In a landmark decision by Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu teacher tenure in California has been officially ruled unconstitutional, a victory for the nine student plaintiffs in the case of Vergara v. California. The Court considered a challenge of five statutes in the California Education Code, namely sections 44929.21(b) (“Permanent Employment Statute”); 44934, 44938(b)(1)&(2) and 44944 (collectively “Dismissal Statutes”), and 44955 (“Last-In-First Out”). The constitutional challenge was based upon a violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. The case went to trial on January 27, 2014, and final written briefs were filed on April 10, 2014.The tentative ruling was issued on June 10, 2014.

In an effort to combat what the plaintiffs believed was teacher incompetence, and the system’s unwillingness to aid students that were victims of it, Vergara and her fellow students claimed that the challenged statutes resulted 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. In its tentative opinion, the Court stressed legal positions intentionally, and stated “it is not unmindful of the current intense political debate over issues of education. However its duty and function as dictated by [the Federal and State Constitution] and the Common Law, is to avoid considering the political aspects of the case and focus only on the legal ones. That this Court’s decision will and should result in political discourse is beyond question but such consequence cannot and does not detract from its obligation to consider only the evidence and law in making its decision. It is also not this Court’s function to consider the wisdom of the Challenged Statutes. …”

Plaintiffs’ victory was a loss for teachers’ unions, who believe their paramount objective to be fighting on behalf of educators who face legal and administration-related challenges from schools and students. Tenure is granted to teachers in public schools after they have been employed for two years, which the anti-tenure supporters argue is not long enough to determine a teacher’s effectiveness. The plaintiffs, and many others, believe that poor instructors are one of the central causes behind students failing and dropping out of school. Many low-income children, already at a socio-economic disadvantage, rely heavily on competent instructors to help them finish their education. When schools begin the process of layoffs, they usually target the newest teachers without tenure, rather than reviewing all of their staff before selecting lay-offs. Those that participated in the court battle argued that protecting teachers through tenure is detrimental to students, and results in lower quality education.

On the contrary side, the teacher’s union believes that the decision will hurt schools, students, and educators alike rather than fixing the problems in education. Because tenure has been struck down, they argue that the administration will be free to fire instructors at will without facing union opposition. Being stripped of their tenure protection will mean that any teacher, regardless of the time they have been employed at a school, can lose their job with or without a review. The defendants in the case intend to appeal the decision.

What does this mean for teachers and students? This is a battle that has existed for over forty years. The Court ruled that substantial evidence demonstrated that the Challenged Statutes disproportionately affected poor and/or minority students. While the Court certainly believed it made the right decision as laid out in its fifteen-paged tentative decision, the legal rationale and factual support will need to withstand the test of appeal, and that process will take many years. The decision will not immediately affect educators and their unions; the judge has determined that present laws will stay in place during the appeals process.

If the decision is affirmed, teachers will no longer be protected by seniority, which essentially guarantees them lifelong employment with limited exceptions. Instead, dismissals of educators will be based on both subjective and objective evaluation criteria, and newly hired teachers will not be the first to be laid off. In addition, the lengthy process by which teachers are reviewed, which can take years to complete, will likely be condensed. Termination for cause will be more prevalent, performance criteria will be the subject of great debate, and educator terminations will proceed with reduced union resistance.

The long term ramifications remain to be seen, but it would not be surprising to see more wrongful termination litigation involving educators, higher administrative expenses for schools and an increase in teacher salaries. It will mean a big jolt to the system. Whichever side of the debate you fall on, let us hope it sparks improvement in the efficiency of our educational system, but does not cause us to lose our most devoted and high quality teachers.

Co-written by: Marleigh Green