No layoff help for troubled schools
Steinberg vows to fight on for poor schools
Low-performing schools will remain vulnerable next year to layoffs that may decimate their teaching staffs.
Democrats, Republicans and silent voices on Tuesday defeated SB 691 (formerly SB 1285), which would have prohibited disproportionate teacher layoffs in roughly the state’s third poorest-performing schools. The bill failed to make it to the Assembly floor after it was defeated 3 to 5 in the Appropriations Committee, with no fewer than nine members declining to vote. Among those voting no was Democratic Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, a candidate for superintendent of public instruction.
SB 691 was a priority of its sponsor, Senate Pro tem Darrell Steinberg, but it ran into a mass of opposition: from the California Teachers Assn., which viewed the bill as interfering with seniority rules; the Association of California School Administrators and California School Boards Association, which complained about potential administrative headaches; and, on the other side, from Republicans who, along with Gov. Schwarzenegger, wanted the bill to go farther in dismantling teacher tenure protections.
The bill would have required that the percentage of teachers laid off in the lowest 30 percent of schools statewide, based on API scores, be no larger than the average for the district in which a school is located. The bill responded to a suit from the ACLU and Public Counsel Law Center on behalf of three Los Angeles Unified middle schools, Two years ago, they saw between half and three-quarters of its young staff – many committed to working in urban schools – get pink slips under the last-hired, first fired rules of the district’s teachers contract.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction in May, preventing further layoffs at the three schools this year. But without legislative action, the suit may be limited to schools in Los Angeles Unified.
Judge William Highberger, in issuing his injunction, said that state education code permitted districts to override seniority rules in instances when they conflicted with students’ constitutional right to an equal opportunity for an education – but that districts hadn’t acted on students’ behalf. And it’s certainly not clear that they will start doing so.
Steinberg said after the vote that he remained committed to the bill and would re-introduce it next year.
I am always amazed at how casual the press gets, when it wants to promote conventional wisdom. Teachers in California have no tenure. You can search the Education Code from beginning to end and you will not find the term. What teachers in California have is “fair dismissal” procedures, in order to protect them from arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory firing by administrators, many of whom should not be holding the positions they do.
The problem that Steinberg was trying to address can be met without putting teachers at the mercy of abusive administrators. Steinberg wanted to address the problem of instability in schools by creating an arbitrary and capricious system.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Bruce is correct that “tenure” does not exist in the Education Code, but neither does “fair dismissal”. What does exist is the right to “due process” which is granted to teachers who achieve “permanent employee” status at the start of their third consecutive year of employment with a district (Ed Code Sec 44929.21). Achieving permanent status is commonly referred to as achieving “tenure” – it’s kind of like calling all basic pain relievers aspirin.
The bill by Senator Steinberg was not particularly arbitrary or capricious. It did, however, place a premium on stability of the teacher workforce in low performing schools without regard to determining if the “stabilized” teachers are effective. Without some provision to allow schools (decile 1-3 at the minimum) to consider teacher effectiveness in the layoff process, stability will only serve to insulate ineffective teachers (unfortunately all-too-common in low performing schools) from being dismissed.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Bruce is absolutely correct! Robert also makes an excellent point as well. The process of tenure does need to be revamped. Unfortunately, a bill such as SB 691 would not be used for the purpose for which it was intended. Although such a bill may be implemented with the best of intentions, it is foreseeable and more likely than not that it would only be used to eliminate the highest earners on the salary schedule in order to bring in the the young lowly paid fodder. These new teachers will work exhaustively (like most of us do) as they climb the salary schedule, only to be let go in an endless cycle of bringing in new inexperienced yet energetic teachers so that the school district can save dollars. The spirit of the SB 691 would be lost with the obvious temptation of money saving and disingenuous pink slipping tactics by school districts. John Q. Public needs to start addressing the obvious elephant in the room; more parent/student accountability! What assessment is there that parents must take to ensure that they are working with their children at home? What assessment is there to ensure that the emotional and financial security of our students in their home environments are being met? What about the countless other societal woes that are dumped on the doorstep of public educators? My parents did their job. They instilled in me the love of learning. They supported me and provided me with enriching experiences at home. They made me and my siblings their full time jobs on top of their full time jobs. I always advise young people NOT to enter into the teaching field after having worked so hard to get through their college studies because no good deed goes unpunished.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity