Teacher tenure

Introduction

The case of Vergara v. California came on behalf of nine students, eighteen teenagers, and a younger student. The families of these students claimed that the California due-process statues that did protect teacher seniority and regulated the assessments of schools led to the retention of ineffective teachers in the minority school districts. Thus, it did violate their civil rights. A California judge declared that the system was unconstitutional, and it violated the right to education and also equal protection. In this assignment, we discuss the various aspects of the case including the case ruling and its implications.

Plaintiff and defendant

In this case, the plaintiff was claiming that the seniority and tenure disproportionately harmed the minority students in the high-poverty schools through making it difficult to fire the incompetent teachers. The plaintiff was suing the state so as to overturn five statutes in the education code (Ang, 2014). The law tends to grant probationary teachers the right of obtaining tenure or a permanent status after two years of being on the job. According to the plaintiff, Student Matter, it argued that the laws perpetuate the system that leads to the hiring of ineffective teachers and also protecting them from dismissal when in the classroom, to children’s detriment. The plaintiff in the case relies on the civil rights argument claiming that low-income students of color do not have equal access because their schools have grossly ineffective teachers (Singer, 2014). The schools serving the low-income students tend to gave teachers with less experience.

The defendant including the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers view the lawsuit as being an attack on the teacher’s fundamental workplace protection. According to the defendant, it claims that the Student Matter does not have evidence to justify upending the law as unconstitutional.

Legal principles in California teacher tenure case

The issue in the case was the California’s tenure laws that deprive students in the low-performing schools the right t an education; thus, it is unconstitutional under the California’s state constitution. Based on the case, the legal principles use was California’s state constitution article 9, section 5. It requires that the legislature should provide for a system of common schools (Ang, 2014). The constitutional provision and two others were at issue in this case. According to the plaintiff, it argued that the five state laws relating to tenure and employment did violate the California Constitution (Singer, 2014). The plaintiff claimed that the state laws did violate the fundamental rights of students to equality in education through offering inferior instruction.

Judgment on the case

My judgment on the case is that the ruling was right. I believe that students have a right to receive equal education and the California Teacher’s tenure and also the due process protection was violating the rights of the neediest students. I consider the ruling as a win for thousands of students who were receiving a low-quality education. Based on the facts of the case, I believe that all students in California should have an equal chance to succeed. Thus, it is essential to make some amendments in the laws to ensure that students irrespective of their class level enjoy the same education opportunity. The evidence presented in the court made it clear that the statutes disproportionately affected the poor and minority student (Sawchuk, 2014). According to the case, the state has been focusing more attention in defending the status quo and business. Thus, it is important that people start recreating a system that will focus on placing the interest of children at the forefront. So as that can happen, the rule by the judge was appropriate, and I would also make the same judgment as Judge Treu. I would make the decision to end teacher tenure and teacher seniority as that would help to end inequality in California.

Impact on teachers unions

Based on the ruling by Judge Treu, the teacher’s union considered the decision as being corporate reformers focusing on de-professionalizing teaching and also weakening unions. The teacher union officials criticized the decision claiming that the plaintiff provided insufficient evidence so as to indicate the statutes being challenged were very harmful to the student (Ceasar & Blume 2014). The union also criticized the decision claiming that it was intruding on the inherently legislative function. The decision on the case tends to have a large impact on the teachers union. Will the change in the laws, it will mean that the union cannot be able to provide teachers with a guarantee of retaining a particular job for long. It also means that the new rules will also dictate how to evaluate the performance of a teacher.

National implications

The case did reaffirm the fundamental right of every student to learning from effective teachers and having an equal opportunity to succeeding in school. According to the judge in the ruling, he claimed that competent teachers are the most important component of the success of the child’s education experience (Sawchuk, 2014). The ruling will have a great impact on the national aspect. The important ruling tends to open a new chapter in the struggle for equal education across the nation and underscores the shameful problem casting a long shadow on the lives of children across the country. The ruling made by the judge meant that he left the issue in the hands of the state lawmakers so as to create new statutes that conform to the state constitution (Ceasar & Blume 2014). The lawmakers are likely to encounter heavy pressure from the teacher’s union that will try to discredit the ruling. The decision will have a positive impact on the education as a whole and also the teaching profession because it claims that we should reward teachers based on how well they serve children.

Addressing ineffective teachers in the district

The strategy that I would use so as to address an ineffective teacher in my district is through transferring them to another location far from their current district or even lose their jobs. The decision by the court will have a positive impact on how I address ineffective teachers. The judge did not support laws that grant teachers permanent employment status and required evaluating the performance of teachers (Ceasar & Blume 2014). Thus, using the decision made in court, it will be possible to ensure that I eliminate non-performing teachers who think that they can still continue being teachers even when they are ineffective. The dismissal statute was very complex and also time-consuming, and the logic of protecting the veteran teachers without evaluation was inappropriate. However, the decision made by the court will help to ensure that schools maintain effective teachers and students get the chance to enjoy equal learning opportunities.

Reference

Ang, K (2014). Understanding Vergara v. California.

Ceasar, S & Blume, H (2014). California teacher, tenure and seniority system, is struck down. Los Angeles Times

Sawchuk, S (2014). For Vergara ruling on teachers, the big questions loom. 

Singer, A (2014). The case against teacher tenure. Huffington Post.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in graduate paper writing service if you need a similar paper you can place your order from custom research paper writing service.