy (May 25, 2016). 486:California Teachers Association 395:California Teachers Association 2274:2014 in United States case law 2249:Education reform in California 2244:Public education in California 2189:Education reform organizations 1876:Brown, Emma (April 14, 2016). 250:"Based on a 4 year study, Dr. 1: 2075:Editorial (August 23, 2016). 1336:American Economic Association 1284:Economics of Education Review 771:Deasy, John (June 10, 2014). 2269:United States labor case law 2201:Public school administrators 1976:, page 15, lines 13-15, 1331:The American Economic Review 1181:, page 14, lines 10-14, 1127:, page 13, lines 19-23, 1109:, page 13, lines 17-18, 1091:, page 13, lines 18-19, 1073:, page 12, lines 23-26, 1055:, page 11, lines 21-23, 1019:, page 10, lines 14-17, 983:, page 10, lines 10-12, 2183:Supreme Court of California 1163:, page 6, lines 13-15, 1001:, page 6, lines 13-15, 965:, page 9, lines 21-25, 911:, page 7, lines 24-26, 875:, page 8, lines 19-24, 857:, page 2, lines 23-28, 836:Butt v. State of California 821:, page 3, lines 19-27, 391:California Attorney General 210:Butt v. State of California 186:Brown v. Board of Education 42:California Courts of Appeal 2300: 1798:Baker, Al (July 3, 2014). 1145:, page 14, lines 4-5, 947:, page 9, lines 1-19, 893:, page 7, lines 8-11, 437:Mariano-Florentino CuĂ©llar 411:California Court of Appeal 90:Constitution of California 2259:California state case law 1973:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1178:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1160:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1142:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1124:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1106:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1088:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1070:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1052:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1034:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 1016:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 998:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 980:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 962:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 944:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 929:, page 8, lines 2-4, 926:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 908:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 890:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 872:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 854:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 818:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 800:Vergara (2014) - Judgment 363:(Harvard University) and 28: 423:California Supreme Court 359:of Stanford University. 192:California Supreme Court 2254:Labor law in California 2081:San Francisco Chronicle 803:, page 7, line 21, 553:San Francisco Chronicle 374:(Stanford University), 287:students and teachers. 170:California Constitution 104:The challenged statutes 513:California Legislature 2144:Brookings Institution 560:, the editors at the 372:Linda Darling Hammond 76:was a lawsuit in the 73:Vergara v. California 60:246 Cal. App. 4th 619 24:Vergara v. California 525:separation of powers 353:value-added modeling 204:Serrano v. Priest II 166:shock the conscience 1882:The Washington Post 1830:Wall Street Journal 1647:The Washington Post 1259:Stanford University 1202:The Huffington Post 245:quality of teaching 197:Serrano v. Priest I 2279:2014 in California 2030:on August 30, 2016 1856:The New York Times 1804:The New York Times 1772:The Sacramento Bee 1356:The New York Times 1255:Hoover Institution 607:The New York Times 470:Davids v. New York 452:The day after the 181:U.S. Supreme Court 134:Dismissal statutes 2284:2014 in education 2153:978-0-8157-0373-0 2125:978-0-385-53695-0 2055:Los Angeles Times 2023:Los Angeles Times 1586:. August 22, 2016 1533:Los Angeles Times 1463:Los Angeles Times 1383:Los Angeles Times 778:Los Angeles Times 689:Los Angeles Times 542:Los Angeles Times 527:as it relates to 154:last in first out 69: 68: 2291: 2157: 2129: 2092: 2091: 2089: 2087: 2072: 2066: 2065: 2063: 2061: 2046: 2040: 2039: 2037: 2035: 2013: 2007: 2006: 2004: 2002: 1987: 1981: 1975: 1969: 1963: 1962: 1960: 1958: 1947: 1941: 1940: 1938: 1936: 1925: 1919: 1918: 1916: 