Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed legislation that will streamline the teacher dismissal process. AB 215, by Assembly Member Joan Buchanan and principal co-authors Senators Lou Correa and Alex Padilla, passed unanimously out of the Senate and Assembly.
AB 215 prioritizes, updates and streamlines the teacher discipline and dismissal process. The California Teachers Association applauded the governor’s signature, believing that it will save the state time and money while protecting students and ensuring an educator’s rights to due process.
“For California’s educators, keeping children safe in our classrooms is always a top priority. We have long supported streamlining the dismissal process so we are pleased to see this legislation unanimously approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor,” said Dean E. Vogel, president of the 325,000-member California Teachers Association. “Our students deserve a safe learning environment and to be taught by educators who are committed and qualified.”
AB 215 clarifies current law and creates a separate hearing process for education employees charged with egregious misconduct, including child abuse, sexual abuse and certain drug offenses. School districts are required to start these egregious misconduct cases within 60 days of a complaint being filed. The case will be heard only by an administrative law judge and that decision will be binding.
Additionally, AB 215 streamlines the hearing process for all other dismissal appeals. It requires districts to hold the hearing within six months of an educator making a request and requires the hearing to be concluded within seven months. These hearings will be heard by the Commission on Professional Competence, which includes an administrative law judge and two educators. Decisions will be binding.
Mr. Vogel said this is how education reform should be done – with input from all education community stakeholders and bipartisan support. He contrasted this approach with the attempts to “legislate from the bench” employed by the wealthy backers of the deceptive Vergara v. State of California lawsuit attacking educators’ due process rights. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled June 10 in favor of the lawsuit, but CTA is appealing the ruling.
“All parents should have confidence that their child’s school is a safe and nurturing environment. AB 215 will create a streamlined and fair process for dismissing school personnel charged with egregious misconduct. It will protect our children while maintaining important due process rights for educators,” said Padilla.
Assemblymember Buchanan stated, “We all agree that the current dismissal appeal process takes too long and costs too much money. The only ones who benefit are attorneys. The public demands a process that is fair and efficient and responds to the needs of school districts to efficiently manage their work force. AB 215 accomplishes these goals, and I want to thank both CTA and EdVoice for their willingness to continue to work on this issue.”
“AB 215 protects children by expediting the dismissal process of teachers who engage in egregious misconduct, such as child abuse, sexual abuse, and certain drug crimes,” said Assemblymember Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto), principal co-author of the bill and Vice Chair of the Assembly Education Committee. “It also improves a school’s ability to remove ineffective teachers by streamlining the dismissal appeal process for poor performance, reducing the time to commence the hearing to just six months. After years of trying, this is a positive step toward education reforms that are good for students, parents, and teachers, and I am really pleased that this measure received such a wide range of support.”
Supporters of the bill include the California Teachers Association, EdVoice, California State PTA, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Students First, Crime Victims United, Child Abuse Prevention Council, California Federation of Teachers, and the California Labor Federation.
Under existing law, a permanent school employee is prohibited from being dismissed, except for one or more of certain enumerated causes, including immoral or unprofessional conduct. This bill would also include egregious misconduct, as defined, as a basis for dismissal, the legislature summary stated.
“This bill would additionally apply the above to egregious misconduct,” the summary continued. “The bill would authorize the governing board of a school district, if the governing board has given the above notice, based on written charges, to amend charges less than 90 days before the hearing on the charges only upon a showing of good cause. The bill would require that the employee be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the amended charges. The bill would authorize proceedings, based solely on charges of egregious misconduct, to be initiated via an alternative process, which this bill would establish, as provided.”
“Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to immediately suspend an employee and give him or her notice of dismissal upon filing of written charges relating to immoral conduct, conviction of a felony, or any crime involving moral turpitude, with incompetency due to mental disability, with willful refusal to perform regular assignments without reasonable cause, as provided,” the summary continued. “This bill would authorize an employee who has been placed on suspension pursuant to the above provisions to serve and file with the Office of Administrative Hearings a motion for immediate reversal of suspension, as provided.”
Existing law provides that upon being charged, as specified, with certain sex or controlled substance offenses, a certificated employee be placed on either a compulsory leave of absence or an optional leave of absence for certain enumerated violations.
Under AB 215, the definitions of “charged with a mandatory leave of absence offense” and “charged with an optional leave of absence offense” would be revised for purposes of those provisions governing when a certificated employee is required to be placed on either a compulsory leave of absence or an optional leave of absence.
