Ed Law Briefly: Are Teacher Tenure Laws Unconstitutional, and Do They Cause Economically Disadvantaged to Receive a Lesser Education?

RCEd Commentary

Background:  A California group named Students Matter, and nine California public school students, filed a lawsuit to challenge parts of the California state tenure/employment law. They argued that the state employment laws deny students in poor communities equal access to a quality education and in so doing violate the state constitution’s guaranteed right to equal opportunity. 

The case relies on a civil rights argument that low-income students of color, in particular, are denied equal access because their schools are staffed with “grossly ineffective” teachers. Specifically, those schools serving low-income students have teachers with less experience. As a result, those same schools are more likely to lose teachers during layoffs based on seniority. The suit also took issue with the fact that a teacher can earn tenure after only 18 months on the job. 

The plaintiffs cited various studies to demonstrate the negative effects the state laws had on students. For example, they claimed one percent to three percent of California’s teachers (2,750 to 8,250) are grossly ineffective. This case has received vast publicity and is viewed as a potential national test case on both equity and the impact of teacher experience and tenure in public schools.

Issue: Are California’s tenure/employment laws depriving students in low-performing schools the right to an education and therefore unconstitutional under California’s state constitution?

Legal Principles:  California’s State Constitution Article 9, Section 5 requires that the “Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools. . .” This constitutional provision, as well as two others, was at issue in this lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that five state laws related to tenure and employment violated the California Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that state laws violated the students’ fundamental rights to equality of education by offering them inferior instruction. 

Outcome:  On June 10, 2014, the California Superior Court ruled against the state, concluding that all of the state laws cited are indeed unconstitutional. The trial court condemned the statute that permits tenure after two years (which the plaintiffs point out is actually 18 months). The court noted that both teachers and students are disadvantaged by this law. The court also addressed teacher dismissal statutes, saying school officials are reluctant to fire teachers because of the time and money involved. The record shows that it can take between two and ten years and cost $50,000 to $450,000 to dismiss a single teacher under state law.

On the practice of “last-in, first-out” and layoffs, the court found the law to be “unfathomable.” In the end, the court said California state officials did not meet their burden of proving the legality of the laws being challenged.  The court delayed enforcement of its decision anticipating an appeal.

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

• This lawsuit has been and will continue to be closely watched by teachers, administrators, reform advocates, scholars, and others. The final outcome could open the door to similar lawsuits in other states based on their state constitutions.
• This decision could make it easier to fire “ineffective” teachers in California, rather than relying on years on the job as the sole criterion.
• While the court ruling is dramatic and the first of its kind, the case is by no means over. The result of a higher court review is uncertain, and the decision could be upheld or overturned.

Superior Court of the State of California – County of Los Angeles:
Vergara v. California, Case No. BC484642 (2014).