1914: 1899: 1893: 1892: 1890: 1888: 1873: 1867: 1866: 1864: 1862: 1847: 1841: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1812: 1810: 1795: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1784: 1775:. Archived from 1762: 1756: 1755: 1753: 1751: 1736: 1730: 1724: 1718: 1712: 1706: 1700: 1694: 1688: 1682: 1676: 1670: 1664: 1658: 1657: 1655: 1653: 1638: 1632: 1626: 1620: 1614: 1608: 1602: 1596: 1595: 1593: 1591: 1576: 1570: 1569: 1567: 1565: 1550: 1544: 1543: 1541: 1539: 1524: 1518: 1517: 1515: 1513: 1498: 1492: 1487:, page 651, 1486: 1480: 1474: 1473: 1471: 1469: 1454: 1448: 1443:, page 627, 1442: 1436: 1430: 1425:, page 627, 1424: 1418: 1412: 1407:, page 652, 1406: 1400: 1394: 1393: 1391: 1389: 1374: 1368: 1367: 1365: 1363: 1346: 1340: 1339: 1318: 1312: 1311: 1276: 1270: 1269: 1267: 1265: 1235: 1229: 1228: 1220: 1214: 1213: 1211: 1209: 1192: 1186: 1180: 1174: 1168: 1162: 1156: 1150: 1144: 1138: 1132: 1126: 1120: 1114: 1108: 1102: 1096: 1090: 1084: 1078: 1072: 1066: 1060: 1054: 1048: 1042: 1036: 1030: 1024: 1018: 1012: 1006: 1000: 994: 988: 982: 976: 970: 964: 958: 952: 946: 940: 934: 928: 922: 916: 910: 904: 898: 892: 886: 880: 874: 868: 862: 856: 850: 844: 838: 832: 826: 820: 814: 808: 802: 796: 790: 789: 787: 785: 768: 762: 761: 759: 757: 751:LA School Report 742: 736: 730: 724: 718: 712: 706: 700: 699: 697: 695: 680: 674: 673: 671: 669: 654: 648: 642: 636: 630: 624: 618: 612: 611: 597: 591: 585: 579: 529:education-policy 94:disparate impact 33: 21: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2234: 2233: 2218:Teachers unions 2195:Students Matter 2164: 2154: 2132: 2126: 2106:Goldstein, Dana 2104: 2101: 2099:Further reading 2096: 2095: 2085: 2083: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2059: 2057: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2033: 2031: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2000: 1998: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1956: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1934: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1912: 1910: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1886: 1884: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1860: 1858: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1834: 1832: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1808: 1806: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1782: 1780: 1779:on May 19, 2015 1764: 1763: 1759: 1749: 1747: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1651: 1649: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1604: 1603: 1599: 1589: 1587: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1563: 1561: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1537: 1535: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1511: 1509: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1467: 1465: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1420: 1419: 1415: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1387: 1385: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1361: 1359: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1263: 1261: 1241:(Summer 2011). 1237: 1236: 1232: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1207: 1205: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1140: 1139: 1135: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1014: 1013: 1009: 996: 995: 991: 978: 977: 973: 960: 959: 955: 942: 941: 937: 924: 923: 919: 906: 905: 901: 888: 887: 883: 870: 869: 865: 852: 851: 847: 834: 833: 829: 816: 815: 811: 798: 797: 793: 783: 781: 770: 769: 765: 755: 753: 744: 743: 739: 726: 725: 721: 708: 707: 703: 693: 691: 682: 681: 677: 667: 665: 656: 655: 651: 638: 637: 633: 620: 619: 615: 599: 598: 594: 581: 580: 576: 571: 508: 450: 419: 403: 380:Jesse Rothstein 342: 317: 297: 280:Jesse Rothstein 270: 240: 232:judicial review 229:strict scrutiny 216:of educational 162: 149: 136: 119: 106: 17: 12: 11: 5: 2297: 2295: 2287: 2286: 2281: 2276: 2271: 2266: 2261: 2256: 2251: 2246: 2236: 2235: 2232: 2231: 2226: 2215: 2214: 2209: 2198: 2197: 2186: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2163: 2162:External links 2160: 2159: 2158: 2152: 2134:Hanushek, Eric 2130: 2124: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2067: 2041: 2008: 1982: 1964: 1942: 1920: 1894: 1868: 1842: 1816: 1790: 1757: 1731: 1713: 1695: 1677: 1659: 1633: 1615: 1597: 1571: 1545: 1519: 1493: 1475: 1449: 1431: 1413: 1395: 1369: 1341: 1313: 1280:Hanushek, Eric 1271: 1247:Education Next 1239:Hanushek, Eric 1230: 1215: 1187: 1169: 1151: 1133: 1115: 1097: 1079: 1061: 1043: 1025: 1007: 989: 971: 953: 935: 917: 899: 881: 863: 845: 827: 809: 791: 763: 737: 719: 701: 675: 663:New York Times 649: 631: 613: 592: 573: 572: 570: 567: 507: 504: 449: 446: 418: 415: 402: 399: 376:David Berliner 341: 338: 316: 313: 308:due process." 