Because these revisions would increase the number of employees subject to immediate placement on compulsory leave of absence, thereby increasing the duties of school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires in a dismissal or suspension proceeding against a permanent employee, if a hearing is requested by the employee, that the hearing be commenced within 60 days from the date of the employee’s demand for a hearing. This would extend that period to six months.
A few weeks ago came the Vergara v. California decision, filed by Students Matter, and backed by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch.
Plaintiffs are nine California public school students “who challenge five statutes of the California Education Code, claiming said statutes violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.”
Plaintiffs claim that “the Challenged Statutes result in grossly ineffective teachers obtaining and retaining permanent employment, and that these teachers are disproportionately situated in schools serving predominately low-income and minority students. Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims assert that the Challenged Statutes violate their fundamental rights to equality of education by adversely affecting the quality of the education they are afforded by the state.”
The suit challenges California statutes governing due process in teacher dismissals, using experience as a criteria during school layoffs, and the two-year probationary period for teachers.
Judge Treu (pronounced Troy) writes, “This Court is asked to directly assess how the Challenged Statutes affect the educational experience. It must decide whether the Challenged Statutes cause the potential and/or unreasonable exposure of grossly ineffective teachers to all California students in general and to minority and/or low income students in particular, in violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.”
He writes, “This Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof on all issues presented.”
He states, “Evidence has been elicited in this trial of the specific effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students. The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”
He continued, “Based on a massive study, Dr. Chetty testified that a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom. Based on a 4 year study, Dr. Kane testified that students in LAUSD 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.”
He adds, “There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms. Berliner, an expert called by State Defendants, 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.”
In his conclusion he exhorts the legislature to write legislation “providing each child in this state with a basically equal opportunity to achieve a quality education.”
CTA is appealing the Los Angeles Superior Court decision that attacked the professional rights of educators that allows them to speak up for their students and provides a due process hearing before being dismissed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The California Teachers Association applauded the governor’s signature”
As soo as I read the CTA liked it I knew it was worthless.
B.P.: As soo as I read the CTA liked it I knew it was worthless.
I have also heard the CTA declare that a good education is an important and worthwhile goal in our society. I guess you disagree with that statement, too.
You have to base it on something – in what way do you consider it worthless? What elements would you change?
I was reading this, waiting for the kicker.. waiting… and 3/4 the way down the article, we get this:
“The suit challenges California statutes governing due process in teacher dismissals, using experience as a criteria during school layoffs, and the two-year probationary period for teachers.”
The CTA pulled an easy PR move, and are trying to maintain ‘experience’ and the 2-year prob. period for tenure. i.e., they are trying to limit the bleeding and maintain the status quo. They also delay one of the hearings from 60 days to 6 months.
I am sure as time passes we will also uncover new “gems”.
TBD: The CTA pulled an easy PR move, and are trying to maintain ‘experience’ and the 2-year prob. period for tenure.
If you were to do away with the seniority system, then how, specifically, would you decide which teachers to layoff were it necessary? Standardized test scores?
“He contrasted this approach with the attempts to “legislate from the bench”
Democrats love it when laws are legislated from the bench except of course when it doesn’t go their way then they complain it’s unfair.
Great point. If the CTA had student safety as a top priority, why did it take decades to pass this? This is a big Lie.
TBD
” If the CTA had student safety as a top priority, why did it take decades to pass this? This is a big Lie.”
Or perhaps there has been gradual evolution of thought on this issue and a new attitude now within the CTA.
Just 2 weeks after a court decision didn’t go their way? I don’t think this is an accident, please.
Arnold Sch. made this a big issue, he faced resistance, chewed off a lot, and stalled.
We’re no longer stalled.
TBD: Just 2 weeks after a court decision didn’t go their way? I don’t think this is an accident, please.
The outcome of the Vergara case had very little to do with their support for this bill.
source
The outcome might have had little to do with their support for the bill, but as this article from April by Blair Howard shows, Vergara was on the radar long before the verdict – https://davisvanguard.org/teacher-tenure/
Just to remind folks of recent history, here is an article about the first iteration of the bill (2012), when CTA was in open opposition and the bill died in committee. I don’t the Vergara v. California was on the radar at this point.
Sac Bee, June 29, 2012: California Assembly bill to alter teacher firing process dies
A friend of mine at Padilla’s office said that two years ago the SCTA oppose the bill and far against it. It is the exact same bill. Does that change anything about it?