296: 293: 284:David Berliner 269: 266: 239: 236: 161: 158: 148: 145: 135: 132: 118: 115: 105: 102: 67: 66: 57: 53: 52: 51:April 14, 2016 49: 45: 44: 39: 35: 34: 26: 25: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2296: 2285: 2282: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2267: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2257: 2255: 2252: 2250: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2239: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2213: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2161: 2155: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2098: 2086:September 19, 2082: 2078: 2071: 2068: 2060:September 10, 2056: 2052: 2045: 2042: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2012: 2009: 1997: 1993: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1968: 1965: 1957:September 19, 1952: 1946: 1943: 1935:September 19, 1930: 1924: 1921: 1909: 1905: 1898: 1895: 1883: 1879: 1872: 1869: 1857: 1853: 1846: 1843: 1831: 1827: 1820: 1817: 1805: 1801: 1794: 1791: 1778: 1774: 1773: 1768: 1761: 1758: 1746: 1742: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1723: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1705: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1663: 1660: 1648: 1644: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1601: 1598: 1585: 1581: 1575: 1572: 1560: 1556: 1549: 1546: 1534: 1530: 1523: 1520: 1508: 1504: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1479: 1476: 1464: 1460: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1417: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1399: 1396: 1384: 1380: 1373: 1370: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1345: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1323: 1317: 1314: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1275: 1272: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1234: 1231: 1226: 1219: 1216: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1161: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1107: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1011: 1008: 1004: 999: 993: 990: 986: 981: 975: 972: 968: 963: 957: 954: 950: 945: 939: 936: 932: 927: 921: 918: 914: 909: 903: 900: 896: 891: 885: 882: 878: 873: 867: 864: 860: 855: 849: 846: 842: 837: 831: 828: 824: 819: 813: 810: 806: 801: 795: 792: 780: 779: 774: 767: 764: 752: 748: 741: 738: 734: 729: 723: 720: 716: 711: 705: 702: 690: 686: 679: 676: 664: 660: 653: 650: 646: 641: 635: 632: 628: 623: 617: 614: 609: 608: 603: 596: 593: 589: 584: 578: 575: 568: 566: 563: 559: 555: 554: 548: 544: 543: 538: 532: 530: 526: 522: 516: 514: 505: 503: 500: 496: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 472: 471: 466: 461: 457: 455: 447: 445: 442: 438: 433: 427: 424: 414: 412: 408: 400: 398: 396: 392: 388: 383: 381: 377: 373: 368: 366: 362: 358: 357:Eric Hanushek 354: 349: 347: 339: 337: 333: 330: 327: 324: 322: 319:California's 314: 312: 309: 307: 304:the issue of 301: 294: 292: 288: 285: 281: 277: 274: 267: 265: 263: 258: 256: 253: 248: 246: 237: 235: 233: 230: 225: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 205: 200: 198: 193: 189: 187: 182: 178: 173: 171: 167: 159: 157: 155: 146: 144: 142: 133: 131: 128: 124: 116: 114: 111: 103: 101: 97: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 74: 65: 61: 58: 54: 50: 46: 43: 40: 36: 32: 27: 22: 19: 2217: 2216: 2200: 2199: 2188: 2187: 2166: 2165: 2138: 2110: 2084:. Retrieved 2080: 2070: 2058:. Retrieved 2054: 2044: 2034:September 5, 2032:. Retrieved 2028:the original 2021: 2011: 1999:. Retrieved 1995: 1985: 1972: 1967: 1955:. Retrieved 1945: 1933:. Retrieved 1923: 1911:. Retrieved 1907: 1897: 1885:. Retrieved 1881: 1871: 1859:. Retrieved 1855: 1845: 1835:November 25, 1833:. Retrieved 1829: 1819: 1807:. Retrieved 1803: 1793: 1781:. Retrieved 1777:the original 1770: 1760: 1750:November 25, 1748:. Retrieved 1744: 1734: 1721: 1716: 1703: 1698: 1685: 1680: 1667: 1662: 1650:. Retrieved 1646: 1636: 1623: 1618: 1605: 1600: 1588:. Retrieved 1583: 1574: 1562:. Retrieved 1558: 1548: 1536:. Retrieved 1532: 1522: 1510:. Retrieved 1506: 1496: 1483: 1478: 1466:. Retrieved 1462: 1452: 1439: 1434: 1421: 1416: 1403: 1398: 1386:. Retrieved 1382: 1372: 1360:. Retrieved 1354: 1344: 1329: 1316: 1287: 1283: 1274: 1262:. Retrieved 1250: 1246: 1233: 1218: 1206:. Retrieved 1200: 1190: 1177: 1172: 1159: 1154: 1141: 1136: 1123: 1118: 1105: 1100: 1087: 1082: 1069: 1064: 1051: 1046: 1033: 1028: 1015: 1010: 997: 992: 979: 974: 961: 956: 943: 938: 925: 920: 907: 902: 889: 884: 871: 866: 853: 848: 843: (1992). 835: 830: 817: 812: 799: 794: 782:. Retrieved 776: 766: 754:. Retrieved 750: 740: 727: 722: 709: 704: 692:. Retrieved 688: 678: 666:. Retrieved 662: 652: 639: 634: 621: 616: 605: 595: 582: 577: 561: 557: 551: 546: 540: 536: 533: 517: 509: 498: 489: 484:-affiliated 479: 475: 468: 464: 462: 458: 453: 451: 448:Implications 440: 428: 420: 404: 384: 369: 350: 343: 334: 331: 328: 325: 318: 310: 305: 302: 298: 289: 278: 275: 271: 259: 249: 244: 241: 226: 221: 217: 213: 209: 203: 196: 185: 176: 174: 163: 150: 137: 126: 120: 107: 98: 72: 71: 70: 18: 1809:December 8, 1362:December 6, 1322:Chetty, Raj 1294:: 466–479. 1264:December 5, 1208:December 6, 784:December 5, 432:Goodwin Liu 407:Jerry Brown 387:Gibson Dunn 365:Thomas Kane 346:David Welch 218:opportunity 2238:Categories 2001:August 29, 1913:August 29, 1652:August 29, 1590:August 29, 1564:August 24, 1538:August 29, 756:August 22, 569:References 539:case. The 361:Raj Chetty 141:John Deasy 78:California 2116:Doubleday 1887:April 22, 1861:April 21, 1745:USA Today 1512:April 21, 1468:April 21, 1388:April 20, 668:April 15, 562:Chronicle 194:cases of 82:education 56:Citations 2136:(2013). 2108:(2014). 1308:16101187 1292:Elsevier 262:Berliner 214:equality 190:and the 183:case of 86:teachers 1783:June 5, 1584:Reuters 1507:Reuters 694:July 8, 537:Vergara 499:Vergara 490:Vergara 488:called 465:Vergara 454:Vergara 441:Vergara 393:. The 222:quality 177:Vergara 127:Vergara 48:Decided 2167:Courts 2150:  2122:  1306:  839:, 467:case, 208:, and 206:(1976) 199:(1971) 188:(1954) 123:tenure 110:tenure 1304:S2CID 1290:(3). 1253:(3). 558:Times 547:Times 260:"Dr. 38:Court 2148:ISBN 2120:ISBN 2088:2016 2062:2016 2036:2016 2003:2016 1978:Text 1959:2016 1937:2016 1915:2016 1889:2016 1863:2016 1837:2014 1811:2014 1785:2015 1752:2014 1727:Text 1709:Text 1691:Text 1673:Text 1654:2016 1629:Text 1611:Text 1592:2016 1566:2016 1540:2016 1514:2016 1489:Text 1470:2016 1445:Text 1427:Text 1409:Text 1390:2016 1364:2014 1266:2014 1210:2014 1183:Text 1165:Text 1147:Text 1129:Text 1111:Text 1093:Text 1075:Text 1057:Text 1039:Text 1021:Text 1003:Text 985:Text 967:Text 949:Text 931:Text 913:Text 895:Text 877:Text 859:Text 823:Text 805:Text 786:2014 758:2016 733:Text 715:Text 696:2016 670:2016 645:Text 627:Text 588:Text 321:LIFO 306:uber 282:and 252:Kane 1296:doi 495:AFT 482:NEA 2240:: 2146:. 2142:. 2118:. 2114:. 2079:. 2053:. 2020:. 1994:. 1906:. 1880:. 1854:. 1828:. 1802:. 1769:. 1743:. 1645:. 1582:. 1557:. 1531:. 1505:. 1461:. 1381:. 1353:. 1334:. 1328:. 1302:. 1288:30 1286:. 1257:, 1251:11 1249:. 1245:. 1199:. 775:. 749:. 687:. 661:. 604:. 234:. 201:, 172:. 62:; 2156:. 2128:. 2090:. 2064:. 2038:. 2005:. 1980:. 1961:. 1939:. 1917:. 1891:. 1865:. 1839:. 1813:. 1787:. 1754:. 1729:. 1711:. 1693:. 1675:. 1656:. 1631:. 1613:. 1594:. 1568:. 1542:. 1516:. 1491:. 1472:. 1447:. 1429:. 1411:. 1392:. 1366:. 1338:. 1310:. 1298:: 1268:. 1212:. 1185:. 1167:. 1149:. 1131:. 1113:. 1095:. 1077:. 1059:. 1041:. 1023:. 1005:. 987:. 969:. 951:. 933:. 915:. 897:. 879:. 861:. 825:. 807:. 788:. 760:. 735:. 717:. 698:. 672:. 647:. 629:. 610:. 590:.

Index


California Courts of Appeal
246 Cal. App. 4th 619
Docket No. B258589S (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
California
education
teachers
Constitution of California
disparate impact
tenure
tenure
John Deasy
last in first out
shock the conscience
California Constitution
U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
California Supreme Court
Serrano v. Priest I (1971)
Serrano v. Priest II (1976)
strict scrutiny
judicial review
Kane

Berliner
Jesse Rothstein
David Berliner
LIFO
David Welch
value-added modeling

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