Here is the CTA thinking on this.
Previously they did not support it because they believed that Democrat legislature and governor and enough of the voting public would let them get away with not supporting it.
Now they test the waters and see pressure building for teacher performance accountability.
So, they go back to accepting this because they can claim they care about the kids and polish their brand just enough to give them better leverage to hold off that larger teacher performance accountability changes that are coming.
The CTA never does anything for just the sake of the kids. They only agree to things that help the kids as long as it also supports their pursuit to protect the adult jobs program that public education really is.
The fact that the CTA previously opposed this bill is a stink and stain that they cannot so easily wash off.
Frankly
Even if every thing that you say about motive were to be correct, which I am sure that you cannot prove, would you not consider it a step in the right direction ?
So we know the CTA, Brown, and the Democrats are not honest brokers.
TBD: So we know the CTA, Brown, and the Democrats are not honest brokers.
Joan Buchanan and Alex Padilla who sponsored versions of this bill the past three years in the Assembly and Senate, respectively, are both Democrats. The bill passed both houses unanimously, so Republicans also supported passage. The difference is that this year Gov. Brown signed it. Last year he didn’t. source
Frankly, when all these items line up so perfectly, I take everything they do with a block of salt. This scenario easily could have been lined up… legislators have a dismal rating, while Brown’s is relatively high … so he takes one for the team, and they have political cover. They’re on the same team, he is the leader. Pretty simple.
The other difference is this time CTA supported it, last time they opposed it. Exact same legislation.
They are a union after all, not an educational advocacy group. So that’s not surprising.
So since wdf stated “I have also heard the CTA declare that a good education is an important and worthwhile goal in our society” shouldn’t mean squat either if they are all about union and not an educational advocacy group.
You just can’t have it both ways.
I may have different views than WDF on that issue. I view the CTA as primarily a teacher advocacy group. There are times when the interests of teachers and interests of students overlap, but they are not primarily an educational advocacy group. BTW, there is nothing wrong with that.
“….but they are not primarily an educational advocacy group. BTW, there is nothing wrong with that.”
I agree that the CTA is “not primarily an educational advocacy group,” but I am not OK with it. As citizens who have been employed to perform a service, delivery of the highest quality service of their members should be their primary goal.
For most of us, job security and high quality service overlap, but they are not the same. With respect to getting the right people into every classroom all the time, CTA should have some responsibility. Other Unions take responsibility for the quality of their members’ work. If you’re an electrician and can’t wire, you’re not going to stay on the job–and the Union has some tools to help you get back on the job or get retrained.
Since teachers are the experts on assessment of others, it should not be a problem for CTA to develop assessment rules for their members and enforce them. Among a number of measures that should be considered with evaluating another person’s performance, maybe standardized test scores could be used only if they benefit the teacher’s case.
I think you’re asking for trouble by conflating their primary role as a union that advocates for their members with advocacy for education. We need to understand they are what they are.
DG: I may have different views than WDF on that issue. I view the CTA as primarily a teacher advocacy group. There are times when the interests of teachers and interests of students overlap, but they are not primarily an educational advocacy group. BTW, there is nothing wrong with that.
There is plenty that I can criticize the teachers’ unions for. But none of my criticism goes so far as saying that the teachers’ unions are all 100% evil and should be opposed at every turn. That line of narrative is intellectually lazy and devolves into score-keeping (who won or lost), or “following the horse race,” rather than actually talking about ideas and solutions.
Probably my key criticism of teachers unions that they have focused their advocacy and conversation almost exclusively toward elected officials and not to the public. The result is that they’re dealing with a lot of negative public narrative that for years has gone unanswered and poorly understood and explained. As a son of a dedicated grade school teacher, I saw plenty of ways that my mom was disrespected at her job, and the positive role that the teachers’ union played at various times in her career. One very positive thing that DTA President Blair Howard has done this year is initiated local conversations about DTA views through his occasional op-ed submissions to the Vanguard. I acknowledged as much in this comment.
A key subject that has been missing from the public narrative of CTA and DTA is a concept of professional standards and development. Nearly all the focus, locally, has been on the teachers’ contract. The contract is like the “floor” for job expectations, the minimum of what is expected from teachers. Professional standards include mechanisms for improving the craft of the teachers, both individually and as an organization (by school, across the district).
It appears that much of the conversation of professional standards and development has been ceded to state and federal government policy. That’s how we get NCLB, Common Core, and the idea that good teaching is absolutely measurable by standardized test scores. Locally I think there are interesting possibilities for developing a robust local culture of professional development through the recent district strategic plan. Its success depends on the willingness of teachers, administrators, and future school boards to adhere to the process and the groundwork of the strategic plan.
A problem with professional development is that I don’t think it will necessarily meet what some in the public expect want, which is some sort of grade or number that will say, “good teacher” or “bad teacher”; fire this one, keep that one. I don’t think the current education field allows for that kind of evaluation. Comments that reflect on this kind of public thinking can be found in MrsW’s comment above — “Since teachers are the experts on assessment of others, it should not be a problem for CTA to develop assessment rules for their members and enforce them.” — comments from Mark West in previous comment threads, and other comments such as, “all teachers know who the bad teachers are”. I think there is a lot of professional input that teachers can have to the process, but the assessments are still significantly subjective.
dg –“I think you’re asking for trouble by conflating their primary role as a union that advocates for their members with advocacy for education. We need to understand they are what they are.”
I’m sure you’re right, but if part of their role does not include providing the service they were hired to perform, then it seems that Union laws should be reformed.
wdf–“A problem with professional development is that I don’t think it will necessarily meet what some in the public expect want, which is some sort of grade or number that will say, “good teacher” or “bad teacher”.
I have never advocated for a number. If I have advocated for anything, it is that some discretion to be inserted into the teacher retention process. Yes, assessment has subjective components. All assessments do, even the point systems applied by most teachers onto their students. They do their best–they provide metrics, etc., but it’s still subjective. I guess I don’t think that’s a bad thing all by itself. It is only bad because teachers cannot move to work in a place that’s a better fit and keep their seniority on the pay scale.
I agree that there would be a huge benefit to students and the adults who teach them, if professional development were implemented well. I’d be happy to see that idea implemented for a few years and then revisit it, to see if the most vulnerable students in our State and DJUSD are being served.
MrsW: If I have advocated for anything, it is that some discretion to be inserted into the teacher retention process. Yes, assessment has subjective components. All assessments do, even the point systems applied by most teachers onto their students.
One example of subjectivity of whether a teacher should stay or go crept up in the Vergara et al. v. California trial. The case of Christine McLaughlin. McLaughlin was initially identified by one of the plaintiff students, Raylene Monterroza, as a not-so-good teacher, meant to be an example of inferior education. The problem is that Christine McLaughlin received at least two awards recognizing her teaching ability, one of them being a “Teacher of the Year Award.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys then attempted a recovery by arguing that McLaughlin had received dismissal notices (pink slips) in spite of her being “Teacher of the Year.” McLaughlin was a defense witness in this case.
Anyway, which is it? McLaughlin’s name came up in the case because allegations of being not so good. It certainly reminds me of the Crawford case here in Davis. She was name “Coach of the Year,” but still deemed not worthy of employment as volleyball coach by some people with power in the district. And how do we identify an inferior teacher?
Historically we’ve been through these issues before that brought us to the point of having a tenure (due process) policy. The Scopes trial, and community arguments over what curricula should be taught (including English reading selections) in the schools without giving professional deference to teachers on the issue.
Here’s a link to the trial transcript with McLaughlin’s court testimony. You will have to do key word searches (I recommend “McLaughlin” & “Monterroza”)
Frankly: Part of the reason I am so optimistic about technology replacing humans for delivering instruction is that it removes gender, social and political bias that is rampant and destructive. source (from an earlier article)
This is from a thread to an earlier article, but I had to respond to this further. This perspective suggests that you think education is about getting the right answers. What goes missing when you take humans out of the picture is the ability to evaluate competing answers. Some answers better address certain assumptions than others.
You are thinking the way standardized test publishers would like you to think. Standardized tests work best when there is one correct answer, and either you’re right or you’re wrong. It trains people to worry about what the right answer is rather than brainstorm multiple options and evaluate those options. It actually takes humans to brainstorm and to evaluate multiple options, and typically that evaluation works best in real time, often in group discussions.
There are MOOCS, online colleges, maybe even still correspondence courses that you can recommend to your sons if you’re so disgusted with conventional education models. Let them see how the experience works to the traditional model.
Bruce Maiman: A cautionary tale for those applauding teacher tenure ruling
Mentions the Crawford case and some comments by David Greenwald.
One of the comments to the article made a good point: “Tenure existed long before teachers had unions. There was a reason for it, and the reason still exists. Abuse of a system does not mean the system is bad.”